House of Commons Hansard #20 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, the government agrees with the longstanding principle that 75% of the jobs should be on the Ontario side and 25% on the Quebec side. In fact, the opposition member is mistaken. Today, 77% of the jobs are on the Ontario side and 23% on the Quebec side. These figures were the same when the Liberal government was in power.
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, reporters have indicated that in the lead-up to the federal budget there were a series of conflicting lists from the military, the minister's office and the Prime Minister's office.
Of the key priorities for the armed forces, none of these lists won out, which is why the budget did not address the urgent needs of our men and women in uniform.
Medium logistics trucks are a top priority for our troops in Afghanistan. Could the Minister of National Defence inform us of the status of the truck purchase?
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not always listen to reporters. We have a complete defence program and, once it is approved by cabinet, we will process a number of projects. We will wait until cabinet approves the projects.
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of National Defence tell us, yes or no, if he served until 2004 as a lobbyist for Stewart & Stevenson, one of the leading contenders for the $1 billion truck purchase?
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly on the record that I registered as a lobbyist for a number of companies. I did register under Hill & Knowlton Canada for Stewart & Stevenson and I was a representative of theirs until late 2003.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, the day after the government announced financial assistance in the budget for the agricultural sector, we learned that a portion of this sum would be allocated through the Canadian agricultural income stabilization program by retroactively applying adjustments to the current method of calculating inventories. The UPA demonstrated that, if this is the case, there is a good chance that Quebec might not receive any money.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food guarantee that his department will ensure that the intended portion of this financial assistance will be given to Quebec farmers and that they will not be penalized by the calculation method?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Not only did Quebec administer some of its own CAIS programming but, in my opinion, it had a better system in place than the Liberal program which had flaws.
We are correcting the program with this one time adjustment here in the House of Commons, which means that we will enter into negotiations with Quebec to ensure it gets the money that is coming to it.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, Quebec often has a better system. Yet, it is always penalized. The Quebec agricultural minister shares farmers' concerns and hopes that there is flexibility such that assistance can be directed first to those areas that need it most.
Can the minister promise Quebec and the provinces the flexibility needed to ensure that money is given first to the farmers who need it most?
Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, in Canada of course we have federal-provincial agreements that cover payments to farmers. Some provinces choose to administer their own plans.
In the case of the retroactive fixing of the CAIS program, the Quebec government has already paid out its share. It will be getting money, and there will be a large degree of discretion for the Quebec government to spend on behalf of the farmers in that province.
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Speaker, ACOA has become a political football in the hands of the Conservative government. The part time minister for ACOA announced a project to provide clean water for the citizens of Canso, but can he give his assurance that the one-third contribution by the town is in fact in place? Or is the glass only two-thirds full for the very deserving people of Canso?
Will he assure the House that if Canso cannot provide its share he has developed some other source of funding to help the municipality? Or is this just another political deal designed to assist his Conservative pals in Nova Scotia in the run-up to this week's expected provincial election call?
Atlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyOral Questions
New Brunswick Southwest New Brunswick
Conservative
Greg Thompson ConservativeMinister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, ACOA is there to do good things for Atlantic Canada, and we will be consistent, not like the former party, where all the decisions were political decisions.
We are going to act in the best interests of all communities in Atlantic Canada, and the evidence is out there in the last couple of months to prove exactly what I have said.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the effects of the lenient Liberal approach to crime and justice in this country. While the former Liberal justice minister spent time flip-flopping on his position on mandatory minimum sentencing, this party took action.
The introduction of new measures last week will lead to safer streets and communities for Canadians. Can the justice minister explain to the opposition why these measures are necessary?
Vic Toews ConservativeMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the government's legislation is targeted at criminals who use firearms to commit serious offences. Despite the former Liberal justice minister saying that he is opposed to mandatory minimum prison sentences, during the election he said that they are sometimes required. Indeed, the Liberal Party said it would double the present mandatory minimum sentences for serious gun related crimes.
Now members of that party say they do not support mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes. I cannot keep track of their flip-flopping, but during the election our party said we would get tough on crime to protect our communities. That is what we are doing.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are furious with the details of the deal for the new Mounties headquarters, a deal that we have learned will cost 20 times the original price.
Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works told the House that we would be shown the details of the deal to purchase the building before the deal is finalized. However, the unelected minister responsible for public works is on record as saying that Canadians will only be given the details after they have signed on the dotted line.
Who are we to believe? The parliamentary secretary sitting in the House or the unelected minister in the Senate?
Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions
Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.
Conservative
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, two days in a row and three questions in a row, the member for Ottawa Centre has his facts completely wrong. The member went out to the lobby in the foyer of the House of Commons and handed out documents that were out of date and incorrect.
The facts are that the deal has not been done. Taxpayers' dollars have not been spent.
The former minister of public works missed an opportunity to purchase a building for $30 million. What we are doing is getting the best deal possible for taxpayers. When that deal is completed, Canadians will be able to see it, and the hon. member from the NDP will see what a good deal looks like.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
With respect, I will reserve judgment, Mr. Speaker.
Let me repeat: Canadians have a right to know the details of this deal now. First, is there a link between this deal and a developer who has given $73,000 in the last 13 years to the Liberal Party? Second, is there a good reason why the Conservatives are so anxious to put this deal away without showing Canadians what they are paying for? Will we get answers to these questions before Canadians have to pay for it?
Public Works and Government ServicesOral Questions
Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam B.C.
Conservative
James Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics
Mr. Speaker, I will make it clear to the member for Ottawa Centre for the third time today: there is no deal.
If there is a deal, this government will do what we have committed to do, which is that we will get the best value for taxpayer dollars. I see the member is holding up a sheet of paper. If it is the same one that he had yesterday, it is wrong, and if he asks the question again tomorrow, he will still be wrong.
We will do what is right for taxpayers and we will get them a good deal.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence confirmed earlier that he indeed was a registered lobbyist for Stewart & Stevenson, a company that was bidding for the billion dollar trucks contract. As such, the minister was responsible to lobby the defence department and various others through a series of meetings and telephone calls.
Did the minister ever meet with any members of the Canadian Forces, or with DND civilian officials who now work under the authority of the minister, in his capacity as a lobbyist for Stewart & Stevenson?
Gordon O'Connor ConservativeMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is that to the best of my knowledge, I do not think anyone is there, because the people I dealt with a number of years ago were junior officers and I believe they have gone. I have no idea if they are there or not.
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have such respect for the Minister of National Defence.
The former Liberal government cut funding to official languages programs, which the Commissioner of Official Languages condemned, and I quote, “The budget cuts made following the change in government in the 1990s set language rights in Canada back significantly”.
For a party that claims to defend the interests of linguistic minorities, is this not scandalous?
Could the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for the Francophonie and Official Languages explain to this House what she plans to do to promote the official languages of Canada?
Josée Verner ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.
The Official Languages Act, which was recently amended, has our government's total support, which shows our commitment to full recognition of linguistic duality and this will influence the next steps we take.
During the first 100 days of our term in office, we have concluded multi-year agreements in education worth over $1 billion with the provincial and territorial governments and we have concluded upgraded agreements regarding the delivery of services with 12—
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
The time for question period is over.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier on a point of order.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, during question period the Prime Minister responded to a question from the Leader of the Opposition on official languages by citing an excerpt from a letter of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Could the Prime Minister table this letter, as required by the Standing Orders?
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Thursday, April 27, by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, alleging that the privileges of the House as a collectivity had been breached by the government's refusal to lower the flags within the parliamentary precincts to half-mast to mark the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.
I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter, as well as the hon. government House leader and the hon. opposition House leader for their interventions.
To recapitulate briefly the arguments presented, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre contends that it is the Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, who has the authority to determine when the flag on the Peace Tower is lowered and not the Department of Canadian Heritage or the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
The hon. member cited a passage from page 170 of the second edition of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, which states:
Each House of Parliament is entitled to the administration of affairs within its own precincts free from interference....Control of the accommodation and services within the Parliament Buildings is therefore vested in the Speakers on behalf of their respective Houses.
The hon. member then argued that control of the accommodations and services of the parliamentary buildings, including the flagpole, is vested in the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons. He concluded that the government had overstepped its authority by dictating whether or not the flag on the Peace Tower should be lowered, thus usurping the privileges of the House.
The hon. government House leader argued that the lowering of the flag is the prerogative of the Crown and that it is up to the Government of Canada to exercise that prerogative. For his part, the hon. opposition House leader requested that the Speaker seek a legal interpretation of the authority of government departments vis-à-vis Parliament.
Let me clarify at the outset that it is not the role of the Speaker to give a legal opinion. Furthermore, I need hardly remind members that ours is a bicameral Parliament so that, were I to find that as Speaker of the House of Commons I have some role in this matter, it would follow that the other place would also need to be consulted on any decision concerning the flag that flies on a building shared by both Houses.
For the moment, though, this matter has been raised as a question of privilege in this House and my only role is to determine whether the privileges of members have been breached.
I believe it would be useful to all members if I summarized quickly the status of the Parliament buildings from an administrative perspective.
As I noted when the matter arose, the House of Commons and the Senate are tenants of the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Title to the buildings and land is in the name of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. By virtue of section 10 of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the administration of federal property falls under the jurisdiction of the minister of that department.
That being said, because the Senate and the House of Commons are not government departments but constituent elements of Parliament with the right to administer their own affairs free from interference, the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons have control over the accommodation and services within those areas of the parliamentary precinct occupied and used by senators and members.
These areas are defined in the second edition of Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 163, as, and I quote:
—the premises that the House of Commons and the Senate occupy from time to time for their corporate purposes. It includes those premises where each House, through its Speaker, exercises physical control to enable the members to perform their parliamentary work without obstruction or interference.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre argued that the House's collective rights were breached because the government assumed direction and control over the parliamentary precinct. The House of Commons has a number of rights which it claims and which have been accorded to it by statute. The right to regulate its internal affairs is the collective right that is pertinent in this matter.
The essential question is whether the half-masting of the flag on the Peace Tower is an internal affair falling within the privileges of the House, or an external matter under the jurisdiction of the owner of the building.
It appears clear to me that this is a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada since the Department of Public Works and Government Services has administrative responsibility for the building. Just as that department, as our landlord, carries out the upkeep of the parliamentary buildings, so too an official from Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible for raising and lowering the flag each day on the Peace Tower.
The protocol for the flying of the Canadian flag falls under the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is generally responsible for Canadian symbols. Members can find on the heritage website the rules concerning half-masting of the flag on federal buildings, including the Parliament buildings. These rules and their application are a matter for the executive; they are not matters over which the Speaker has any control.
While it is my role as Speaker to protect the House's control over its premises and to protect the access of members to these premises, I cannot find that the government's control of the flag on the Peace Tower infringes on the privileges of the House. Specifically, this is not a matter that relates to the internal affairs of the House in that it does not prevent the House from carrying out its work or prevent members from carrying out their parliamentary duties.
Accordingly I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege. I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for bringing this matter to the attention of the house.
