House of Commons Hansard #10 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, in all that outburst there was not in fact a question.
I would simply point out to Canadians that the Government of Canada is absolutely determined that this matter will be thoroughly ventilated from top to bottom and the consequences will fall wherever the consequences should be. We will follow the trail and deal with this matter decisively. All the processes are in place to do that.
In the meantime, I am working very hard on a budget that will meet the expectations of Canadians.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the coming weeks, 600 employees of Whirlpool in Montmagny are going to be laid off. Of that number, 150 are 50 years of age or more, and most of them have paid into employment insurance for over 20 years.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development give us his assurance today that these people will be able to benefit from a real assistance program? It is a matter of justice.
Joe Volpe LiberalMinister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Mr. Speaker, when a situation such as the one described by my colleague arises, obviously the employers and employees attempt to resolve the problem together. As for my department's involvement, we are there to provide all the benefits available under our employment insurance program.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, last night we were treated to a disgusting show by Conan O'Brien, with offensive racist jokes full of stereotypes and hate, and what is more, funded by public money.
My question is simple. Will the government demand reimbursement of the federal dollars used to produce this hodgepodge of stupidity, and if not, why not?
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, we take note of the question because we also wish to disassociate ourselves from the comments broadcast last night. We do not condone them in any way.
As for the funding for this program, it is one of the programs to help the city of Toronto get over the difficulties it experienced during the SARS crisis. We had no particular say over the exact use of these funds, but we completely dissociate ourselves from the comments broadcast yesterday.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's bombshell report this week contained enough evidence for the government to fire Alfonso Gagliano and demand his return. Yet that same report was just as scathing about Messrs. Quellet and Pelletier and the government will not act in that regard. Why the double standard?
Reg Alcock LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I think the member should read the Auditor General's report.
The Auditor General very specifically outlined actions that were taken or were deemed to have been taken by the former minister that called into question the decisions that he made in his responsibility, and on that the Prime Minister acted.
The Prime Minister has also asked me to meet with each one of the crowns, to do an examination of their responses, assess what action they have taken and how seriously it was taken and to make a recommendation on whether we continue to have confidence in them.
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, the premiers of the Atlantic provinces and Quebec's finance minister have noted that the old tactics instituted by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Finance are still in use. The size of the surplus is being underestimated in order to keep it all for the debt, or, probably, for election promises.
Will the federal finance minister make a commitment—as the provincial premiers and the Quebec finance minister have asked—to make the $2 billion for health a recurring amount, now that we know the surplus will be twice as large as predicted?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government will obviously honour its obligation with respect to the $2 billion for health care. That is now enshrined in legislation before the House.
As I indicated in the response to an earlier question, I am now in discussions with the provinces and territories about the renewal of equalization, a new formula that will come into effect as of April 1 this year.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his cronies all this week have had very distinct memories for what they did not do but have had a real memory loss as to what and when they knew anything.
Do the Liberals expect Canadians to fall for this ignorance is bliss defence they are putting up?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government has worked very assiduously on these files. I have outlined a number of steps in the course of question period today. Most decisively, on the first day that this government came into office the program was cancelled. Within five minutes of the Auditor General's report the corrective initiatives were underway.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has raised some very serious problems relating to transparency in the process of awarding contracts for first nations management by non-aboriginal third-party managers or co-managers, once again opening the door to abuse, favouritism and corruption.
Will the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs put an end to this laxness immediately and, above all, will he release the names of the management firms under contract to the department, along with the amounts involved?
Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, the amount of money that goes to first nations for managers is public record.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period the finance minister said he was willing to entertain specifics about the corporate lobbyists and their ties to the Prime Minister's Office or people who have worked for it. Let us get specific.
What about Francis Fox? What about his role in the Prime Minister's Office and telecommunications? What about Mr. Duffy who is now acting as a lobbyist on Stelco and is getting paid to open the door to the Prime Minister's Office? Does he think this is ethical? Why are there no rules established to protect us from this kind of corporate cronyism with the Prime Minister's Office? It is outrageous.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, in typical NDP fashion, throw as much against the fan and see how it splatters.
The point of the matter is, besides the hon. member's broadside, if she would simply like to make a specific complaint, a specific allegation, let us hear it. Let us hear it not just inside the House but outside as well.
John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is reported in the media today that in February 2002 a letter was sent to the Prime Minister, who was then the minister of finance, by the Liberal Party's then national policy chair, asking him to prepare a fact based reply to the growing rumours that funds from the sponsorship program were being diverted through advertising firms closely linked to the Liberals.
Did the Prime Minister as the minister of finance respond to that letter and if so, can it be tabled in the House?
Stephen Owen LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there was a reply but that can be taken under advisement.
The letter that is being referred to is completely consistent with the knowledge in early 2002 where issues with the sponsorship program were brought to the fore. Reference was made to the Auditor General and action was taken, including the removal of the minister of public works at that time.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for having operated such a streamlined question period that we got two additional questions today.
In the House of Commons this week my colleague from St. John's West rose at the end of question period to bring to the House's attention a concern that he had about the reintroduction of bills.
This week in the House a number of bills were reintroduced. I will not speak to the fashion in which those bills came back. Specifically, at page 439 of Hansard the member for St. John's West rose to bring the Chair's attention to the fact that he wanted the government to be vigilant in the reintroduction of those bills. He was looking for assurances from the government House leader that the bills would be brought back in the proper form. The member was asking that they not be tampered with and that they be presented in the original form.
I refer to page 440 where the House leader responded that yes and in fact on Bill C-4, he said:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-34 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.
The Speaker then responded:
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-34 was at the time of prorogation of the 2nd session, 37th Parliament.
It has come to our attention, upon examination of the original Bill C-34 and the current bill that was reintroduced, that at page 14 of the original bill, there is a line in section 19(2) and I am reading that entire passage for the Chair, “In addition to any method of service permitted by the law of a province, service of documents on the Senate, House of Commons, Library of Parliament, office of the Senate Ethics Officer”. That is page 14, line 25, section 19(2), and I draw your attention specifically to that line which reads “office of the Senate Ethics Officer”. I now draw the Chair's attention to Bill C-34, the new bill introduced by the government, the same passage, the same section 19(2), line 25, “the office of the Ethics Commissioner”.
The text has been altered. The text is not the same. The bill is therefore not in the same form that it was introduced in the last Parliament, after receiving the assurances of the government House leader who I know passed that information on to the Chair.
I would ask that the Chair examine this inconsistency and review the original ruling that was given by the Speaker on that day.
Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, certainly we will take a look at that.
If the member is accurate, we will correct the mistake. We have to take a look at that because both the House leader and the Speaker at the time concurred that indeed it was the same.
We welcome this. We will look at it immediately and report to the Speaker of the House as early as this afternoon.
Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, in light of this, I would like further assurances from the government side on any additional bills it intends to reinstate that the government will be a little more thorough in making sure that they are the same before the government stands in the House of Commons and states such a thing.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have been thorough and we have now had a chance to look at this.
The Senate amendments that the member refers to were never received by the House. Therefore, as far as the House is concerned, they do not exist.
The motion for reinstatement says clearly “as approved by this House”. We will double check. It is our belief that the procedure was followed absolutely as it should be. I believe the Speaker will probably be confirming that as well, but we will check again.
Points of OrderOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
Certainly on behalf of the Chair and the Speaker, I want to give all members of the House every assurance that I will take this matter under advisement. Be reassured that the matter will be scrutinized and the Speaker will again come back to the House and normally I would say if necessary, but it would appear that it will be necessary. That matter will be dealt with very early into our proceedings next week.
Mauril Bélanger Liberalfor the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Elinor Caplan Liberal Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the review of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the second report later this day.
Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS
moved that Bill S-5, an act to protect heritage lighthouses, be read the first time.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to reintroduce and once again sponsor the heritage lighthouse protection act in this session of Parliament.
Pursuant to Standing Order 86.2, I ask that this important bill be reinstated. Actually, it was my belief that it would be reinstated at committee stage.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)