Jason Kenney

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 14th, 1999]

For the years 1994-97 inclusive how many residents of Manitoba had confidential taxpayer information disclosed by the Department of National Revenue to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation or any other Manitoba agencies and departments without their written consent through release form T1013?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Vancouver East for her comments and those of her colleague from Sydney—Victoria.

I have been listening with interest to members of the New Democratic caucus throughout this debate articulate an interesting and I am sure heartfelt position, but I must admit that from time to time I become confused about exactly what their position is. It seems to be to proceed with the air war if necessary, but do not necessarily proceed with the air war; to stop the bombing in order to have negotiations, but to continue bombing in order to force negotiations.

Therefore, I say with all sincerity that I am not entirely clear as to what policy the NDP is recommending that we and our NATO allies follow. Is it to disengage from the air campaign immediately in the hope that Milosevic will come to the bargaining table, or is it to proceed with the air campaign in the hope that he will come to the bargaining table? Which is it? It certainly cannot be both at the same time.

[Building Contracts, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing all sorts of political evasions to the very simple question about whether or not the government will table all documents relevant to the Grand-Mère Hotel grant from the transitional jobs fund.

Why in the world, given all of the unanswered questions that are there, would the government not release this information in the full public light so that people can see for themselves whether or not this grant was made according to proper procedure? Will the government release those documents without the whiteout. Yes or no.

[Building Contracts, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister sold the hotel in part to Mr. Duhaime. Mr. Duhaime received a federal grant for nearly a million tax dollars. We know that the Prime Minister's office interfered in that process.

The question is, did the Prime Minister receive any financial benefit from Mr. Duhaime and did that happen at the time that the grant was received?

[Building Contracts, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get to the bottom of this very murky affair. We would appreciate some direct answers to some direct questions.

For instance does the Prime Minister know whether Mr. Duhaime owed him money for the sale of the hotel when the Prime Minister's office went to bat for him and secured this nearly $1 million federal loan? Does he know whether he was owed money by the person who got the loan, yes or no?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I raised the matter because I am in principle supportive of the need for this kind of legislation, but my support and that of many other members for the legislation has become very tenuous because of the sequence.

It did appear to us that back to work legislation might be necessary on an emergency basis. For that reason many of us voted to expedite it. Then we discovered all of a sudden that a tentative agreement had been reached and the predicate of an emergency seemed to suddenly disappear.

I have a second question for the minister. For how long has the President of the Treasury Board known that his negotiating team was close to reaching a tentative agreement with the PSAC union? How long did he know that they were closing in on an agreement and how long did he withhold that information from the House?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board caused much unnecessary controversy and skepticism last evening when he stood as the first speaker on second reading of the bill before us to present his statement regarding the tentative agreement.

My question for the minister is very simple. He told us last night that he had learned about this tentative agreement at 10.10 p.m. and presented it to the House in vague terms after the vote was taken on the motion to expedite the passage of Bill C-76.

Why did he not bring the information before the House before the vote so that members such as myself could consider all relevant material that was germane to the bill? Why did he not bring it to the House before the vote instead of after the vote?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, on what grounds could the minister say that all the issues have been resolved if the union maintains a potential strike position? How do we know that the tax centres, for instance, are not still vulnerable to strike action under the status quo?

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board said earlier that all issues had been resolved.

He also said earlier that there was no guarantee that strike action would not be taken on the part of the union concerned. Did the government approach the union to secure an agreement not to proceed with any strike action before ratification?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very exciting. It sounds like the red flag is about to be waved. I am ready to strike into a chorus of the Internationale.

I would like to comment on the hon. member's remarks. I have a great deal of respect for the member. I understand his frustration as a man with considerable background in the trade union movement.

I would like to correct a couple of comments he made at the beginning of his remarks. He said, “The Reform Party would like to wipe unions off the face of the earth” and that it was almost fraudulent to claim that we had any support for unions.

I think the hon. member perhaps got a little carried away in hyperbole. He may doubt the degree of commitment of my party to trade unions and collective bargaining, but in all sincerity, I would point out to the member that one of our basic principles as a party and as defined in our policy statement is that the Reform Party supports the right of workers to organize democratically, to bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. We also support the harmonization of labour-management relations and reject the view that labour and management must constitute warring camps.

Personally, many of my own economic views are influenced by the social teachings of the Catholic church. I have been heavily influenced by the encyclical letter Rerum Novarum on the dignity of human labour. I understand and appreciate the right of workers to work together, to bargain collectively and the freedom to associate and the freedom to strike peacefully.

That is why we have had difficulty with the approach of the government on this issue. We would prefer to see final offer binding arbitration to the kind of destructive game we see being played here between the union and the government.

Could the hon. member comment on whether he sees that kind of final offer binding arbitration as a possible constructive alternative to the kind of adversarial relationship that is destructive to the interests of both the workers and, in this case, the farmers whose product is being held up?