Résumé de la séance
- Le thème dominant était la controverse sur les subventions du DRHC, les partis d'opposition pressant le gouvernement au sujet d'allégations d'infractions aux règles, d'ingérence politique et de mauvaise gestion des fonds — notamment des subventions liées à la circonscription du premier ministre à Shawinigan et à celle de la ministre du DRHC, Brant.
- Le premier ministre a répété à plusieurs reprises les questions sur une subvention de 200 000 $ à Héritage Shawinigan — où son bureau avait envoyé une lettre de lobbying avant qu'aucune demande ne soit déposée — en invoquant la création d'emplois et en présentant le projet comme un accord tripartite des trois paliers de gouvernement.
- La ministre du DRHC Jane Stewart a fait face à des questions soutenues de tous les partis d'opposition concernant l'accès transparent aux données sur les subventions, l'utilisation de statistiques de chômage périmées pour qualifier les circonscriptions aux fonds de transition pour l'emploi et au Fonds canadien pour la création d'emplois, ainsi que l'attraction d'entreprises dans sa propre circonscription avec des fonds publics.
- Les leaders parlementaires du NPD et du PC ont soulevé un recours au Règlement officiel concernant l'impact disproportionné du désordre pendant la période des questions sur les petits partis, déclenchant un long débat multipartite sur le décorum et l'autorité du Président.
- L'agriculture et les prix de l'énergie ont reçu une attention limitée mais ciblée : le NPD a pressé le premier ministre sur la crise agricole dans les Prairies et le ministre de l'Industrie sur les prix records de l'essence et du mazout, les deux ministres renvoyant la balle aux compétences provinciales.
- Le Bloc Québécois a soulevé l'affaire Corbeil, remettant en question la façon dont un organisateur politique libéral a obtenu des listes de demandes de subventions du DRHC alors que les députés élus devaient recourir à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information pour obtenir les mêmes renseignements.
La ministre Stewart a directement confirmé au compte rendu que le fonds de transition pour l'emploi utilisait les statistiques de chômage de 1995 et que le Fonds canadien pour la création d'emplois utilisait celles de 1997 comme critères d'admissibilité au programme, fournissant un engagement factuel précis et vérifiable qui avait été contesté.
MacKay makes a sharp specific accountability challenge: citing an 8% unemployment rate in the minister's riding in 1995 and noting that HRDC information is only available by economic region for other MPs, he asks how her riding qualified for transitional jobs fund funding and why she received preferential treatment.
Interrogé précisément sur la raison pour laquelle le papier à en-tête de son bureau servait de formulaire de demande de fait pour une subvention pour laquelle aucune demande n'avait été déposée, Chrétien a répondu entièrement avec des statistiques de chômage de 1993 et une remarque sur les problèmes de direction du Parti réformiste, sans aborder le fond de la question.
Questions sans réponse
- Mme Deborah Grey a demandé pourquoi le papier à en-tête du Cabinet du premier ministre constitue un formulaire de demande légal pour des subventions alors qu'aucune demande formelle n'avait été soumise pour la fontaine d'Héritage Shawinigan — aucune réponse directe n'a jamais été donnée.
- M. Gilles Duceppe a demandé comment un organisateur politique libéral dans l'affaire Corbeil est entré en possession de listes de demandes de subventions du DRHC alors que les députés élus ne peuvent pas obtenir les mêmes documents — la ministre a seulement confirmé que l'affaire avait été renvoyée à la GRC, sans expliquer l'écart d'accès.
- Mme Suzanne Tremblay a demandé si les députés libéraux possèdent les mêmes renseignements sur les subventions du DRHC que les députés de l'opposition ou s'ils en ont davantage — la ministre n'a pas confirmé ni infirmé cela directement.
- M. Jay Hill a demandé pourquoi la ministre Stewart n'a pris aucune mesure sur plus de 50 plaintes concernant des fonds manquants et une ingérence politique dans le dossier du Conseil provincial des Métis de la C.-B. pendant son passage aux Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien, puis après son arrivée au DRHC — la ministre a nié l'inaction mais n'a fourni aucun calendrier ni détail.
- Mme Val Meredith a demandé pourquoi la circonscription de Vancouver-Est s'était qualifiée pour une subvention d'emploi de 500 000 $ lorsqu'elle était une circonscription libérale, mais s'est fait dire qu'elle ne se qualifiait pas après avoir élu un député de l'opposition — la ministre a confirmé que la subvention antérieure avait créé 18 emplois mais n'a pas expliqué le refus subséquent.
Grey a demandé pourquoi une lettre du Cabinet du Premier ministre a été utilisée pour recommander l'approbation d'une subvention à Patrimoine Shawinigan avant même qu'une demande ait été déposée, et pourquoi le papier à en-tête du CPM tient désormais lieu de formulaire de demande officiel.
Grey cites a specific sequence of events — a letter from the Prime Minister's Office preceding any formal application — and asks a pointed accountability question about why PMO letterhead now functions as a grant application.
Texte source
Her office does write a good Standing Order 31. Mr. Speaker, listen to this familiar story. A letter was sent to urge approval of a government grant even before anyone applied. We have seen that pattern before. This one came from the Prime Minister's Office and he lobbied Canada economic development for a fountain in his own riding. Finally a month later the application form actually showed up. The Prime Minister broke the rules and now just last week we saw the announcement, with a big fanfare and a big press release, about $200,000 going to Heritage Shawinigan. Why is the letterhead of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office a legal application form for grants now?
Chrétien a affirmé que la ville de Shawinigan et la ville de Shawinigan-Sud travaillaient sur ce dossier depuis des années et qu'il appuie simplement les projets dans sa circonscription qui créent des emplois, comme le font les membres du Parti réformiste dans les leurs.
Chrétien deflects by claiming the project had long been in progress and pivots to a general defence of supporting his riding, never addressing the procedural irregularity Grey described.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the city of Shawinigan and the city of Shawinigan-Sud have been working on this file for years. It is nothing new. When there is a project in my riding I do like Reform Party members do. I support projects in my riding that help to create jobs and make the area very attractive. When my caucus visited Shawinigan a year ago with a lot of our friends from the press they found that Shawinigan is much more attractive than it was before.
Grey a demandé pourquoi le papier à en-tête du CPM constitue un formulaire officiel de demande de subvention, en citant les conditions attachées au financement de Patrimoine Shawinigan exigeant que le ministre responsable soit invité à l'annonce et que le gouvernement du Canada ait le dernier mot à la conférence de presse.
Grey adds specificity by citing two Liberal conditions attached to the grant — ministerial presence at the announcement and government having the last word at the press conference — but her core ask repeats the prior exchange and is somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
I dare say, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is a lovely fountain. There we are with government slush funds draining into government slush funds, which is something else, and finally getting sucked into the Jane drain at the bottom. There were Liberal demands attached to this. First, the minister responsible must be invited to the announcement and, second, the Government of Canada must get the last word at the press conference. This is not about jobs. It is not about fountains. Why is it that the Prime Minister's Office and his letterhead are now the official application form for grants? Why would that be?
Chrétien a dit qu'une demande avait été déposée par la ville de Shawinigan et la ville de Shawinigan-Sud avant l'envoi de la lettre, et qu'il est important que les citoyens — surtout dans les régions où certains veulent quitter le Canada — sachent que des fonds fédéraux sont engagés.
Chrétien again asserts there was a prior application and pivots to a nationalist argument about Quebec citizens knowing federal money is at work, completely ignoring the conditions Grey described.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, long before the letter there was an application started by the city of Shawinigan and after that the city of Shawinigan-Sud and so on. This project involves the people of Shawinigan, the Historical Society of Shawinigan and I have helped them of course. Yes, it is very important in every riding of Canada that the people of the ridings know, when there is a subvention coming from the taxpayers of Canada, that the money is coming from the taxpayers of Canada, particularly in areas where some people want to quit Canada because sometimes they do not know the good that this government is doing for its citizens.
Grey a demandé pourquoi le Premier ministre 'fait la nique' aux contribuables, étant donné que des fonds ont été réclamés pour une fontaine avant même qu'une demande n'existe, alors qu'une annonce de 200 000 $ pour Patrimoine Shawinigan a été faite en plein scandale de DRHC.
Grey sharpens the timing issue — no application existed when the PMO demanded funds — but frames it largely rhetorically by accusing the Prime Minister of 'thumbing his nose' at taxpayers, weakening the accountability precision.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, surely it is absolute blackmail to try to pay the people of Quebec to keep them in Canada.
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, insults do not impress people. The Prime Minister's Office demanded funds for a fountain. The fountain may be lovely but they had not even applied for any money. No one had even applied for that. Now, in the middle of this huge boondoggle where we have seen all kinds of arrogance, wastage of money and misspending, a quarter of a million bucks was just announced last week for this fountain. When the Prime Minister brings up taxpayers' money, why is it he keeps thumbing his nose at these taxpayers?
Chrétien a cité la baisse du chômage de 11,5 % à 6,8 % et la création de 1,9 million de nouveaux emplois depuis 1993, et a laissé entendre que le chef de l'opposition signale que le Parti réformiste n'a pas d'avenir.
Chrétien answers with unemployment statistics (11.5% to 6.8%, 1.9 million new jobs) that are entirely unrelated to the procedural question about the fountain grant, and closes with a partisan jab at the Leader of the Opposition.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when I was re-elected as a member of parliament and came back with this government in 1993 we had 11.5% unemployment in Canada. It is down now to 6.8%. The result is that the program is helping: 1.9 million new jobs have been created in bit more than six years and unemployment is down from 11% to 6%. I understand when I see the Leader of the Opposition travelling the land telling everybody that the Reform Party has no future.
Lowther a demandé pourquoi le Premier ministre enfreint systématiquement les règles et dirige des fonds publics vers sa circonscription, suggérant que les fonctionnaires n'oseront pas lui dire non.
Lowther's question is undermined by a retracted accusation ('crooked loans') and relies more on pattern-of-conduct rhetoric than on a specific documented instance, making the ask compound and imprecise.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can try to claim innocence all he wants, but the fact remains that he has been caught playing fast and loose with the rules again. We know the Prime Minister twisted the arms of bureaucrats to get crooked loans for hoteliers—
I withdraw.
Mr. Speaker, he knew from his experience that these bureaucrats would not say no. Why does the Prime Minister consistently break the rules and funnel other taxpayers' dollars into his riding?
Chrétien a dit que la circonscription de Saint-Maurice est composée de citoyens ayant droit aux mêmes programmes que n'importe qui d'autre, que toutes les règles sont respectées et que les subventions sont analysées par les fonctionnaires, et a exprimé sa fierté d'être attaqué pour avoir fait son travail.
Chrétien offers a partial substantive response — claiming all rules are respected and grants are analyzed by bureaucrats — but does not address the specific allegation of arm-twisting and pivots to a personal grievance.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Saint-Maurice is made up of citizens of Canada who are entitled to exactly the same programs as anybody else. All the rules are respected. The grants are analyzed by all the bureaucrats. I am happy that one of the things they are doing, which is very good for me personally, is that they are attacking me because I do my job. I want the unemployment level in my area someday to be as low as that of any city in Alberta.
Lowther a demandé si le Premier ministre défend la ministre des Ressources humaines parce qu'il se moque de l'argent des contribuables ou parce qu'il est lui-même coupable du même type d'ingérence dans les portefeuilles ministériels.
Lowther poses a compound either/or question — does the PM not care about taxpayers' money or is he guilty of the same misconduct — which is more rhetorical than factually grounded, though it references the $1 billion HRDC figure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the situation here is that the Prime Minister does not follow the rules. The Prime Minister argues that he demands high standards for his ministers, but he makes a point of personally interfering with their portfolios. His ministers do not mind, though. It means they do not have to bother with those annoying little rules either. The human resources minister has bungled $1 billion as a result. Is the Prime Minister defending the human resources minister because he does not care about taxpayers' money or is he guilty of the very same thing himself?
Chrétien a dit que le gouvernement est prudent avec l'argent des Canadiens et que, contrairement au Parti réformiste, il croit que le gouvernement a un rôle à jouer pour aider les gens à trouver du travail, accusant le Parti réformiste de vouloir éliminer ces programmes pour accorder des réductions d'impôt aux riches.
Chrétien pivots entirely to a partisan contrast with the Reform Party's alleged intention to scrap social programs, with no engagement with the specific question about the human resources minister or rule-breaking.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are very careful with the money of Canadian people, but we are not like the Reform Party. We think the government has a role for the people who very seriously want to find jobs. We know very well what the Reform Party will do. It will scrap all these programs that are helping those who need it in Canada to give a tax break to the rich guy they want to support.
Duceppe a demandé comment un organisateur politique du Parti libéral a pu obtenir du ministère du Développement des ressources humaines des listes de demandes de subventions, alors qu'il est si difficile pour les députés d'obtenir des documents sur les projets approuvés, en faisant référence à l'affaire Corbeil.
Duceppe cites a specific named affair (the Corbeil affair) involving a political adviser obtaining grant application lists from HRDC, and asks a clear procedural question about how that access was possible while MPs struggle to get documents.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the current HRDC fiasco takes us back to the Corbeil affair, in which a political adviser obtained from the Department of Human Resources Development a list of grant applications which, according to the minister in charge at the time, was not confidential. Can the minister tell us today how it is that a political organizer from the Liberal Party came to be in possession of lists of grant applications when it is so hard for members to obtain documents concerning projects that were approved?
Stewart a dit que le cas particulier mentionné par le député avait été traité de manière appropriée à l'époque, avait été renvoyé à la GRC et avait été réglé par celle-ci.
Stewart acknowledges the specific case and notes it was referred to the RCMP and dealt with, which is minimally responsive but does not explain the access mechanism Duceppe asked about.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the particular case the hon. member makes reference to was handled appropriately at the time. It was referred to the RCMP and it has been dealt with by them.
Duceppe a demandé précisément si la ministre elle-même a fait son travail pour expliquer comment un organisateur libéral a pu facilement obtenir des listes de demandes de subventions de DRHC alors que les députés ne peuvent pas obtenir de documents sur les projets approuvés.
Duceppe sharpens the question by explicitly setting aside the RCMP outcome and focusing on the minister's own conduct — how Liberal organizers could so easily obtain lists MPs cannot access — making it a targeted accountability ask.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I know what happened. I do not wish to know whether he pleaded guilty or whether the RCMP did its job. I wish to know whether the minister herself did her job and whether she can reply to us today. How is it that it was so easy for a Liberal organizer to obtain such lists, when for the life of them members cannot obtain all the documents relevant to the projects that were approved?
Stewart a dit qu'elle fait son travail, qu'elle a pris au sérieux les informations fournies par la vérification, qu'elle a travaillé avec son ministère et des parties externes pour créer un plan afin de régler le problème, et que c'est ce que les Canadiens veulent.
Stewart asserts she is doing her job and references the audit and her action plan, but does not address the specific access disparity between Liberal organizers and MPs that Duceppe asked about.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have answered on a particular circumstance, but the hon. member asked if this minister is doing her job. I am doing my job. I took the information provided by this audit seriously. I have worked with my department and those outside to create a plan that would fix this problem. That is what Canadians want and that is what will be done.
Tremblay a demandé comment la ministre peut concilier les ordres qu'elle a donnés à son personnel de rendre publique l'information ministérielle avec le fait que les députés sont réduits à utiliser la Loi sur l'accès à l'information pour obtenir des renseignements plus crédibles.
Tremblay identifies a specific contradiction — the minister's orders to make departmental information public versus MPs being forced to use the Access to Information Act — and asks how she reconciles these, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very difficult to have a clear picture, when the information in the possession of Human Resources Development Canada is being given to us piecemeal, and members of parliament are reduced to getting their information through the Access to Information Act. Can the minister explain to us how she can reconcile the orders she gave to her staff to make departmental information public with the fact that MPs are reduced to relying on the Access to Information Act to get hold of more credible information?
Stewart a dit que le ministère s'efforce de regrouper l'information de manière efficace pour les députés, a noté que les programmes ne sont pas nécessairement classés par circonscription mais selon leur objectif, et s'est engagée à fournir de nouvelles informations utiles aux députés dès qu'elles seraient disponibles.
Stewart acknowledges working to pull information together for MPs and explains programs are not organized by riding, which is partially responsive, but does not address the contradiction between her stated orders and current practice.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I have said at committee and as I have said in the House, we are working with the department to see if indeed we can pull the information together in an effective way so it can be used by members of parliament. I want to remind the House that the programs we have are not necessarily kept by riding. They are focused on their intent: helping young people, helping Canadians with disabilities, helping those who want to find work. As I have said, we are working to try to see if we can provide new and useful information to members of parliament, and as it is available we will do so.
Tremblay a demandé à la ministre de confirmer que les députés libéraux disposent exactement des mêmes informations que les députés de l'opposition concernant les subventions de DRHC, et pas davantage.
Tremblay asks a pointed yes-or-no confirmatory question — whether Liberal MPs have exactly the same information as opposition MPs and no more — which is highly specific and directly testable.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to ask of the minister: can she confirm to this House that Liberal MPs have the same information as opposition MPs, and that they have no more than we have?
Stewart a dit que la Chambre et le comité ont demandé des informations, que des motions ont été adoptées par le comité et que le ministère s'efforce de répondre à ces demandes du mieux possible.
Stewart does not confirm or deny the premise, instead restating that committee motions have been passed for information and that the department is working to satisfy those interests, which entirely evades the direct yes-or-no question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the House and as I have said to the committee, they asked for information. There have been motions passed by the committee for information. We are working to be able to satisfy those interests and to the best of our ability we will do that.
McDonough a demandé si le Premier ministre se rendra dans les Prairies avant le budget pour constater lui-même le désespoir des familles agricoles, en établissant un parallèle avec les réponses fédérales aux inondations du Saguenay et aux tempêtes de verglas en Ontario et au Québec.
McDonough's question is primarily rhetorical and hortatory — urging the Prime Minister to visit the prairies before the budget — without citing specific data on the farm crisis or demanding a particular policy commitment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister took the time to wrap himself in the Canadian flag. I wonder if the Prime Minister will take the time today to concern himself with the plight of farm families on the prairies. When there was flooding in the Saguenay, Canadians pulled together. When there were ice storms in Quebec and Ontario, Canadians pulled together. I wonder whether in that same spirit and before the budget the Prime Minister will finally go to the prairies to see for himself the desperation on family farms on the prairies.
Chrétien a cité le milliard de dollars versé sur deux ans pour aider la situation agricole et a dit que le gouvernement fédéral contribuerait à un programme spécial si un gouvernement provincial le demandait expressément et était prêt à y contribuer.
Chrétien references $1 billion over two years provided for the farm situation and explains the federal willingness to contribute to special provincial programs, which is partially relevant but does not address the specific request that he visit the prairies.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we did the same thing in Manitoba when there was a big flood. In fact we gave a billion dollars over two years a few weeks ago in order to help that situation. I said that if there is a very specific problem that is important to any provincial government and if they want to contribute to a special program, we will contribute to the special program. But they have the responsibility to say to the federal government to take it over. We have done it to the tune of $1 billion and the money will be available to the farmers for their planting through the program. The program—
McDonough a fait valoir que tous les partis politiques en Saskatchewan, y compris le Parti libéral, conviennent que le gouvernement fédéral doit prendre les devants, et a demandé pourquoi le Premier ministre ne se rendra pas dans les Prairies avant le budget pour constater lui-même la profondeur de la crise.
McDonough cites all-party Saskatchewan agreement on federal leadership and challenges the adequacy of the federal response, but her core ask — will the PM visit the prairies — remains the same hortatory request from Exchange 10 rather than a new specific demand.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, all of the political parties in Saskatchewan, including the Liberal Party, agree that the federal government must take the lead. The federal government must take the next step. If the Prime Minister thinks that the federal government's response to the prairie farm crisis has been adequate, then he clearly does not understand the depth of the crisis. That is why the Prime Minister needs to go to the prairies and see for himself before the budget. Why—
Chrétien a dit que le gouvernement est conscient du grave problème, que le gouvernement fédéral fournit 60 % des fonds actuellement disponibles, et qu'une décision a été prise pour permettre aux agriculteurs d'accéder à l'argent tôt pour la saison des semailles, avec une ouverture à des programmes supplémentaires si les provinces veulent contribuer.
Chrétien provides a more substantive response by citing the federal government providing 60% of available funds and a program enabling early farmer access to money for the seeding season, though he still does not address the request to visit the prairies.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there is a serious problem. We have acted. The federal government is providing 60% of the money that is available at this moment to resolve this difficulty. It is a very difficult problem. We have made a decision that will permit the farmers to have access to money early so they can have the money for the seeding season. The program is in place. If the provincial governments think they need something else or they want a different program, I already said that if they want to put money—
MacKay a demandé comment la ministre peut justifier les 2 millions de dollars de fonds publics accordés à RMH Teleservices et à Duchess Foods, notant que Duchess Foods a été attirée de la circonscription de Hamilton Mountain dans la circonscription de la ministre au coût de 370 000 $.
MacKay cites two specific companies (RMH Teleservices and Duchess Foods), a total dollar figure ($2 million), and a specific sub-amount ($370,000) for Duchess Foods lured from Hamilton Mountain, making this a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, two companies, RMH Teleservices and Duchess Foods, moved to the HRDC minister's riding and between them received $2 million of taxpayers' money. Duchess Foods was lured into the minister's riding from the riding of her colleague from Hamilton Mountain at a cost of $370,000. How can the minister justify this flagrant misuse of public money?
Stewart a dit qu'elle est fière, en tant que députée de Brant, que le fonds de transition dans l'emploi et le Fonds canadien pour l'emploi aient offert des débouchés dans sa circonscription, et que dans les deux cas, des hommes et des femmes qui n'avaient pas travaillé depuis des années ont maintenant un emploi.
Stewart defends the transitional jobs fund and Canada jobs fund in general terms, expresses pride as member for Brant, and says the programs created employment, but does not address the allegation of flagrant misuse or the luring of jobs from a colleague's riding.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in my place as the member of parliament for Brant to say that the transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund have made a difference in providing opportunities for employment for the people of my riding. In both of these cases men and women who have not had the opportunity to work for years are now employed. That is what these programs were intended to do.
MacKay a demandé comment la circonscription de la ministre a pu être admissible au financement du fonds de transition dans l'emploi avec un taux de chômage de 8 % en 1995, et pourquoi elle a bénéficié d'un traitement préférentiel alors que les autres députés ne peuvent pas obtenir de données sur le chômage au niveau de la circonscription auprès des bureaux de DRHC.
MacKay makes a sharp specific accountability challenge: citing an 8% unemployment rate in the minister's riding in 1995 and noting that HRDC information is only available by economic region for other MPs, he asks how her riding qualified for transitional jobs fund funding and why she received preferential treatment.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why she would be proud to take jobs from her colleague's riding. The minister has quoted unemployment statistics for her riding in 1995. Surely similar information should be available to all MPs, not just Liberal MPs. When several of our MPs called their local HRDC offices, they found that this information is only available by economic region. In 1995 the unemployment rate in the minister's riding was 8%. How then did she qualify for TJF funding? Why did the minister get preferential treatment?
Stewart a dit que les statistiques compilées par Statistique Canada étaient disponibles pour sa circonscription et que c'est l'information qui a été utilisée.
Stewart confirms that Statistics Canada statistics were available for her riding and were used, which is minimally responsive, but does not explain how an 8% unemployment rate qualified her riding for transitional jobs fund funding or address the preferential treatment allegation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, indeed the statistics as compiled by Statistics Canada were available for my riding and that is the information that was used.
Strahl a demandé pourquoi il existe un ensemble de règles pour le Premier ministre et son cabinet et un autre pour le reste des Canadiens, citant une note bureaucratique indiquant que la subvention pour la fontaine était contraire aux règles mais a quand même été accordée parce que le Premier ministre l'avait demandé, et établissant un parallèle avec la subvention pour l'hôtel où aucune demande n'avait jamais été trouvée.
Strahl draws a specific parallel between the hotel grant (no application found) and the $200,000 fountain in Shawinigan, and references a bureaucratic memo noting the request was outside the rules but proceeded because the Prime Minister asked, making the accountability ask reasonably grounded.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it does seem that we have seen this movie before. The Prime Minister and his office sent a letter to the bureaucrats asking for money but of course there is no application actually on file. What happens? The bureaucrats write back a hurried memo saying that while it is outside the rules, the Prime Minister asked for it so they had better get moving. The last time he wanted money was for a hotel in his riding. We remember that deal. He got the grant even though no application was ever found. This time it is a $200,000 fountain in Shawinigan. Why is there one set of rules for the Prime Minister and his cabinet and another set of rules for the rest of Canadians?
Chrétien a précisé que le projet de fontaine est financé par l'agence de développement régional pour le Québec, et non par DRHC, et qu'il s'agit d'une coentreprise entre les gouvernements fédéral, provincial et municipal, et non d'une décision fédérale unilatérale.
Chrétien provides a partial substantive clarification — the fountain is financed through Canada economic development, not HRDC, and is a joint venture among three levels of government — but does not address the claim about rules being set aside because the PMO asked.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, this is a project. Reform members should do their homework. It is not with the department of human resources but with regional development agency for Quebec. This project is financed like the infrastructure project was, partly by the federal government, partly by the provincial government and partly by the municipal government. It is a joint venture. The three levels of government made an agreement. That is why the project exists. It is not a unilateral decision by the government. It is a joint venture by the three levels of government which are working together to make sure the people of that region can enjoy jobs like anywhere else in the country.
Strahl a demandé pourquoi il existe un ensemble de règles pour le Premier ministre et le banc du cabinet tandis que le reste des Canadiens doit toujours respecter les règles, alléguant que la tolérance du PM envers les entorses aux règles explique les problèmes de la ministre de DRHC, notamment les fonds fiduciaires illégaux, l'attraction d'emplois et l'ignorance des vérifications.
Strahl's question is largely rhetorical, stringing together multiple accusations (illegal trust funds, luring jobs, ignoring audits) without specific documentary grounding, and repeating the one-set-of-rules formulation from Exchange 14.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister makes my point. It does not matter which department. This problem goes right to the Prime Minister's office and throughout the government. It is no wonder the HRDC minister has such a problem in her department. When she sets up illegal trust funds there is no reaction over there—
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, she uses public money to lure jobs from other people's ridings and ignores audits not only in her own department but in the last department she ran. Why does she do that? Because she does not get any problem from the Prime Minister. He says that this kind of stuff is okay. In fact he bends the rules in his own riding. Why is there one set of rules for the Prime Minister and the front bench while the rest of Canadians have to play by the rules every single time?
Chrétien a dit que les règles s'appliquent à tout le monde des deux côtés de la Chambre, que toutes les circonscriptions peuvent demander et recevoir des subventions lorsqu'elles sont admissibles, et a suggéré que le chef du Parti réformiste est en difficulté parce qu'il tente de se débarrasser de ce qu'on appelle le Parti réformiste pour en créer un nouveau.
Chrétien responds with a partisan attack on the Reform Party's internal leadership struggles and a generic claim that money sometimes flows more to opposition ridings, with no substantive engagement with any of the specific allegations.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the rules apply to everybody on both sides of the House. They are always asking questions. I know why their leader is struggling and trying to get rid of what is known as the Reform Party and starting a new one. In every riding we can make applications and receive grants when we qualify, ministers and members on both sides of the aisle. In fact, with some of these funds, very often more money goes to the ridings of the opposition than to the ridings of the government side.
Pourquoi utilise-t-on le taux mensuel actuel pour les chômeurs, alors qu'on utilise des taux périmés de 1995 et 1997 pour accorder des subventions aux entreprises dans le cadre du fonds transitoire de création d'emplois et du fonds canadien pour l'emploi?
Crête identifies a specific inconsistency cited by the minister the previous day — monthly rates for the unemployed versus outdated 1995/1997 rates for business grants — and asks for a concrete explanation.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister said in this House that the unemployment rate used for the transitional jobs fund was the 1995 rate and that the rate for the Canada jobs fund was the 1997 rate. How does the minister explain that the monthly rate is used for the unemployed and a rate outdated by several years is used for grants to business?
Oh, oh.
Stewart a confirmé que le fonds transitoire de création d'emplois utilisait les statistiques de 1995 et le fonds canadien pour l'emploi celles de 1997, précisant que les critères s'appliquent de la même façon à toutes les circonscriptions.
Stewart restates the two different base years but does not explain the rationale for the discrepancy between how rates are applied to individuals versus businesses.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the program criteria have to be based on something and in this case it was 1995—
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the program criteria for the transitional jobs fund were based on employment statistics for 1995. The program criteria for the Canada jobs fund were based on statistics for 1997. It is the same for ridings on this side of the House as it is for ridings on that side.
Comment la ministre explique-t-elle la contradiction apparente entre la chasse aux chômeurs par son ministère et le suivi administratif négligent des subventions aux entreprises?
The question uses rhetorical framing ('frantic rush,' 'shamelessly little attention') and the ask — explaining a disparity in enforcement rigour — is implicit rather than pointed.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain the questionable efficiency of her department in the frantic rush to hunt down the unemployed, when shamelessly little attention is given to the administrative follow-up of grants to business?
Why not define?
Stewart a affirmé que les programmes fonctionnent dans toutes les circonscriptions, y compris celles du Bloc, et a brièvement retracé la transition chronologique du fonds transitoire de création d'emplois vers le fonds canadien pour l'emploi.
Stewart does not address the alleged disparity between enforcement against the unemployed and lax administrative follow-up of business grants, instead asserting the programs are working.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the programs are working. They are working in our ridings. They are working in the ridings of the Bloc members. It is thanks to programs like the transitional jobs fund, like the Canada jobs—
Mr. Speaker, the criteria applied are the same in ridings whether they be opposition ridings or government ridings. The transitional jobs fund came into vogue in 1995 with the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. It transitioned itself into the Canada jobs fund in 1997 and the rules are there.
Pourquoi la ministre a-t-elle utilisé le fonds transitoire de création d'emplois pour offrir 370 000 $ à Duchess Foods afin d'attirer l'entreprise, à seulement 30 kilomètres de Hamilton, dans sa propre circonscription, non pas pour créer des emplois mais pour soigner son image?
Ablonczy cites a specific company (Duchess Foods), a specific dollar figure ($370,000), a specific distance (30 kilometres), and a specific claim that the move did not create new jobs, making for a reasonably grounded accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, we could pursue that for sure but I would really like to know about the transitional jobs fund and why the minister is making it into the transfer of jobs funds. She used it to lure Duchess Foods from Hamilton into her own riding, a whole distance of 30 kilometres by the way, not to create jobs but to bolster the minister's image. The only reason the company moved was because the minister dangled $370,000 in front of it. How could this possibly benefit Canadians who are footing the bill?
Oh, oh.
Stewart a dit être fière que l'investissement ait permis à 156 citoyens d'obtenir un emploi, et a accusé le Parti réformiste de critiquer le fonds tout en sollicitant des fonds en privé pour leurs propres circonscriptions.
Stewart defends the investment by citing 156 jobs created but does not address the allegation that the company was lured from Hamilton to her own riding rather than genuine job creation, nor the 30-kilometre relocation claim.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I say again that I am very proud of the investment that went to this company and ensured that 156 citizens of my community who were not working before now have employment. The real issue here is that day after day the Reform Party stands up and undermines the effect of the transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund, but day after day I received phone calls from the offices of individual members and letters from the offices of individual members. The Reform Party cannot suck and blow at the same time.
Pourquoi les Canadiens devraient-ils payer pour que la ministre attire des entreprises — Duchess Foods et un centre d'appels international venu de Sarnia — dans sa propre circonscription à des fins politiques?
Ablonczy adds a second specific example (an international call centre from Sarnia) to the Duchess Foods allegation and frames a direct question about using public money for the minister's political benefit, though the rhetorical charge reduces sharpness.
Texte source
What did she say? We did not get the translation.
Mr. Speaker, the minister should not be surprised that the opposition is calling her office to find out why she is mismanaging Canadians' money. And speaking of—
Oh, oh.
Speaking of sucking and blowing, Mr. Speaker, this minister is very good at—
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker, this minister seems awfully good at sucking jobs from other ridings into her own with public money. She lured Duchess Foods and she lured an international call centre from Sarnia into her riding. My question is very simple. Why should other Canadians be taxed to feed this minister's political ego?
Stewart a affirmé que les programmes fonctionnent dans sa circonscription, puis a lu une lettre du député réformiste de Skeena appuyant une demande au fonds canadien pour l'emploi en vue de créer 70 emplois à temps plein.
Stewart does not address the Sarnia call centre allegation at all, instead pivoting to read from a letter from the Reform MP for Skeena supporting a Canada jobs fund application, which is a classic deflection.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the programs are working in my riding and I am very glad, as are the members and constituents of the riding of Brant. The hon. member suggests that members of the Reform Party are phoning to ask about the internal audit, which they are not. They appreciate, as does the hon. member, that we have a plan that is going to work. What they are calling about are programs like the one on my desk right now from the riding of Skeena. The hon. member for Skeena wrote last fall saying “As member of parliament for Skeena, I wish to extend my support for Prince Rupert Custom Processors Limited”. The member went on to say that the creation of a minimum of 70 full time new jobs—
Comment le ministère de la ministre peut-il être si efficace pour traquer les chômeurs et si incompétent dans la gestion d'un processus d'approbation de subventions de plusieurs milliards de dollars, compte tenu de sa propre déclaration sur un problème informatique?
Gagnon holds the minister to her own prior public statement about a computer problem and asks a pointed comparative question about administrative capacity, though the framing remains somewhat rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister took us by surprise with her statement that a computer problem could have left the impression that a number of projects were approved several months after receiving grants. I would like the minister to explain how her department and its computer system can be so adept at going after unemployed workers and so ham-handed when a grant approval process involving billions of dollars is involved?
Stewart a déclaré que son ministère prend la vérification interne au sérieux, qu'un plan d'action est en cours de mise en œuvre et que le vérificateur général estime qu'il fonctionnera.
Stewart acknowledges the internal audit issue and the six-point action plan and notes the auditor general's endorsement, but does not address the specific computer-problem explanation she gave or the disparity in administrative rigour.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on this particular issue that has been raised in the House with regard to the internal audit, we are taking it seriously. We have a plan of action that is now being implemented. The auditor general says it is going to work. As the minister, I will ensure that the problem gets fixed.
Lorsque la ministre a décrit son ministère comme étant à l'âge des cavernes sur le plan de la gestion, visait-elle les problèmes informatiques, les méthodes administratives, les directives de l'ancien sous-ministre Mel Cappe, celles de l'ancien ministre (maintenant ministre du Commerce international) ou tout cela à la fois?
Gagnon asks the minister to specify which of several named factors — computer problems, administrative methods, directives from named former deputy minister Mel Cappe, or the former minister — explains the department's dysfunction, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the minister was telling us how her department had been in the dark ages as far as management was concerned, was she referring to computer problems, administrative methods, directives from the then deputy minister, Mel Cappe, directives from the then minister, who is now the Minister for International Trade, or all of the above?
Stewart a énuméré l'importance générale des programmes du DRHC et a déclaré que son rôle est d'assurer une base administrative solide grâce au plan en six points, sans aborder aucun individu nommé ni facteur précis.
Stewart does not address any of the specific factors named — the computer problems, Mel Cappe, or the former minister — and instead gives a general defence of HRDC programs and the six-point plan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the work and investments made by the Department of Human Resources Development Canada are extraordinarily important across the country, whether they be grants and contributions, support for children and young people, skills development, employment insurance or old age security. Those are incredibly important and valuable investments that Canadians make on our behalf. My job is to ensure that the foundation of our administration is strong. With the six point plan and our focused attack on this issue, we will ensure that is done.
Pourquoi la ministre n'a-t-elle rien fait lorsqu'elle a reçu plus de 50 plaintes concernant des fonds manquants, une comptabilité bâclée, une ingérence politique et des conflits d'intérêts possibles liés aux fonds du DRHC versés au Conseil provincial des Métis de la C.-B., et pourquoi n'a-t-elle rien fait depuis qu'elle est ministre du DRHC?
Hill cites specific facts — over 50 complaints received by the minister when she was at Indian Affairs, named organization (Metis Provincial Council of B.C.), and specific categories of problems (missing funds, sloppy bookkeeping, political interference, conflicts of interest) — and asks why the minister did nothing.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Human Resources Development was busy with Indian Affairs and Northern Development, she knew about problems with millions of dollars that were funnelled from HRDC to the Metis Provincial Council of B.C. In fact she received over 50 complaints from the Metis regarding, guess what, missing funds, sloppy bookkeeping, political interference and possible conflicts of interests. What did the minister do? She did nothing. What has she done about this since she became minister of HRDC? She has done nothing. Why does the minister do nothing about complaints, warnings and audits until they receive media exposure?
Stewart a affirmé que le député a tort, qu'une vérification par un tiers a été effectuée par Consulting and Audit Canada et que des travaux se poursuivent avec la nation métisse pour traiter les questions soulevées.
Stewart disputes the characterisation and mentions a third-party audit by Consulting and Audit Canada and ongoing work with the Metis nation, which is partial engagement but does not address why nothing was done before media exposure.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is wrong. In reference to this issue, a third party audit was done by Consulting and Audit Canada. We are working with the Metis nation to improve the relationship we have with them and to deal with the issues that have been brought forward on that account.
Étant donné que la vérification du programme des Métis a révélé que les politiques internes, les procédures et la surveillance n'étaient pas en place ou n'étaient pas respectées — ce qui reflète les conclusions de la vérification générale du DRHC — pourquoi la ministre n'admet-elle pas qu'elle est dépassée et ne démissionne-t-elle pas?
Hill quotes directly from the Metis audit ('internal policies, procedures and monitoring were either not in place or not being followed') and draws a pattern between two audits, but the call to resign makes the ask politically unanswerable.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister mentioned the audit because the audit of the Metis program stated “internal policies, procedures and monitoring were either not in place or not being followed”, referring to things such as nepotism, missing documents, missing applications. Does that sound familiar? Two audits, two programs, same minister. Does the House see a pattern here? With her disastrous track record, why does the minister not just admit that she is way out of her league and resign?
Stewart a rejeté catégoriquement tout ce que le député a dit et a réaffirmé la conviction du gouvernement de travailler avec les particuliers et les organisations, s'engageant à garantir des pratiques administratives appropriées pour les subventions et contributions.
Stewart categorically rejects the member's characterisation without engaging the quoted audit language or the pattern argument, offering only a general defence of the government's ability to help Canadians.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject everything the hon. member has said here. On this side of the House, we believe that the Government of Canada can work with individuals and organizations to make a difference in the lives of Canadians. We will continue to stand up for that, and I, as minister of Human Resources Development Canada, will ensure that in the area of grants and contributions we have an administrative practice and process in place that will support these very important programs.
Le premier ministre va-t-il ignorer l'avertissement du Dr Pierre Gauthier de la Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec selon lequel la santé est de compétence provinciale et qu'il appartient aux provinces de définir leurs politiques de santé, comme il ignore les provinces?
Ménard cites a specific letter from a named official (Dr. Pierre Gauthier, president of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec) invoking constitutional jurisdiction, and asks whether the Prime Minister will ignore this warning.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has received a letter from Dr. Pierre Gauthier, the president of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Quebec, calling on the government to abandon its plan to increase funding for home care. Dr. Gauthier reminded him that health is a provincial jurisdiction and that, under the Constitution, it is up to the provinces to define their health policies. Is the Prime Minister going to ignore this warning from medical specialists, just as he is continuing to ignore what the provinces think?
Rock a déclaré que le statu quo en matière de services de santé est inacceptable, que des idées ont été soumises valables pour le Québec et ailleurs, et qu'il a invité ses homologues provinciaux, dont Mme Marois, à une réunion dans quelques semaines.
Rock acknowledges the status quo is unacceptable and invites provincial counterparts to a meeting, but does not address the constitutional jurisdiction argument raised by Dr. Gauthier or directly answer whether the Prime Minister will heed the warning.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the present state of health services is unacceptable. The status quo is unacceptable. We have put certain ideas on the table with a view to improving the situation and I think that these ideas are valid both in Quebec and elsewhere. I have invited my counterparts to a meeting in a few weeks' time and I hope that Mrs. Marois will be there.
Le ministre des Affaires étrangères peut-il informer la Chambre de ce que le Canada fait pour mettre fin aux souffrances humaines en Tchétchénie?
This is a government-backbench softball asking what Canada is doing about Chechnya, providing a platform for the minister rather than holding him to account.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, over the past few months many of my constituents, in particular organizations like the Polish Canadian Women's Federation, the Polish Combatants Association and the Polish Canadian Congress, have been expressing great concern about the human suffering in the Russian Republic of Chechnya. Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what Canada is doing to end this human suffering?
Axworthy a expliqué que le premier ministre a soulevé la question de la Tchétchénie lors des réunions de l'OSCE en novembre, que l'ACDI a annoncé des programmes humanitaires, qu'il a lui-même abordé la question avec le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères il y a deux semaines et qu'il a pressé la Russie d'enquêter sur les atrocités présumées conformément au droit international.
Axworthy provides substantive detail: the Prime Minister raised the issue at OSCE in November, CIDA announced humanitarian programs, Axworthy personally raised it with the Russian foreign minister two weeks prior, and he pressed for investigation of alleged atrocities under international law.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, last November the Prime Minister directly raised this question with the Russian leadership during the OSCE meetings. Following that, the minister for CIDA announced major humanitarian programs that would be allowed. Two weeks ago I had the opportunity to raise directly with the Russian foreign minister following on the Prime Minister's position that it is important to care about the civilians in that area, and in doing so, provide an opening for humanitarian intervention. I think it is also incumbent upon the Russians to provide proper investigation of alleged atrocities in that area so that they can really live up to their commitments under international law.
Pourquoi la circonscription de Vancouver-Est était-elle admissible à une subvention d'emploi de 500 000 $ lorsqu'elle était libérale deux semaines avant les élections, mais s'est-on vu dire qu'elle n'était plus admissible une fois que les électeurs ont élu un député d'opposition?
Meredith cites a specific $500,000 grant, a specific timing (two weeks before the last election), a specific riding (Vancouver East), and the specific allegation that eligibility changed with the political affiliation of the MP.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, two weeks before the last election when the riding of Vancouver East was still in Liberal hands, it received a $500,000 job grant. However, when the voters of Vancouver East tossed out their Liberal member of parliament, they were informed that they did not qualify for any job grant. Could the minister tell us why this constituency qualified for job grants when it was a Liberal riding, but was told it did not qualify for job grants when it was an opposition riding?
Stewart a confirmé que le projet a créé 18 emplois dans une circonscription pauvre qui a besoin d'aide, et a déclaré qu'à ce jour aucune demande au fonds canadien pour l'emploi n'a été reçue de cette circonscription.
Stewart confirms the project created 18 jobs and states there have been no requests from that riding for Canada jobs funds, but does not address the core allegation that eligibility criteria changed when the riding switched from Liberal to opposition.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to confirm that the project in the riding did create 18 jobs and did make a difference in that very poor riding that needs assistance. To date there have been no requests from that riding for Canada jobs funds.
Étant donné que la propre vérification de la ministre a révélé que 15 % des subventions n'avaient pas de formulaire de demande, et que les données du recensement montrent que 34,9 % des familles de Vancouver-Est sont à faible revenu contre seulement 13,2 % dans sa circonscription de Brant, pourquoi Brant reçoit-elle des millions en financement pour l'emploi alors que Vancouver-Est ne reçoit rien?
Meredith cites her own department's audit (15% of grants without application forms), specific census data (13.2% low-income families in Brant vs. 34.9% in Vancouver East), and specific dollar contrasts, making this a well-grounded accountability question.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, since the minister's own audit said that 15% of the grants given out did not even have application forms, why should Vancouver East be the only one that requires an application form? The 1996 census shows that only 13.2% of the families in the minister's riding of Brant were considered low income, yet her riding gets millions of dollars in job funding. By contrast, in Vancouver East, 34.9% of families are considered low income, yet this minister gives them not one single penny. Why do the people in the minister's riding get millions of dollars but the people in Vancouver East get nothing?
Stewart s'est contentée d'affirmer que les habitants de Vancouver-Est ont effectivement reçu des millions de dollars, sans fournir de données à l'appui ni d'explication.
Stewart's one-sentence answer — 'the people of Vancouver East did get millions of dollars' — is a bare assertion that directly contradicts the premise without providing any data, explanation, or engagement with the census figures cited.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is so interested, I am glad to confirm that the people of Vancouver East did get millions of dollars.
Le ministre de l'Industrie fera-t-il quelque chose pour aider les consommateurs lésés par le grand cartel pétrolier face aux prix record de l'essence, du diesel et du mazout, comme l'a fait le secrétaire américain à l'Énergie avec une aide d'urgence de plus de 250 millions de dollars?
Solomon cites a U.S. comparison ($250 million emergency aid), references record gasoline and diesel prices and doubled home heating oil costs, and contrasts $20 million for hockey players, but the ask is vague and the framing is heavily rhetorical.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, gasoline and diesel prices are at record levels and home heating oil has doubled. Consumers are being shafted by the OPEC cartel and the big oil companies and the Liberals do nothing about it. Today the U.S. energy secretary ordered extra home heating oil into New England and offered emergency aid of over $250 million to help low income families pay their heating bills. The industry minister found $20 million for millionaire hockey players, but will he do anything to help consumers being gouged by the big oil cartel, or will he allow Canadians to freeze in the dark?
Manley a noté que les provinces ont compétence pour réglementer les prix de détail si elles le souhaitent, a cité l'Île-du-Prince-Édouard en exemple et a suggéré à Solomon de poser la question à son propre gouvernement néo-démocrate en Saskatchewan.
Manley deflects by pointing to provincial jurisdiction and NDP Saskatchewan's own failure to regulate retail pricing, rather than outlining any federal action on consumer energy prices.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear from a member of the New Democratic Party from Saskatchewan, knowing the responsibility that the provinces have, if they wish to do so, to impose regulations on retail pricing. The province of Prince Edward Island has chosen to do it, but in Saskatchewan the NDP do not seem to have the will to do it. Perhaps the hon. member might like to address the question to his own government.
Compte tenu de l'avertissement de la Banque du Canada selon lequel la hausse des coûts énergétiques pourrait faire dépasser le taux d'inflation de 3 %, quel est le plan d'action du gouvernement libéral pour défendre l'économie contre l'OPEP et protéger les Canadiens des prix énergétiques records?
Solomon raises the Bank of Canada's warning about inflation exceeding 3%, frames energy as underpinning the economy, and asks for a specific federal action plan, but the question remains largely rhetorical in tone.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal government believes this issue is serious, it would call in all the provinces and all the oil companies and hammer out a solution or lay down the law. Instead, the minister passes the buck. The Bank of Canada is warning that rising energy costs can push our inflation rate over 3%, threatening everyone from families to businesses and local school boards. Energy is the underpinning of our economy. What is the Liberal action plan to defend our economy from OPEC and to defend Canadians from the impact of record energy prices?
Manley a noté que les prix du brut étaient passés d'environ 10 $ à 30 $ le baril, a reconnu que le problème ne peut être résolu en contrôlant les prix mondiaux et a déclaré que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux ont discuté ensemble de la question.
Manley provides some factual context (crude oil at $10/barrel a year and a half ago vs. $30 now), acknowledges the consumer concern, and mentions federal-provincial discussions, but offers no specific action plan.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, that was a lot of rhetoric. If the hon. member had looked at the newspapers he might have noticed that a year and a half ago crude prices were about $10 a barrel and today they are quoted at $30 a barrel. I know that the NDP believes governments are omnipotent and can control world prices. I do not think that we can do that. That is not to say that this is not a problem which consumers across Canada are concerned about. It is one which we have in fact worked on with the provinces. Provincial and federal governments have discussed this issue together. I think it would be helpful if the hon. member did a little homework on this before rising in hysteria.
Pourquoi la circonscription de la ministre a-t-elle bénéficié d'un traitement spécial en vertu d'un critère de 'poches de chômage' que les bureaux du DRHC au Nouveau-Brunswick ne semblent même pas reconnaître?
Dubé cites a specific call to HRDC offices in New Brunswick where staff were unaware of 'pockets' of unemployment, raising a concrete inconsistency about how the minister's riding qualified under criteria that appear to be unknown to the department itself.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, the minister of HRDC keeps referring to her riding as having pockets of unemployment which qualify for the TJF. I called the HRDC offices in New Brunswick and when I said “pockets” they asked “What are you talking about?” They do not seem to exist in all provinces—
Mr. Speaker, why was her riding given special consideration? Why the favouritism?
Stewart a souligné que la circonscription de Saint John, représentée par un député d'opposition, a également reçu des fonds du fonds transitoire de création d'emplois en raison de zones périphériques de chômage élevé dans cette communauté.
Stewart points to the riding of Saint John (opposition) also receiving transitional jobs funds due to outlying high unemployment areas, which partially addresses the favouritism allegation but does not explain why New Brunswick HRDC offices were unaware of the 'pockets' criteria.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be interested in knowing that another pocket of high unemployment was found in the riding of the hon. member for Saint John. She too got transitional jobs funds as a result of outlying high unemployment areas in that community in which opportunities were provided.
M. Dubé cite quatre mois de données sur le chômage à Brant (août–décembre) montrant des chiffres qui, selon lui, prouvent que la circonscription ne satisfaisait pas aux critères des subventions de DRHC, contestant ainsi l'utilisation sélective des données par la ministre lundi.
The question cites specific monthly unemployment figures (11.8%, 11.8%, 10.8%, 11.4%) for five months to contest the minister's Monday claim that Brant qualified under HRDC grant rules, making a clear factual challenge.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the minister responsible for HRDC used selective data for Brant to justify HRDC grants. Let me tell the House the rest of the story for five months: August, 11.8%; September, 11.8%; October, 10.8%; and December, 11.4% With these numbers she does not qualify.
La ministre Stewart réaffirme simplement que Brant satisfaisait aux règles et exprime sa fierté envers les programmes de fonds de transition pour l'emploi et de fonds canadiens pour l'emploi, sans aborder les chiffres mensuels spécifiques.
The minister simply reasserts that Brant 'did qualify according to the rules' without engaging the specific monthly figures cited by Mr. Dubé, then pivots to personal pride in the programs and constituent testimonials.
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, let me confirm that indeed the riding of Brant did qualify according to the rules. I again stand in my place and say that I am proud, as a member of parliament, to have had these programs that have made a difference in the lives of many of my constituents. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that back home they know the value of transitional jobs funds and Canada jobs funds.
Les députés ont salué une présence à la tribune par des acclamations; aucune question n'a été posée et aucun échange de fond n'a eu lieu.
- Some hon. members
Texte source
Hear, hear.
Don Boudria, leader du gouvernement à la Chambre des communes, a invoqué le Règlement pour désigner officiellement le 17 février comme jour désigné.
- Lib Don Boudria
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to inform the House that I am designating tomorrow, February 17, as an allotted day.
M. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NPD) a invoqué le Règlement pour faire valoir que le temps perdu en raison du désordre pendant la période des questions pénalise de façon disproportionnée les petits partis, qui perdent une plus grande part de leurs questions allouées, et a demandé au Président d'intervenir plus fermement en passant à la suite sans longues exhortations lorsque les députés ne respectent pas ses décisions. M. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC), Mme Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Réf.), M. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ) et M. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg-Nord—St. Paul, Lib.) ont tous appuyé un meilleur ordre et des interventions plus rapides de la présidence; Mme Ablonczy a également soutenu que les députés ne devraient pas être interrompus en raison du bruit causé par d'autres, et M. Bergeron a déploré le ton utilisé par la leader parlementaire du NPD envers le Président.
- NDP Mr. Bill Blaikie
- PC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Ref Mrs. Diane Ablonczy
- BQ Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
- Lib Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I thought I would rise on a brief point of order related to what has been happening in question period the last few days. I rise partly out of concern for the whole House, but partly to make a specific case for the smaller parties. It is a case I have made before. Mr. Speaker, as you know, if you have to take a lot of time standing, waiting for order, that uses up time which would otherwise go toward questions and answers. If we do not get to the so-called third round, that is to say, the third opportunity for the smaller parties, the smaller parties then lose a much larger percentage of the time for questions that is available to them than the Reform Party and the Bloc. I submit empirically, and not in any partisan way, that it is just the nature of the place, that most of the banter, the noise and the shouting—although we contribute from time to time, the same as the Conservatives—takes place between the government and the two major opposition parties. In effect, we as a smaller party are punished for behaviour to which we are only minor contributors, if you like. I think this accumulates day over day into a form of unfairness which I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to address. I am asking you to be tougher with the House in this respect, in terms of order. I am pleading with my fellow House leaders and fellow colleagues. We do not need the level of racket in this place that has come to characterize it. We cannot hear each other. There is too much cheap hollering going on when people are trying to listen. I do not like a lot of the answers that are given, or for that matter a lot of the questions, but I would like to hear them. If we cannot do that, then what is the point of being here? I implore you, Mr. Speaker, to be tougher with members. If you ask members not to say something and they say it, move on. Do not stand there and plead with them for minutes and use up minutes that belong to the smaller parties. If you ask people to move to their question and they do not move to their question, if the next sentence that comes out of their mouth is not in an interrogatory form, move on. They will get the message. They will stop doing it. I think we need less exhortation and more punishment. That is what has to happen in the House. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider what I have said.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but echo the same sentiments of the House leader of the New Democratic Party. There is a disproportionate price that is paid by the smaller parties as a result of the system and the process that has evolved. When question period is cut short due to the racket, it is the two last questioners in the House who inevitably lose their questions. As has already been pointed out—and I think the government House leader would support this position—there should be an intervention on the part of the Chair because the acquiescence, in essence, hurts parties that are not causing the problem and we are paying a disproportionate price. To lose one question out of a possible five or six is a huge portion of the amount of floor time that we have in the House of Commons. I would echo that sentiment and ask that the Chair be more diligent in interventions if questions are not posed properly. If time is being wasted we should move to the next party or the next questioner.
Mr. Speaker, there is something being lost, which is the fact that if members on the government side make a lot of noise and I, as was the case today, am penalized because of their noise, I cannot get my question out and I cannot make the points that I carefully considered before even asking the question. If I am then cut off and directed to move right to the question because of the misdemeanour of Liberals, that is not fair. I carefully consider what I want to put to the minister. I have a complete package and if I am cut off because of their misdemeanour that is not equitable. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that when you consider this point of order you also consider the fact that my rights are being interfered with inappropriately when I am cut off because of noise from the government benches.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make three comments on the matter we are addressing at this time. First of all, I must say that I feel a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the NDP and Progressive Conservative House leaders. I do feel that time wasted in this House results in missed opportunities for questions, not just for the two smallest opposition parties, but also for the other two opposition parties. This is indeed most regrettable. I would, however, like you to also take into consideration the point of view expressed by our Reform Party colleague, who has just said something I am in complete agreement with. As members of the opposition, when we ask a question, we must not be taken hostage by the lack of discipline of the Liberals, which might result in question period being speeded up. We have to be careful about that. The third point I would like to raise is that, while I have every sympathy for the point of view of the NDP House Leader, I strongly deplore the tone in which she addressed you, Mr. Speaker; it was cavalier to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, let me add my thoughts to the debate on this point of order. I agree that decorum is a bulwark of democracy. Civilized behaviour during question period enhances our image in parliament. Mr. Speaker, when you make a ruling and advise any member, whether the member occupies a position of title or not, that ruling truly must be upheld immediately. With that kind of decision, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's chair will earn the greater respect of parliament and Canadians.
M. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Réf.) a invoqué le Règlement en indiquant qu'il a fallu neuf minutes pour que le désordre du côté gouvernemental se calme suffisamment pour que la députée de Nose Hill puisse poser une question tronquée, soutenant que les députés ne devraient pas être pénalisés pour du bruit qu'ils n'ont pas causé. Mme Marlene Catterall (Ottawa-Ouest—Nepean, Lib.) a convenu que la responsabilité du décorum incombe à tous les députés, a noté que le langage incendiaire dans les questions provoque des réactions, et a souligné que les députés libéraux d'arrière-ban qui ne posent pas de questions avant la fin de la période sont parmi les plus pénalisés lorsqu'elle s'étire.
- Ref Mr. Chuck Strahl
- Lib Ms. Marlene Catterall
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I too empathize with the House leaders from both the NDP and Tory party who have described what happens when time is wasted in abundance. Today during the intervention by the member from Nose Hill it took nine minutes for the government side to quiet down long enough for the member to get out a truncated question because of the delaying tactics. It took nine minutes. We could sit here as quiet as mice during that time, but if the uproar continues over there, not only do the smaller parties, but all of us, including Canadians, get short shrift because other good questions get lost in the hubbub. It is very true that sometimes when asked to go directly to a question when a member has done nothing wrong, Mr. Speaker, you can make the judgment call on who is creating the fuss. However, often when someone has been interrupted two or three times, not by any noise made on this side of the House but by standing ovations and carrying on over there, if the ruling is delivered “You are finished, go directly to your question”, that is not the fault of the member asking the question, it is the fault of the government, in this case, which chose to take up nine minutes with general hubbub and carrying on. That is not right.
Mr. Speaker, an important point has been raised here. I do think it is not just the responsibility of the Speaker, but it is the responsibility of all of us in the House. I think we were all encouraged when a time limit was put on questions and answers. It allowed more participation in question period and it certainly helped pick up the pace of question period. On both sides of the House there is some fault and some correction to be taken. Inflammatory language in questions simply stirs a response. Perhaps that response should be more contained than it is, but I do encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to do whatever you can. I want to speak on behalf of Liberal members who do not usually get their first question on until at least 2.45 p.m. We are the ones who are most penalized if question period drags on longer. I support some of the comments that have been made but I also encourage all members in the House to support you, Mr. Speaker, in trying to do your job.
M. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Réf.) a félicité le Président d'avoir prolongé la période des questions ce jour-là et a suggéré que la prolonger davantage lorsque les perturbations viennent du côté gouvernemental pourrait constituer un moyen de dissuasion efficace. M. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) a déploré le manque de décorum mais a noté que le fait de poser moins de questions n'est pas le seul problème, puisque les réponses sont aussi rarement au rendez-vous. M. Jim Peterson (secrétaire d'État aux Institutions financières internationales, Lib.) a défendu la gestion de l'ordre par le Président comme exemplaire et a soutenu que la solution appartient aux députés eux-mêmes des deux côtés de la Chambre.
- Ref Mr. Jay Hill
- BQ Mr. Pierre de Savoye
- Lib Jim Peterson
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment about this point of order. I commend you for extending question period today by a few minutes. I know it is difficult for you to make that judgment call, but perhaps that is one avenue you could choose in the future. If the majority of the disturbances in question period are coming from the government side, then obviously as many have made the point, it is the opposition that primarily is penalized. If you were to extend question period by another five or ten minutes or whatever time they want to take up, I do not think it would take very many days before the government side would learn the lesson that questions will still get asked.
Mr. Speaker, certainly, when decorum is absent from our deliberations during Oral Question Period, fewer questions are asked. It must kept in mind, however, that the objective of question period is not just to ask questions, but to get answers. The public's expectation of Oral Question Period is that it will gain a better understanding of how government and parliament operates. I do deplore the lack of decorum, which results in not all questions getting asked. Unfortunately, answers are rarely forthcoming, and I realize this is beyond your control, Mr. Speaker, and not affected by decorum. Please excuse me for saying what I think.
I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think representations to you suggesting in any way that your demeanour has not led to expeditious handling of these matters in the House would be totally unfounded. I think you have demonstrated exemplary behaviour in the way you have tried to bring order at times. I think the solution to the problem lies with members themselves on all sides of the House.
M. Greg Thompson (Nouveau-Brunswick-Sud-Ouest, PC) a soutenu que les députés qui utilisent un langage non parlementaire devraient être immédiatement interrompus, et a proposé que les ovations du côté gouvernemental entraînent automatiquement une prolongation de la période des questions équivalente au temps utilisé. M. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ) a suggéré que le Président pénalise le parti responsable du désordre — en retirant une question à un parti de l'opposition fautif, ou en prolongeant la période des questions si c'est le côté gouvernemental qui est en cause. M. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.) a insisté sur le fait que les députés devraient avoir la courtoisie de se taire lorsqu'un autre député a la parole.
- PC Mr. Greg Thompson
- BQ Mr. René Laurin
- Lib Mr. Ovid L. Jackson
Texte source
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that we have confidence in the Speaker. I want to pick up on the minister's comments as well. It is incumbent upon us as members of parliament when we are putting the question that most of us in the Chamber are mature enough to know what words are unparliamentary. When we choose that type of language we should be shut off completely from getting up and going over the question once again because it is time delay. I think both sides of the House would agree on that. We are under time restraints as individual members. There is a 35 second limit on our questions. Mr. Speaker, I think you have been very, very good in enforcing that. Whether it is our party or some other party, including the government, but when the members use spontaneous applause and standing ovations for their members, the stopwatch should begin. If they are on their feet for 30 seconds, question period should be extended by 30 seconds. I think a set of rules that will work are known to all of us, but we have to set the rules and live by those rules. I think we would all be supportive of that.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would say I think the House would benefit from your penalizing those who abuse your generosity by causing a ruckus. If an opposition party causes a disturbance, you should intervene by taking a question away from it. If you discover that the commotion comes from the government side, they too should be penalized by having Oral Question Period extended by the amount of time they spent reacting to one of our questions. I make this suggestion to resolve the problem in all humility.
Mr. Speaker, the human being is the only animal that when one word is used inappropriately gets into all kinds of problems. That is why we have Beauchesne's, Robert's Rules of Order and what have you. It is important in this House when one member is speaking that other members are listening. For the most part I sit here very quietly and listen to a lot of rhetoric from all sides. It is very important for us and the Canadian people that when somebody is speaking, other people have the courtesy to be quiet.