Jacques Saada

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the more things change—

For months now, we have been peppered with questions about APEC and the events in Vancouver. For months now, the opposition has held to a position that is fundamentally contradictory.

On the one hand, they are calling for a public inquiry while, on the other, they want the commission to be allowed to do its work. But when we agree that the commission should be allowed to do its work, they go back to their call for a public inquiry. The opposition's position is completely illogical.

Mr. Hughes, who is now chairing the commission, has said himself, and I am quoting very freely here, that he will do “whatever it takes to uncover the truth of what went on in Vancouver”. He himself, therefore, is saying that the commission is able to get to the bottom of things, to effectively determine what happened and to submit a report, which, I would remind members, will be made public.

We received a letter from him, and this letter was released Friday at noon. What could be more natural than for elected officials to take the time to read this letter, to examine it and reflect on it, and to respond in a balanced manner that takes into account the full proposal, the present context in its entirety, and the mandate of the commission.

[Prisons, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the inmate in question was transferred because he threatened other inmates. He was therefore moved from a minimum to a maximum security institution.

There are only three inmates in Canada who are not allowed to speak to the media, two of them being Mr. Olson and Mr. Bernardo. Would the opposition want them to be able to speak to the media?

[Quebec Election, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last night, the people of Quebec clearly indicated who they wanted to represent them in the Quebec National Assembly.

Our congratulations to all those who ran in the 125 ridings. We should also acknowledge all the hard work done by volunteers, who spared neither time nor effort to make their organizations run smoothly.

Special congratulations to all those who ran under the Liberal banner.

Quebeckers have made it clear that they did not want another referendum. They see their future within Canada.

I congratulate the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and everyone on his team. Last night, they made us proud, they made every Canadian proud.

[Parliamentary Privilege, November 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is almost funny to hear what the hon. member opposite has to say. Her remarks are so childish and so full of contradictions.

As I recall, she started off by saying something like Canadians deserve to go to the bottom of it.

We fully agree, but what is the approach of opposition members? It is preventing the commission set up for this purpose from doing its job. On the one hand, they say that the commission should be allowed to do its job and, on the other hand, that it should not.

Another contradiction is the allegation that “the process is tainted”. There again, the documents have been handed over to the commission, which will rule on this matter.

What right does my colleague opposite have to prejudge the commission's decision, claiming bias? What she says is full of contradictions.

Members might be familiar with what Alfred de Musset had to say about Molière. “This mighty humour, so sad and so profound that laughter leads to tears.” He is referring to jokes that make us cry.

[Division No. 276, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her question.

I recognize that certain allegations have been made against the health protection branch of the department of my colleague, the Minister of Health.

The Ministry of Health is taking a number of measures to restore trust and morale among staff and credibility with the public. I repeat, credibility with the public. This includes the establishment of expert advisory committees to guide scientific decision making and resolve scientific disputes.

Over the longer term, the Minister of Health will examine the function of public health protection in the context of an integrated federal role. He will then have to consider three important issues.

First, we need a process for decision making that delineates each step in the development of risk management strategies.

Second, we need to expand the traditional communications function to have a broader public affairs orientation.

Finally, we need to address fundamental human resources and organizational culture issues, such as the need for scientific staff to understand the larger context in which their work takes place.

The Minister of Health is looking at the best possible standards of service to protect public health and safety, which is—I repeat—an objective that we share.

[Division No. 276, November 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for his very pertinent question.

The fact is that the federal government has made the prevention and interdiction of illegal immigrants trafficking one of its priorities, precisely for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member. Indeed, according to the report to which my colleague made reference, it is estimated that, every year, up to 16,000 people enter Canada with the help of smugglers.

Based on that report, this illegal activity may generate up to $400 million in illicit profits. In light of this, I can certainly understand the hon. member's concern. To curb such activity, Canada has made the smuggling of aliens a criminal offence entrenched in our national legislation and carrying stiff penalties.

Also, Canadian officials from a number of federal departments are co-operating with their counterparts in other UN countries on a convention on transnational organized crime. One potential related protocol would deal with the smuggling of aliens. Canadian officials are actively involved in various international initiatives, particularly those of the G-8 Lyon group on organized crime, and conducting major international consultations on the asylum policies in Europe.

At home, officials from the RCMP and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration continue to co-operate across the country and through our missions abroad to put an end to these activities.

We will continue to work together with our partners in order to fight this criminal activity and any other form of organized crime.

I can only repeat how much I share my hon. colleague's concern and that, as he indicated, both national and international solutions must be sought. This is a priority. Fighting organized crime is the solicitor general's top priority.

[Apec Inquiry, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for a few weeks we have been working on the basis of innuendoes, hearsay and despicable lack of respect for fundamental justice for people sitting in this House. I refuse to answer this question in this fashion.

[Apec Inquiry, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that at no time did the solicitor general give any such instruction to the RCMP.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like an explanation. It is just a matter of logic, not politics, just logic.

The reduction in cash transfers to Quebec represents only 3% of the revenue of the Quebec government. From what I hear today, it seems that that was a wrong decision to make.

Without any notice, however, the Quebec government imposed the equivalent of a 6% budget cut for municipalities, which is double what the federal cuts were. Can somebody tell me where the logic is in all of this?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to do this in French, but I will repeat an English phrase that was used earlier.

My colleague across the way used the expression “from the sublime to the ridiculous”. Oddly, that is just what I was thinking when watching the behaviour of the party over there in connection with this matter.

Let us have a clear understanding of what the problem is: there are incidents. A commission was created a long time ago for handling this type of problem. The case is referred to it.

First, the allegation is made that the commission does not have the power to do what has to be done. That is false, but such is the allegation, and the commission's credibility is undermined as a result. It is alleged that the Prime Minister got involved. It is alleged that the commission is a lame-duck commission. The allegations keep coming. Allegations about what happened on a plane. I do not believe my colleague was on the plane and therefore he did not hear first hand what was, and was not, said.

The underlying principle is that someone said this or that. This becomes an absolute truth. This is absolutely ridiculous. Enough to make a person weep.

Now, going further with this, who is it that is behind these allegations? Members of opposition parties. Why are they making these allegations? To defend purely political and partisan causes. And what does this have to do with reality? Nothing whatsoever.

They are not at all interested in the truth. What they are interested in is the media circus in the House around a matter that could have been settled very readily, and will be settled very readily, by an organization created for that very purpose, a commission called the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.