Session overview
- The dominant theme was the HRDC grants controversy, with opposition parties pressing the government on alleged rule-breaking, political interference, and mismanagement of funds â particularly grants linked to the Prime Minister's riding of Shawinigan and the HRDC minister's riding of Brant.
- The Prime Minister repeatedly deflected questions about a $200,000 grant to Heritage Shawinigan â where his office sent a lobbying letter before any application was filed â by citing job creation and positioning the project as a joint venture of three levels of government.
- The HRDC minister Jane Stewart faced sustained questioning from all opposition parties about transparent access to grants data, the use of outdated unemployment statistics to qualify ridings for the transitional jobs fund and Canada jobs fund, and the luring of companies into her own riding with public money.
- NDP and PC House leaders raised a formal point of order about the disproportionate impact of disorder during Question Period on smaller parties, prompting a lengthy multi-party debate on decorum and Speaker authority.
- Agriculture and energy prices received limited but pointed attention: the NDP pressed the Prime Minister on the prairie farm crisis and the Industry minister on record gasoline and home heating oil prices, with both ministers deflecting to provincial jurisdiction.
- The Bloc Québécois raised the Corbeil affair, questioning how a Liberal political organizer obtained lists of grant applications from HRDC while elected MPs were forced to rely on the Access to Information Act for the same information.
Minister Stewart directly confirmed on the record that the transitional jobs fund used 1995 unemployment statistics and the Canada jobs fund used 1997 statistics as their program eligibility criteria, providing a specific and verifiable factual commitment that had been disputed.
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.
Asked specifically why his office's letterhead served as a de facto application form for a grant where no application had been filed, Chrétien responded entirely with unemployment statistics from 1993 and a remark about the Reform Party's leadership troubles, addressing none of the question's substance.
Outstanding questions
- Miss Deborah Grey asked why the letterhead of the Prime Minister's Office constitutes a legal application form for grants when no formal application had been submitted for the Heritage Shawinigan fountain â no direct answer was ever given.
- Mr. Gilles Duceppe asked how a Liberal political organizer in the Corbeil affair came to possess HRDC lists of grant applications when elected MPs cannot obtain the same documents â the minister confirmed only that the matter was referred to the RCMP, without explaining the access gap.
- Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay asked whether Liberal MPs possess the same HRDC grants information as opposition MPs or whether they have more â the minister did not confirm or deny this directly.
- Mr. Jay Hill asked why Minister Stewart took no action on over 50 complaints about missing funds and political interference in the Metis Provincial Council of B.C. file during her time at Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and again after moving to HRDC â the minister denied inaction but provided no timeline or details.
- Ms. Val Meredith asked why the riding of Vancouver East qualified for a $500,000 job grant when it was a Liberal riding but was told it did not qualify after electing an opposition member â the minister confirmed the earlier grant created 18 jobs but did not explain the subsequent denial.
Grey asked why a letter from the Prime Minister's Office was used to urge approval of a grant for Heritage Shawinigan before any application had been filed, and why PMO letterhead now serves as a legal application form for grants.
Grey cites a specific sequence of events â a letter from the Prime Minister's Office preceding any formal application â and asks a pointed accountability question about why PMO letterhead now functions as a grant application.
Source text
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 said the city of Shawinigan and city of Shawinigan-Sud had been working on the file for years and that he simply supports projects in his riding that create jobs, as Reform Party members do in theirs.
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.
Source text
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 asked why PMO letterhead constitutes an official grant application, citing conditions attached to the Heritage Shawinigan funding requiring the responsible minister to be invited to the announcement and the Government of Canada to have the last word at the press conference.
Grey adds specificity by citing two Liberal conditions attached to the grant â ministerial presence at the announcement and government having the last word at the press conference â but her core ask repeats the prior exchange and is somewhat rhetorical.
Source text
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?
ChrĂ©tien said there was an application from the city of Shawinigan and city of Shawinigan-Sud before the letter was sent, and that it is important for citizens â especially in areas where some want to leave Canada â to know federal money is at work.
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.
Source text
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 asked why the Prime Minister is 'thumbing his nose' at taxpayers given that funds were demanded for a fountain before any application existed, while a $200,000 announcement for Heritage Shawinigan was made in the middle of the HRDC boondoggle.
Grey sharpens the timing issue â no application existed when the PMO demanded funds â but frames it largely rhetorically by accusing the Prime Minister of 'thumbing his nose' at taxpayers, weakening the accountability precision.
Source text
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 cited the drop in unemployment from 11.5% to 6.8% and the creation of 1.9 million new jobs since 1993, and suggested the Leader of the Opposition is signalling the Reform Party has no future.
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.
Source text
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 asked why the Prime Minister consistently breaks the rules and funnels taxpayers' dollars into his riding, suggesting bureaucrats would not say no to him.
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.
Source text
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 hoteliersâ
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 said the riding of Saint-Maurice is made up of citizens entitled to the same programs as anyone else, that all the rules are respected and grants are analyzed by bureaucrats, and expressed pride that critics are attacking him for doing his job.
ChrĂ©tien offers a partial substantive response â claiming all rules are respected and grants are analyzed by bureaucrats â but does not address the specific allegation of arm-twisting and pivots to a personal grievance.
Source text
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 asked whether the Prime Minister is defending the human resources minister because he does not care about taxpayers' money or because he is guilty of the very same interference with ministerial portfolios.
Lowther poses a compound either/or question â does the PM not care about taxpayers' money or is he guilty of the same misconduct â which is more rhetorical than factually grounded, though it references the $1 billion HRDC figure.
Source text
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 said the government is careful with Canadians' money and, unlike the Reform Party, believes government has a role in helping people find jobs, accusing Reform of wanting to scrap these programs to give tax breaks to the rich.
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.
Source text
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 asked how a political organizer from the Liberal Party obtained lists of grant applications from Human Resources Development when it is so difficult for MPs to get documents on approved projects, referencing the Corbeil affair.
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.
Source text
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 said the particular case the hon. member referred to was handled appropriately at the time, was referred to the RCMP, and has been dealt with by them.
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.
Source text
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 asked specifically whether the minister herself did her job in explaining how a Liberal organizer could easily obtain HRDC grant application lists when MPs cannot obtain documents on approved projects.
Duceppe sharpens the question by explicitly setting aside the RCMP outcome and focusing on the minister's own conduct â how Liberal organizers could so easily obtain lists MPs cannot access â making it a targeted accountability ask.
Source text
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 said she is doing her job, took the audit information seriously, worked with her department and outside parties to create a plan to fix the problem, and stated that is what Canadians want.
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.
Source text
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 asked how the minister can reconcile orders she gave her staff to make departmental information public with the fact that MPs are reduced to relying on the Access to Information Act to get more credible information.
Tremblay identifies a specific contradiction â the minister's orders to make departmental information public versus MPs being forced to use the Access to Information Act â and asks how she reconciles these, though the ask is somewhat broad.
Source text
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 said the department is working to pull information together in an effective way for MPs, noted that programs are not necessarily kept by riding but by their intent, and committed to providing new and useful information to MPs as it becomes available.
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.
Source text
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 asked the minister to confirm that Liberal MPs have exactly the same information as opposition MPs regarding HRDC grants and no more.
Tremblay asks a pointed yes-or-no confirmatory question â whether Liberal MPs have exactly the same information as opposition MPs and no more â which is highly specific and directly testable.
Source text
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 said the House and committee have asked for information, motions have been passed by the committee, and the department is working to satisfy those interests to the best of its ability.
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.
Source text
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 asked whether the Prime Minister will go to the prairies before the budget to see for himself the desperation on family farms, drawing a parallel to federal responses to the Saguenay flooding and Ontario-Quebec ice storms.
McDonough's question is primarily rhetorical and hortatory â urging the Prime Minister to visit the prairies before the budget â without citing specific data on the farm crisis or demanding a particular policy commitment.
Source text
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 cited $1 billion provided over two years to help the agricultural situation and said the federal government would contribute to a special program if a provincial government specifically requested it and was willing to contribute.
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.
Source text
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 programâ
McDonough argued that all political parties in Saskatchewan including the Liberal Party agree the federal government must take the lead, and asked why the Prime Minister will not go to the prairies before the budget to see the depth of the crisis for himself.
McDonough cites all-party Saskatchewan agreement on federal leadership and challenges the adequacy of the federal response, but her core ask â will the PM visit the prairies â remains the same hortatory request from Exchange 10 rather than a new specific demand.
Source text
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. Whyâ
Chrétien said the government is aware of the serious problem, the federal government is providing 60% of currently available funds, and a decision has been made to allow farmers access to money early for the seeding season, with an openness to additional programs if provinces want to contribute.
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.
Source text
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 moneyâ
MacKay asked how the minister can justify the $2 million in taxpayers' money given to RMH Teleservices and Duchess Foods, noting Duchess Foods was lured from the riding of Hamilton Mountain into the minister's riding at a cost of $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.
Source text
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 said she is proud as the member for Brant that the transitional jobs fund and the Canada jobs fund have provided employment opportunities in her riding, and that in both cases men and women who had not worked for years are now employed.
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.
Source text
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 asked how the minister's riding qualified for TJF funding given an unemployment rate of 8% in 1995, and why she received preferential treatment when other MPs cannot obtain riding-level unemployment data from HRDC offices.
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.
Source text
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 said the statistics as compiled by Statistics Canada were available for her riding and that is the information that was used.
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.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed the statistics as compiled by Statistics Canada were available for my riding and that is the information that was used.
Strahl asked why there is one set of rules for the Prime Minister and his cabinet and another for the rest of Canadians, citing a bureaucratic memo stating the fountain grant was outside the rules but proceeded because the Prime Minister asked, and drawing a parallel to the hotel grant where no application was ever found.
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.
Source text
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 clarified that the fountain project is funded through the regional development agency for Quebec, not HRDC, and is a joint venture among the federal, provincial, and municipal governments, not a unilateral federal decision.
ChrĂ©tien provides a partial substantive clarification â the fountain is financed through Canada economic development, not HRDC, and is a joint venture among three levels of government â but does not address the claim about rules being set aside because the PMO asked.
Source text
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 asked why there is one set of rules for the Prime Minister and the front bench while the rest of Canadians must always play by the rules, alleging the PM's tolerance of rule-bending explains the HRDC minister's problems including illegal trust funds, luring jobs, and ignoring audits.
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.
Source text
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 thereâ
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 said the rules apply to everybody on both sides of the House, all ridings can apply for and receive grants when they qualify, and suggested Reform's leader is struggling because he is trying to get rid of what is known as the Reform Party and start a new one.
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.
Source text
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.
Why is a current monthly unemployment rate used to track the unemployed while outdated 1995 and 1997 rates are used to determine eligibility for business grants under the transitional jobs fund and Canada jobs fund?
CrĂȘte identifies a specific inconsistency cited by the minister the previous day â monthly rates for the unemployed versus outdated 1995/1997 rates for business grants â and asks for a concrete explanation.
Source text
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 confirmed that the transitional jobs fund used 1995 statistics and the Canada jobs fund used 1997 statistics, and stated the criteria are the same for all ridings.
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.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the program criteria have to be based on something and in this case it was 1995â
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.
How does the minister explain the apparent contradiction between her department's aggressive pursuit of unemployed claimants and its lax administrative follow-up on business grants?
The question uses rhetorical framing ('frantic rush,' 'shamelessly little attention') and the ask â explaining a disparity in enforcement rigour â is implicit rather than pointed.
Source text
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 asserted the programs are working in all ridings, including Bloc members' ridings, and briefly outlined the chronological transition from the transitional jobs fund to the Canada jobs fund.
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.
Source text
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 jobsâ
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.
Why did the minister use the transitional jobs fund to dangle $370,000 to lure Duchess Foods only 30 kilometres from Hamilton into her own riding, not to create jobs but to bolster her 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.
Source text
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 said she is proud the investment gave 156 citizens employment, and accused the Reform Party of hypocritically undermining the fund while privately requesting funds for their own ridings.
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.
Source text
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.
Why should Canadians be taxed to fund the minister's alleged practice of luring businesses â Duchess Foods and an international call centre from Sarnia â into her own riding for political benefit?
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.
Source text
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 ofâ
Oh, oh.
Speaking of sucking and blowing, Mr. Speaker, this minister is very good atâ
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 said the programs are working in her riding and then read from a letter by the Reform MP for Skeena endorsing a Canada jobs fund application creating 70 full-time jobs, implying Reform hypocrisy.
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.
Source text
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 âAs member of parliament for Skeena, I wish to extend my support for Prince Rupert Custom Processors Limitedâ. The member went on to say that the creation of a minimum of 70 full time new jobsâ
How can the minister's department be so capable at pursuing unemployed workers yet so incapable of properly managing a grant approval process involving billions of dollars, given her own statement that a computer problem created the false impression of late approvals?
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.
Source text
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 said her department is taking the internal audit seriously, that a plan of action is being implemented, and that the auditor general says it will work.
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.
Source text
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.
When the minister described her department as having been in the dark ages in terms of management, was she referring to computer problems, administrative methods, directives from then-deputy minister Mel Cappe, directives from the then-minister (now Minister for International Trade), or all of the above?
Gagnon asks the minister to specify which of several named factors â computer problems, administrative methods, directives from named former deputy minister Mel Cappe, or the former minister â explains the department's dysfunction, but the framing is partly rhetorical.
Source text
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 listed the broad importance of HRDC programs and stated her job is to ensure a strong administrative foundation through the six-point plan, without addressing any named individual or specific factor.
Stewart does not address any of the specific factors named â the computer problems, Mel Cappe, or the former minister â and instead gives a general defence of HRDC programs and the six-point plan.
Source text
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.
Why did the minister do nothing when she received over 50 complaints about missing funds, sloppy bookkeeping, political interference, and possible conflicts of interest regarding HRDC funds to the Metis Provincial Council of B.C., and why has she done nothing since becoming HRDC minister?
Hill cites specific facts â 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) â and asks why the minister did nothing.
Source text
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 said the member is wrong, that a third-party audit was conducted by Consulting and Audit Canada, and that work is ongoing with the Metis nation to address the issues raised.
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.
Source text
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.
Given that the Metis program audit found internal policies, procedures and monitoring were either not in place or not being followed â mirroring the broader HRDC audit findings â why does the minister not admit she is out of her league and resign?
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.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister mentioned the audit because the audit of the Metis program stated âinternal policies, procedures and monitoring were either not in place or not being followedâ, 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 categorically rejected everything the member said and affirmed the government's belief in working with individuals and organisations, pledging to ensure proper administrative practices for grants and 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.
Source text
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.
Will the Prime Minister ignore the warning from Dr. Pierre Gauthier of the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec that health is a provincial jurisdiction and that it is up to provinces to define health policy, just as he ignores the 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.
Source text
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 said the status quo in health services is unacceptable, that ideas have been put on the table valid for Quebec and elsewhere, and that he has invited provincial counterparts including Mrs. Marois to a meeting in a few weeks.
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.
Source text
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.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what Canada is doing to end the human suffering in Chechnya?
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.
Source text
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 outlined that the Prime Minister raised Chechnya at the OSCE meetings in November, CIDA announced humanitarian programs, Axworthy himself raised it with the Russian foreign minister two weeks prior, and he pressed Russia to properly investigate alleged atrocities under international law.
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.
Source text
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.
Why did Vancouver East qualify for a $500,000 job grant when it was a Liberal riding two weeks before the election, but was told it did not qualify once voters elected an opposition MP?
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.
Source text
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 confirmed the project created 18 jobs in a poor riding that needs assistance, and stated that to date there have been no requests from that riding for Canada jobs funds.
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.
Source text
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.
Given that the minister's own audit found 15% of grants lacked application forms, and that census data shows 34.9% of families in Vancouver East are low-income compared to only 13.2% in her riding of Brant, why does Brant receive millions in job funding while Vancouver East receives nothing?
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.
Source text
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 simply asserted that the people of Vancouver East did in fact receive millions of dollars, offering no supporting data or explanation.
Stewart's one-sentence answer â 'the people of Vancouver East did get millions of dollars' â is a bare assertion that directly contradicts the premise without providing any data, explanation, or engagement with the census figures cited.
Source text
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.
Will the industry minister do anything to help consumers being gouged by the big oil cartel on record gasoline, diesel, and home heating oil prices, similar to what the U.S. energy secretary did with emergency aid of over $250 million?
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.
Source text
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 noted that provinces have the jurisdiction to regulate retail pricing if they choose, pointed to Prince Edward Island as an example, and suggested Solomon address the question to his own NDP government in 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.
Source text
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.
Given the Bank of Canada's warning that rising energy costs could push inflation over 3%, what is the Liberal government's action plan to defend the economy from OPEC and protect Canadians from record energy prices?
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.
Source text
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 noted crude prices had risen from about $10 to $30 a barrel, acknowledged the problem cannot be solved by controlling world prices, and stated federal and provincial governments have discussed the issue together.
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.
Source text
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.
Why was the minister's riding given special consideration under a 'pockets of unemployment' criterion that HRDC offices in New Brunswick apparently do not even recognise as existing?
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.
Source text
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 âpocketsâ they asked âWhat are you talking about?â They do not seem to exist in all provincesâ
Mr. Speaker, why was her riding given special consideration? Why the favouritism?
Stewart pointed out that the riding of Saint John, held by an opposition member, also received transitional jobs funds based on outlying high unemployment areas in that community.
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.
Source text
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.
Mr. DubĂ© cites four months of unemployment data for Brant (AugustâDecember) showing figures that he argues demonstrate the riding did not qualify for HRDC grants, directly challenging the minister's selective use of data on Monday.
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.
Source text
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.
Minister Stewart simply reaffirms that Brant qualified according to the rules and expresses pride in the transitional jobs fund and Canada jobs fund programs, without addressing the specific monthly figures.
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.
Source text
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.
Members acknowledged a presence in the gallery with acclamation; no question was asked and no substantive exchange took place.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear.
Don Boudria, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, rose on a point of order to formally designate February 17 as an allotted day.
- Lib Don Boudria
Source text
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.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (WinnipegâTranscona, NDP) rose on a point of order to argue that time lost to disorder during question period disproportionately penalizes smaller parties, who lose a larger share of their allocated questions, and urged the Speaker to be tougher by moving on without lengthy exhortation when members do not comply with rulings. Mr. Peter MacKay (PictouâAntigonishâGuysborough, PC), Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (CalgaryâNose Hill, Ref), Mr. StĂ©phane Bergeron (VerchĂšresâLes-Patriotes, BQ), and Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg NorthâSt. Paul, Lib) all added comments supporting greater order and faster intervention by the Chair, while Ablonczy also argued that members should not be cut off due to noise caused by others, and Bergeron deplored the tone in which the NDP House Leader had addressed the Speaker.
- NDP Mr. Bill Blaikie
- PC Mr. Peter MacKay
- Ref Mrs. Diane Ablonczy
- BQ Mr. Stéphane Bergeron
- Lib Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan
Source text
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 shoutingâalthough we contribute from time to time, the same as the Conservativesâtakes 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 outâand I think the government House leader would support this positionâthere 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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref) raised a point of order stating that it took nine minutes for disorder from the government side to subside enough for the member from Nose Hill to ask a truncated question, arguing that members should not be penalized for noise they did not cause. Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa WestâNepean, Lib) agreed that responsibility for decorum rests with all members, noted that inflammatory language in questions stirs responses, and pointed out that Liberal backbenchers who do not get questions until late in question period are among the most penalized when it runs long.
- Ref Mr. Chuck Strahl
- Lib Ms. Marlene Catterall
Source text
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 âYou are finished, go directly to your questionâ, 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.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince GeorgeâPeace River, Ref) commended the Speaker for extending question period that day and suggested that extending it further when disturbances come from the government side could serve as an effective deterrent. Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) deplored the lack of decorum but noted that fewer questions is not the only problem, since answers are also rarely forthcoming. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State, International Financial Institutions, Lib) defended the Speaker's handling of order as exemplary and argued the solution lies with members themselves on all sides of the House.
- Ref Mr. Jay Hill
- BQ Mr. Pierre de Savoye
- Lib Jim Peterson
Source text
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.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC) argued that members who use unparliamentary language should be immediately shut off, and proposed that standing ovations from the government side should trigger an automatic extension of question period by the time taken. Mr. RenĂ© Laurin (Joliette, BQ) suggested the Speaker penalize the party causing disturbancesâby removing a question from an opposition party causing disorder, or extending question period if the government side is at fault. Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (BruceâGrey, Lib) emphasized that members should have the courtesy to be quiet when another member is speaking.
- PC Mr. Greg Thompson
- BQ Mr. René Laurin
- Lib Mr. Ovid L. Jackson
Source text
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.