Lost his last election, in 2008, with 16% of the vote.
Crown Corporations April 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of money, a number of heads of crown corporations have received very generous raises and/or performance bonuses.
For example, the president of Via Rail got $30,000. In the case of Canada Post—we all know who is the president there—the figure was $37,000 in salary increases plus a bonus of $80,000.
Could the Prime Minister explain why these amounts were handed out, when health care needs it so much?
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
Madam Speaker, I would lie to point out to my Reform colleague who is a member of the Canadian Alliance that, even if we are not allowed to call each other names here in the House, I may call him whatever he wants, provided that he acknowledges that I am a member of the Progressive Conservatives of Canada.
Discussion on Bill C-23 must continue in an atmosphere of open-mindedness, not narrow-mindedness. That is why the Progressive Conservative Party will have a free vote on this issue.
Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act April 3rd, 2000
Madam Speaker, there are bills we debate that do not cause us too much distress. There are others, very important ones, that affect us in the way we were raised, in our beliefs. Bill C-23 hits us hard in the gut. However, we want to behave as MPs, it pushes us to think more.
On the subject of Bill C-23, the Progressive Conservative party has decided the vote will be a free one. There has always been a free vote in caucus, but in the House, where the members belong to a political party, there must be solidarity. In this case, as in others in which moral fibre is very important, the members will have the option of voting according to their own conscience or that of their electors.
I listened to the Reform members' presentations. It is not clear whether their consciences will win out or whether they will follow the wishes of their constituents. As I can see, their consciences are likely to have the upper hand.
This bill is not easy. When we talk about the rights of homosexuals in the country, in fiscal terms, with some sixty laws involved, it is not an easy matter. It is tempting to hide, saying “It is true, there are homosexuals, there are gays and lesbians, but why are we talking about it?” People ask us “Why talk about gays and lesbians?” Who does not know people who are gay or lesbian? We cannot say they do not exist. They are there.
Someone said “They are fine people, but—”. That is a bit backward. “They are fine people, but we should not go too far. There is the marriage issue”.
On the subject of marriage, with the rule of interpretation, the government took a step in the right direction. It is a rule of interpretation that has force of law, much more so than some members might imagine. Why do I say that? Because I recall that the conditions set out in the Meech Lake accord were rules of interpretation.
The concept of distinct society was included in a preamble. It was a rule of interpretation. I remember that, in certain parts of the country, people were afraid of that rule and its weight from a legal standpoint. Personally, I am very, very pleased with that rule.
Naturally, it is not easy to discuss giving gays and lesbians who are in a common-law partnership the same tax benefits as a man and a woman in a similar partnership. Personally, I will support the bill. Did I read all the clauses and assess all the implications? The answer is no.
People in my riding have asked me what this bill was all about. I told them “It is an omnibus bill”. In order to understand fully the impact of Bill C-23, one must know all the acts that are mentioned in it. This makes Bill C-23 an absolutely incredible document.
I am not an expert on this bill like the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, but there are principles involved here. I had discussions with people in my riding. Some support this bill, and others oppose it. Some people ask many more questions than others. An older lady told me “I remember 25, 30 or 35 years ago, when my daughter decided to move in with her boyfriend, it was a tragedy. We would tell them “What are you doing? You are living in sin. Such a relationship is illegal, as evidenced by the fact that the Church opposes it, while the law does not recognize it”.
Finally, things have evolved. I think that the discussion nowadays is much like the discussions that used to take place in Canada and Quebec and all the provinces about cohabitation—although not quite the same, because any analogy is imperfect. Do we provide the same benefits? People were afraid that the sacrament of marriage might disappear if they recognized the existing reality.
I was asked how I saw it? When I was a teenager, people would ask me what I wanted. Back then, I said that I wanted to get married and have children. That was what I wanted. I did not get married and I have a little boy of four. I do not feel excluded from society in any way. I am a practising Catholic and I do not feel excluded.
I have also spoken with a few people in the Church and some take a harder line. Others make a distinction between their concerns and those of others, between secular society—this does not mean that they are not interested, that they are not a part of that society—and religious society. What concerns them is faith, religion. For them, marriage continues to be the union of a man and a woman. That does not change. However, they naturally take a stand on any bill that secular society comes up with. Within the Church itself, there are divisions, different stands. It is the same way within the Progressive Conservative Party.
Who am I to say that, as you cannot have children in the normal way, you cannot be recognized as a couple for tax purposes, for the purpose of benefits? Who am I? My faith may tell me that a family, a marriage, takes a certain form. That is all very well, but who am I to judge?
This is a reality. Some will say that being gay or lesbian is not normal. Some people in this House still believe it is a disease, or that it is hereditary, or if not hereditary is a matter of behaviour and the result of some past problem. They contend that the gays and lesbians in this country are the result of family breakdown.
I do not have the answer. I do know that people must adjust to reality, a reality that is, in some ways, accepted by those who live in this country. Unlike the situation with other issues of equal importance and difficulty, I have not seen people picketing the homes of gays or lesbians. Has it been seen? I have seen not such thing. Have hon. members seen signs proclaiming “We are anti-gay. We are against lesbians”? I have not. We do, of course, have our protester out front, but that is what democracy is all about.
There is some openness in this country. Bill C-23 is putting into law what the supreme court has called upon us to do. We know that members of the Reform Party are not keen on the supreme court. They do not like courts of law, and yet, unfortunately, they are going to end up in one once again, because of their name, but that is another story.
Our thinking must evolve with the times, our open-mindedness in particular. The government can be heavily criticized for one thing about Bill C-23 and I believe that all opposition parties agree on this point. They could have taken more time to consult the—
Points Of Order March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period, I asked the Minister of Public Works a question about a problem relating to a land sale in Brampton. The minister spoke of a report that would provide answers to a variety of questions.
I would like to ask the minister to table that report in the House, for it would surely enlighten all hon. members. The matter has raised a lot of questions.
Canada Lands Company March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, there is someone somewhere who did not do his homework, as the Reform Party wants to do.
What we are saying is that, within 30 days, someone pocketed $3 million. A week ago, the vice-president of the Canada Lands Company did not even know about the case.
Will the minister, who was surely not aware of it either, order a full inquiry to find out what happened?
Canada Lands Company March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, here is a cute little story.
The Canada Lands Company owned a large industrial lot in Brampton. This was a 30-acre lot. It decided to sell it for $1.7 million. What happened? With every day that went by, the property's value increased by more than $100,000. One month later, it was worth $3 million more.
A week ago, the vice-president of the Canada Lands Company had not even heard of this. Could the Minister of Public Works reassure the House and explain how Canadian taxpayers benefited from that transaction?
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act March 28th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, as we can see, when the truth is debated and spoken in the House, nobody speaks. So I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague whose speech has provided, I hope, food for thought for the government.
Little time has been allotted to each member to speak to a bill as important as this one. As my hon. colleague from Newfoundland has said, we are going to support this bill, even though we would have preferred the government to be more open on certain amendments that the Progressive Conservative Party, the real conservative party in Canada, and the other parties, proposed. We would have liked the government to have been more open. I will elaborate a little bit on three or four main themes for discussion or comments on this bill.
First, the provinces were mentioned frequently. My hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois raised the federal-provincial constitutional and jurisdictional issue. This has been looked into. We are fortunate in the Progressive Conservative Party to have people with a good knowledge of federal-provincial relations and the Constitution. They considered whether, from a legal point of view, the bill was consistent with the constitutional laws of Canada. The answer is yes, it is legal.
However, even if it is legal in terms of jurisdictions, because shared jurisdictions do exist, as is the case here, we have no obligation to adopt the Liberal government's way of doing things, which is wanting to control everything and then saying to the provinces “Come to see me afterwards if you are not happy with something”.
The government missed a golden opportunity to provide in the bill for much broader participation by the provinces. It forgot about that. Is overlap or duplication of the money invested in research possible? I hope not, but when people do not talk to one another, it is like when a husband and wife go out to buy Christmas gifts. If they do not talk beforehand, they might very well come back with two identical Pokemons for the same child.
In our view, it would have been wise to establish a permanent process in this bill so that the provinces and the other players in research could be partners. It is a matter of attitude and, once again, we find it most damaging even if it is legal. We would like to see the government reconsider it.
Yes, there is more money for research, but I remind members that the bill does not mention any amount. We will have to go from budget to budget to discover the amounts of money that will be made available for research.
My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador raised the issue of patronage, of what is referred to here as the “governor in council”, who appoints a lot of people. I do not know the exact number of people the governor in council is responsible for appointing. Some figures being mentioned are 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 or even 800 people. This includes, of course, the other house. It is a lot of people.
In this case, perhaps the government could have agreed to be a lot more open in appointing members to the governing council. It would have been nice.
Why did the Standing Committee on Health not take the time to look at the list and to listen to those whose names had been suggested? Some raised the question as to why, for example, 50% of the members of the governing council could not be suggested by the provinces. There could have been a certain number for each province or for each region. Why not?
Again, it is a matter of attitude on the part of the government, an attitude that, unfortunately, is not likely to change.
It would have been nice if parliament had been a lot more involved. With this bill creating the institutes, parliament will be involved once a year and we do not know exactly in what way. The Auditor General of Canada will make his rounds and will report to the minister, who in turn will report to both houses of parliament, but nobody knows what will happen after that.
With all the scandals shaking up the government these days, it would have been nice if, while protecting the confidentiality of the research to be done, it had asked all parties to become its allies to avoid surprises. This government is beginning to have more than its share of scandals, but by involving other political parties, it could say “Look, if there are problems, it is parliament's fault and not the Liberal Party's fault”. There could have been a new way of doing things, but the government decided to keep on helping its friends.
We find that somewhat unfortunate. In the area of health and health research, which Quebecers, Ontarians and all Canadians believe is the most important, everybody could have been involved and could have worked together.
That being said, the members of the governing council will be appointed to hold office during pleasure, to use a phrase commonly found in bills. Members are appointed for three years, but during pleasure. In other words, they may be removed, if such is the pleasure of the governor in council or the Prime Minister. They will play musical chairs. It will be like a game of Monopoly where houses and hotels can easily be moved around. The membership of the governing council will be easy to change.
This was seen in government agencies. If someone dares to speak up and raise problems, they may removed in no time, unbeknownst to parliament. We find it unfortunate. Parliament has a constructive role to play. There are other very important points.
This is also a very complex bill. Reference was made to the role of the private sector. These last few years, Canada has become more open to the world because of free trade. Who was in office in the 1980s? Yes, indeed, it was a Conservative government, and this government implemented free trade. We have opened our business sectors to many more countries, particularly through free trade, but also under the World Trade Organization. It is important to bear that in mind when considering legislation.
I mentioned the private sector's role. Clause 26 of the bill provides that the CIHR may enter into a partnership with other government or corporate bodies, including private corporations. One thing will have to be monitored very closely, however, and the auditor general will certainly do so: the CIHR may incorporate by itself a corporation. When an institute is independent from the government and may duplicate itself, this causes problems. All our questions may not get answered.
I do not want to underestimate the people who will be there, but the bill states that the institute may enter into a partnership, or incorporate “by itself or with others a corporation, including a subsidiary”. It might decide to incorporate for a very specific purpose. This is dangerous, because we will lose contact with this institute.
It may also enter into a partnership with governments. I may not be a legal expert, but I was reading the bill and it does say “with any other government”. Great. May it enter into a partnership with the United States, France or agencies from these countries? Perhaps. Is this desirable? Why not? But once again, what is the quality of the parliamentarians' relationship, the representatives of those who pay taxes?
These issues would not be raised if parliament were much more involved. With regard to the private sector, we will have to look into the structure of the institute to see how royalties and patent rights will be divided. If the institute may incorporate by itself, without coming under the direct control of the auditor general, if it may enter into a partnership with the private sector or with any other government inside or outside the country, to whom will patent and licence royalties belong? These are issues we will look at over time, but it would have been important, to reassure Canadians in general, that parliament played a much greater role in this sector.
My time is up. As I said earlier, we will support this bill, a bill that is 20 years late compared to other major countries.
Export Development Corporation March 20th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the minister really thought I was putting my question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. Perhaps he did not understand what I was asking.
On average, 15% of the Export Development Corporation's budget, or more than $100 million annually, is earmarked for bad loans. There are two separate accounts: the EDC account, for all sorts of uses, and the Canada account, which comes directly from the government, directly out of taxpayers' pockets, for more problematic situations.
My question is this: did the money for the loan to Amtrak in the Bombardier project come from the Canada account or the EDC account?
Export Development Corporation March 20th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now the waltz of the billions at Human Resources Development Canada has taken up Oral Question Period in the House.
My question is for the minister truly responsible—not the Minister of Human Resources Development—the Minister for International Trade. Could he tell us about the $1 billion in the Amtrak-Bombardier affair?
Supply March 17th, 2000
Yes. I believe it is a matter of attitude. A different way of doing things.
What is insulting, highly insulting, for those living daily with health problems, is that the future leader of the Liberal Party has said “We still have money, if you want it. There is still some left”. If so, put the money on the table, and maybe solutions will be found.
He has to put the money on the table. The federal government has billions in the bank that might make it possible to find solutions for all Canadians.