House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was workers.
David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, when any member of the Alliance is mentioned as having an education, no wonder Alliance members stand up.
The fact is, we are following every possible approach we can to minimize the West Nile problem for summer camps and for others in Canada.
It is a serious problem--
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister of Finance categorically told us no additional moneys would be added to the Canadian Television Fund, thereby contradicting the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The Minister of Finance told the Minister of Canadian Heritage to stretch her own budget. Does the minister intend to follow his advice and stretch to find the missing $25 million?
Carole-Marie Allard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Television Fund is a success story. I am very proud today of how much the fund has done for television production in Quebec by investing more than $467 million in Quebec productions since 1996.
The resulting creativity does honour to all Quebeckers and Canadians. This government is listening to artists, and a solution will doubtless be found.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what planet the parliamentary secretary is from, but that is not what her minister is saying outside the House.
I want to ask the parliamentary secretary, what guarantee can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give people in television production that they are not about to become casualities in a leadership squabble?
Carole-Marie Allard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, how can the Bloc Quebecois again be so negative. The Canadian Television Fund has guaranteed Canada 1,372 hours of television production since its creation in 1996. Nothing indicates that this will stop.
Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are back to their old bag of tricks, gouging taxpayers. Bill C-24 will limit corporate donations to political parties and force taxpayers to make up the deficit in the Liberal coffers.
Taxpayers reject outright the suggestion that they should be forced to support financially parties they would not support politically. Even the Liberal Party president, Stephen LeDrew, calls the idea “dumber than a bag of hammers”, so why is the Prime Minister forcing taxpayers to pay the expenses of political parties they do not even support?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this is factually incorrect. In fact, the amount that will be given to political parties will be exactly proportional to the amount of votes that they receive in the previous election.
So if the hon. member is afraid that people might want to vote for Reform or Alliance and then give them money, I can assure him that they probably have very little intention of doing either.
Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government House leader should get an acting school diploma for that performance.
The Prime Minister must know that overburdened taxpayers hate this legislation just as much as most of the Liberal elected members do. That is probably why he is offering a gift of an early summer recess if they will just get it passed before June 12. Is the Prime Minister's goal to be remembered for insisting that overburdened taxpayers be gouged even deeper by forcing them to pay the cost of the Liberal Party's expenses regardless of which party they support?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is raising the issue as to whether or not the Liberal Party itself supports this bill. He quoted our party. Let me do it in return. I will read the motion: “The National Executive of the Liberal Party...affirms its support for...Bill C-24”.
So if that is what he is buttressing his argument on, I say to him that four of the five parties, including the Liberal Party, fully support this. Why does the hon. member not get onside?
Political Party FinancingOral Question Period
The Speaker
A little order, please, and hon. members know that cellular telephones are not permitted in the chamber.
Political Party FinancingOral Question Period
The Speaker
Somebody is going to get a raspberry from the Speaker if they do not watch out.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, today is the deadline for the federal government to file an appeal with the Supreme Court against the Quebec Appeal Court opinion on the Young Offenders Act.
Rather than using the appeal process, does the Minister of Justice plan to amend the act to bring it into compliance with the charter, as the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding from the start?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, we are particularly pleased with the Appeal Court opinion as far as jurisdiction is concerned, as the court has confirmed that the Canadian government did have jurisdiction over this.
It did indeed declare two sections of the act invalid under the charter, namely the two concerning presumptions on sentencing and publication.
I would just like to say that we decided not to appeal today because there are other ways of satisfying the legislator's intent.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, since the minister seems to be at last seeing sense, ought he not to do the only proper thing and consult Quebec's new minister of justice, who shares the opinion of the previous government, namely that Quebec must be exempted from this legislation?
Martin Cauchon LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I have just explained that it is possible to satisfy the legislator's intent without an appeal, and I have also explained that we would not be appealing.
That said, we will see that all provinces are consulted in order to ensure that we can move on certain amendments to clarify the legal situation.
That said also, I am a bit surprised at my colleague's comment that I finally get it, when an examination of the existing philosophy in connection with this law is essentially based on current Quebec practice, namely ensuring that social objectives are met while also making it possible for young offenders to be reintegrated into society while maintaining appropriate sanctions. It is a matter of giving young people a chance.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, these Liberals ran in 1993 with a promise to have an independent ethics commissioner. Now, 10 years and a multitude of scandals later, we have legislation in this House that has an ethics commissioner who is appointed by the Prime Minister, who answers to the Prime Minister and who advises the Prime Minister in regard to ethical breaches by ministers. To add to the insult, this Prime Minister-appointed commissioner will have jurisdiction over backbench MPs and opposition MPs.
Why can these Liberals not keep their straightforward promise and legislate a truly independent ethics commissioner?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased and quite honoured to have had the opportunity of introducing Bill C-34 in the House yesterday, which appoints the independent ethics commissioner.
I want to remind the hon. member that the system for appointing the ethics commissioner is identical to the one utilized in the first modernization committee report about all officers of the House. Here is what the then House leader for the Alliance said on October 24, 2001, “The appointment of important positions like the clerk of the House and officers of parliament should be approved by parliament”. That is--
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, what does he do after he is appointed? He is still appointed by the Prime Minister.
Under this bill tabled by the minister, the ethics commissioner will be appointed by the governor in council after consultation with the leaders of the parties. The majority government will have its members voting on command, as usual, to endorse the Prime Minister's choice. Consultation has no power to change anything. We have suggested a meaningful, all party input prior to selection and the House ratification by free vote, secret ballot, and a higher than 50% standard.
Why this fixation on prime ministerial control?
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, again we are hearing some things which are a little different than what would be accurate, to put it mildly. The hon. member says he made such recommendations. There were all party recommendations regarding the draft bill. No such recommendation appeared there.
Second, in terms of what the former House leader of his party said about this method of appointment, I will read further. “That is...a step forward,” he said. “I anticipate no problem with that. In fact, we have been blessed with good clerks and good officers of parliament”.
That is referring to the system utilized in this bill. Maybe he should talk to his seatmate.
Lawrence O'Brien Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Speaker, four years ago the crab quota off Labrador was cut by 30%. This year it was slashed by a further 40%. The cod quota has been cut by 100%. Yet while 60% of Canada's northern shrimp is caught off Labrador, only 5% of it is harvested and processed in Labrador by Labradorians who live in rural and aboriginal communities adjacent to the resource.
My constituents want to know: How does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans plan to correct this gross injustice, and when?
Robert Thibault LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am currently preparing the northern shrimp plan. We will have some new opportunities that greatly increase quota. Access will be guided by the recommendations of the independent panel on access criteria. We will make sure to maximize the opportunities to local communities and their people without risking the viability of the established industry, and we will be doing that very, very soon.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadians decry the return of star wars, and I do not mean the movie. The signs are unmistakable that the government is getting ready to buy into the U.S. ballistic missile defence system as a kiss-up to Bush for Canada's non-participation in his Iraqi war. Why does the Prime Minister not show some backbone and say no to Bush's ballistic missile defence madness?