House of Commons Hansard #171 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs challenged us to find a single supreme court judgment that goes against Quebecers' interests.
Will the minister admit that the supreme court judgment recognizing the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over telecommunications was very prejudicial to Quebec's interests, given the importance of this sector for Quebec's economic and cultural development?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, first, this was not a judgment based on the charter. Second, Quebecers have two governments with constitutional powers: the provincial government and the federal government.
When I look at what the federal government is doing for communications, or culture, where the federal government alone spends more than do the provincial and municipal governments together, I say that the federal government is a government that serves Quebecers well.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, the federal government may be spending more, but it also has more money because of the fiscal imbalance.
At the time, the Quebec minister of culture and communications stated “The current situation clearly shows the inadequacy of the Canadian constitutional framework in the area of communications”.
Does the minister realize that the minister who was upset by this decision at the time is the current Liberal candidate in Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Liza Frulla, and that there are people in his own party who are opposed to him and to his vision on this issue?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we will not list all the disagreements and diverging views that may exist on the other side, because it would be a waste of time.
But one thing is sure: the Canadian federation is one of the world's most decentralized. The Quebec provincial government has more responsibilities than any other entity in a federation.
Yesterday again, the Quebec premier said something absurd. He said that if the American constitution were amended without the agreement of the states of New York, California and Texas together, it would be an international scandal. But this happens all the time, because, in the United States, constitutional amendments require the support of 75% of the states. It might be appropriate—
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, Margot Wallstrom, environment commissioner for the European Union, has clearly explained that Canada will not get Kyoto credits for natural gas exports to the United States, yet the government still presses for such a deal.
The U.S. is not part of Kyoto. Even if it were, it is not reasonable that Canada should get credit for American emissions reductions. Is this lack of credits a deal breaker, and will the minister finally say we are opting out of Kyoto?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the position of the Alliance Party is extraordinary. Here we are attempting to get credits for gas exported from the province of Alberta, the province of British Columbia and the province of Nova Scotia so that we can in fact continue to supply the American market with gas from Canada because it does replace far more difficult fuels, namely coal from Virginia, Colorado and Wyoming, which in fact creates much greater emissions.
I cannot understand why the hon. member would want us to reduce the opportunities for exports from Alberta, from British Columbia and from, of course, Nova Scotia.
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, if Canada is given credit for natural gas exports to the U.S. then we should also get extra penalties whenever we sell coal to Japan. Using the government's logic, we would have to pay back credits to Germany when we buy these environmentally friendly technologies.
What a bureaucratic nightmare you are creating, Mr. Speaker--
Bob Mills Canadian Alliance Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, through you, will the government finally reject Kyoto and implement a made in Canada climate change program, as the Canadian Alliance has been advocating for so long?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I am sure none of us would suggest that you would create a nightmare of any type whatsoever and certainly not a bureaucratic one.
What I will suggest to the hon. member is this: that if we can achieve what we are seeking with respect to clean energy exports it is very advantageous for the province of Alberta. I would add that last weekend the environment minister of the province of Alberta pointed out how important this was and how wrong the European commissioner on environment is. Now I discover the Alliance is supporting the European commissioner on the environment. It is an extraordinary position.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Rural Development. Statistics Canada studies now show that employment in rural areas has declined rapidly in the last three years, specifically in agriculture. In fact, it has been the largest decline in 35 years.
The secretary has just attended a conference in Charlottetown with rural people from all across Canada who had a lot of ideas on encouraging and strengthening the economies in rural Canada. Could the secretary inform the House what action he plans to make rural Canada's a more vigorous and prosperous economy?
Andy Mitchell LiberalSecretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member points out some very important issues. That is one of the reasons that we brought 500 rural Canadians from across the country to engage in a from the bottom up process to develop policy.
There were many issues discussed, but I want to tell members that one thing was key, that is, to have a successful Canada, to be a successful nation, then both component parts of Canada must be strong, both urban Canada and rural Canada. The natural resources wealth of this nation exists in rural Canada. We must support the network of communities that sustain it.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the new U.S. farm bill threatens the livelihoods of Canadian farm families. For example, the U.S. law threatens to dramatically increase the subsidies paid for pulse crops like peas and lentils. If this happens, U.S. production will go up, world prices will go down and Canadian profits will disappear.
The minister of agriculture was recently in Washington, D.C. Could the minister tell us if he got any guarantees that these subsidies will not be applied to pulse crops?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be accompanied by the chair of the Canadian Pulse Growers, and others, on the trip to Washington last week. We made our views very clear to those in the United States, as they make their views on issues clear to us. We will write our laws here and, yes, they will write their laws there, but we demonstrated very clearly our concern that if the United States does that in the pulse industry it will be the only country in the world doing so, and therefore it will be affecting the market and production.
Howard Hilstrom Canadian Alliance Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will give the minister a chance to write a law. The Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan and the Wild Rose Agricultural Producers of Alberta have calculated that foreign subsidies are taking $1.3 billion out of the pockets of grains and oilseed farmers.
These agriculture associations have called for a $1.3 billion injury compensation program. Will the agriculture minister write the law and provide the program?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the support of the federal government and the provincial governments has $1.8 billion available for farmers this year. The program payments to Canadian farmers last year were above $1.3 billion. They were $3.7 billion.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to figures released by the Department of Finance , as at February 28, 2002, nearly $4 billion from the EI fund had been redirected, in this past fiscal year alone, to the government's consolidated revenue fund. This means that not one red cent of it will benefit the unemployed directly.
Do not these figures speak clearly to the fact that, year in and year out, the bulk of Canada's debt is being paid by the unemployed, thanks to the cynicism of the Minister of Finance?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows very well, since 1986 all figures, EI included, are part of our consolidated revenue fund. This means that they are certainly used for workers; they are used to help them. They are used in numerous ways, including some that directly benefit the workers of Canada.
Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On April 24, next week, Canadian Armenian communities and people from around the world will remember and commemorate the Armenian genocide that took place over 87 years ago in 1915.
What is the position of the Canadian government on this very tragic moment in the history of mankind?
Bill Graham LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the work that he has consistently done for the Armenian community in this country.
As he will recall, the government and the Prime Minister on many occasions have expressed the sympathy of our government and our people for the tragedy that occurred to the Armenian people with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
In specific terms, in 1996 we in the House dedicated the week of April 20 to 27 in memory of the Armenian people and the suffering they had. In 1999 we remembered specifically the tremendous tragic fate that occurred in that country.
We still urge that we should consider these tragic events in their historical context and remember that we must move forward and try to ensure peace and harmony among all people.
Monique Guay Bloc Laurentides, QC
Mr. Speaker, in a brief presented this morning to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, the CBC communications union states that the Raddio-Canada has violated the Employment Equity Act by not declaring all its temporary workers. The effect of this is to skew the reality on equity within the corporation.
Since the Minister of Labour was informed of this situation by the union in mid-March, could she inform us of the measures she has taken to call Radio-Canada management back to order?
Claudette Bradshaw LiberalMinister of Labour and Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada is currently involved in negotiating a collective agreement. It is important for all discussions concerning Radio-Canada to be part of a new collective agreement.
Société Radio-CanadaOral Question Period
The Speaker
The Chair has notice of a question of privilege.
Jim Abbott Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 48. I regret that this issue must be brought to your attention again. It has been demonstrated that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has misled the House.
On Tuesday during question period I asked the minister about a contract, for which there was no tender, regarding the royal visit in October. I asked her why Columbia Communications group got the contract.
The minister's response was:
Contrary to media reports, the contract has not been awarded.
I have obtained a copy of the opportunity abstract. It is called an advance contract award notice and is posted for 15 days. It was posted April 15 and expires April 29. If no other submissions are received, the contract is awarded.
The department has determined that it is awarding this contract untendered in the amount of $400,000 and it has 15 days for anyone to say to the contrary.
I repeat the minister's answer:
Contrary to media reports, the contract has not been awarded.
The minister's intentionally implied incorrect information is that the department plans on awarding it but that it will not be stamped until April 29.
On page 111 of the 22nd edition of Erskine May it states:
The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.
On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May it states:
Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
We have a statement made by the minister in the House and a document that contradicts the statement.
On November 3, 1978, a member raised a question of privilege and charged that he had been deliberately misled by a former solicitor general. Acting on behalf of a constituent who suspected that his mail had been tampered with, the member had written in 1973 to the then solicitor general who assured him that as a matter of policy the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of anyone.
On November 1, 1978, in testimony before the McDonald Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis and that the practice was not one which had been concealed from ministers. The member claimed that the statement clearly conflicted with the information he had received from the then solicitor general. The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons.
In the case involving the Minister of Canadian Heritage I present to you today, Mr. Speaker, we also have a statement that clearly conflicts with the information I have received.
The records of the House, as well a document that I am prepared to give you, Mr. Speaker, is sufficient evidence to allow you to rule this matter to be a prima facie case of contempt against the House.
Mr. Speaker, you ruled in a similar case on Friday, February 1, 2002, in regard to misleading statements made by the Minister of National Defence. The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. You said, and I quote:
The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance....
Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.