Dave Chatters

[Divorce Act, February 9th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Divorce Act (right of spouses' parents to access to or custody of child).

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill is designed to address an issue which I have been involved with for many years. It is the issue of grandparents' rights, grandparents' involvement with grandchildren in the case of divorce or separation.

Certainly from my experience and that of thousands of other grandparents across the country, grandparents work very hard to influence the lives of their grandchildren when a marriage falls apart and devastates the children. The bill is simply designed to recognize some rights for grandparents in the lives of their grandchildren when divorce happens.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Elections Act, February 9th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-324, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (public information programs).

Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is designed to address an issue which took place in the last federal election whereby Elections Canada decided to institute a public education program targeted at a limited number of ridings. I objected to Elections Canada. I was not happy with the answer and therefore we drafted the bill.

I think it is unacceptable during the writ period for Elections Canada to get involved in a process that could skew the outcome of the election in a riding.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Question No. 44, January 31st, 2005]

Since 1963, with a breakdown for each each year, how many injuries and deaths have occurred relating to the Sea King Helicopters, either through malfunctioning or by accidents?

[Canada Seat Belt Act, December 3rd, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, an act respecting seat belts in federal vehicles and school buses.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would require that all vehicles under federal jurisdiction and all school buses be equipped with seat belts for the driver and passengers if they are operated on a public highway. As a former school bus driver, I think it is well known and proven that seat belts do save lives.

The design of the seat belt must comply with the regulations and the laws of the province in which the vehicles are used. If required, there is a power to exempt vehicles in special cases, but not for vehicles that regularly transport students.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Criminal Code, December 3rd, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, an act to amend the Criminal Code (persons acting to preserve and maintain public health and safety).

Mr. Speaker, the bill would amend the Criminal Code in order to give greater protection to persons acting to preserve and maintain public health and safety, by creating a new offence of first degree murder and increasing the punishment for aggravated assault when the victim is one of those persons.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting but I knew all that. That did not even address my question in any sense of the word.

The minister assured us that the contract was open and transparent. In fact the contract shrank from $1 billion down to $154 million with no indication that the required work was any different from the original contract. Where is the transparency in this process?

If this proposal is open and transparent, I simply ask the minister to table the documents related to this contract so that we can all see why the original contract worth $1 billion is now only worth $154 million.

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to discuss a question that I asked on November 5. The question was about a Royal LePage contract which was announced on November 2 by the Minister of Public Works.

The contract is for relocating staff with the RCMP, national defence and the Government of Canada. This contract was to replace the contract which was awarded in 2002 and later cancelled.

The new contract is over a five year period and is worth just $154 million which an 85% reduction from the 2002 contract which was worth approximately $1 billion, as announced by the Minister of Public Works on December 19, 2002. I hardly believe that Royal LePage would take an 85% cut in its fees to do the same work that the previous contract involved.

Since I asked my original question, I have discovered that the contract is essentially for consulting and management fees and that additional contracts will have to be signed for flow-through costs for third party suppliers, such as realtors, lawyers and home inspectors. Let me state this again. This new contract, which the government announced with great fanfare, is only for the management of the contract. It is not for the whole contract for the relocation of the employees of the federal government.

Some would say that the minister is misleading Parliament with his spin. The minister has claimed that the contract was open and transparent. However, when I asked him to table the documents relating to the contract, he would not do it. Why is that? Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you can get me the answer.

If we add up the moves, last year the government moved over 14,700 employees. Over a five year period, that total adds up to over 73,800 moves. If the government continues to claim that this contract is the one and only, can it provide any documentation on how it is planning to hire lawyers, realtors, movers, house appraisers and only pay a total $2,087 per move? I am sure Canadians would love to be able to move across Canada for only $2,000.

Just so the House understands how I came upon the figure of $2,087 per move, I will explain that the total contract, just over $154 million divided by the 73,800 moves equals $2,087.

It is plain and simple, Royal LePage, like any private corporation, is in business to make a profit. The way that the minister is trying to spin this contract, Royal LePage would go bankrupt very quickly. I do not believe that Royal LePage would sign a contract that would put the company at risk.

Is the minister willing to table in the House all the documentation relating to this contract?

[Agriculture, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government has failed to provide the promised support for beef producers. Despite all kinds of announcements, the desperately needed support has not arrived at the farm gate.

I would also like to remind the minister that beef cattle are not the only ruminants banned by the U.S. and that beef cattle ranchers are not the only sector decimated by the border closure. Bison and elk producers were initially led to believe by the minister that they would be included in the support program. However, in the Liberal tradition, the minister is now abandoning these sectors.

When is the minister going to do the right thing and get support out to the producers of all ruminants?

[Committees of the House, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in accordance with its order of reference of Thursday, November 4, 2004. The committee has considered vote 45a under justice in the supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, and reports the same.

[Question No. 15, November 29th, 2004]

Since January 1, 1997, have any past Members of Parliament been hired or appointed in any capacity by the government and, if so: ( a ) who was the Member; ( b ) what was their salary at the time of hiring and any subsequent increases; ( c ) what have the job descriptions been; ( d ) what advertisements were used to solicit applications for these positions; ( e ) how was the interview process conducted for all positions; ( f ) who approved the hiring; ( g ) how many applicants were interviewed; ( h ) when was each position created; and ( i ) what were the annual expenses of each indivudual?

(Return tabled)