Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's throne speech, the government spoke of the next referendum in Quebec saying, and I quote:
But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the Government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country.My question is for the Prime Minister or rather the Deputy Prime Minister, since the Prime Minister is not here.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the next referendum in Quebec will be held under the Quebec referendum act and thus the rules will be those set out in Quebec legislation and not those the Prime Minister might want to impose?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his election as Leader of the Opposition. There are a lot of new people here today, including the new premier of Newfoundland.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we expect the new premier of Quebec to keep his word and try to work with the Prime Minister of Canada to expand Canada's economy, something Quebecers and Canadians want desperately.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this new session is off to a strange start.
(1420)
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the statement in the throne speech might even mean a cross-Canada referendum on the Quebec question. Today, however, the Deputy Prime Minister made some adjustments saying it was not a referendum. The minister himself backed down, saying it was not a referendum for the moment.
Probably someone is leading this government. I would like to know who, first, and I would also like to know who is telling the truth. Yes or no, is the government planning a cross-Canada referendum on the Quebec question?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate part about the approach of the Leader of the Opposition- I assume he heard what the mayor of Montreal had to say. When the mayor of Montreal came here, he asked us to stop talking about the referendum and to get to work on rebuilding the economy in Montreal and in Quebec.
I also assume he listens to commentators in Quebec, who are saying ``Good Speech'' and ``Ambitious Program'', in connection with our economic recovery program. That is what Michel Vastel said. The newspaper Le Soleil said: ``Finally, a government that governs''. Would the people across the way be so kind as to join us in working on the real issues: economic recovery in Montreal, in Quebec and in Canada?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am questioning the government on yesterday's speech from the throne. I am questioning the government, and the whole national press gallery has raised elements that are the point of my question. The Deputy Prime Minister is accusing me of talking about the referendum, when I am questioning her on what they said. They are in some other world.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, and I would ask her to be clear. She and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs definitely contradicted each other on the matter of the cross-Canada referendum. Here is my question: Which one of them is telling the truth?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The government, like the mayor of Montreal, like the premier of Quebec, is saying that we are not after a referendum, but rather economic recovery. We are waiting for the premier of Quebec to come forward to work hand in hand with the Government of Canada to create jobs, which is something all Canadians, including Quebecers, are in need of.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the mayor of Montreal himself said we should stop talking about partitioning Quebec. According to yesterday's throne speech, the federal government is willing to withdraw from job training, forestry, mining, and recreation, among other things. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by Quebecers and Canadians as a whole in 1992.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposal merely recycles part of the Charlottetown accord, which, as you may recall, was massively rejected by both Quebec and Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that, rather than doing something else, I will perhaps borrow from Claude Béland's analysis, according to which there has been enough decentralization to move forward, and Quebecers now have the powers they need to protect themselves. For several months, we have been asked to come up with programs. We proposed some innovative things, some new things with an open mind. All we ask from the opposition is some co-operation, precisely so we can go ahead with a plan that reflects Quebecers' real powers as described by Claude Béland.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that her Prime Minister's proposal to withdraw immediately is nothing but smoke and mirrors, since the federal government will keep control over program policy and impose national standards? Let her give a real answer to this question if she can.
(1425)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we showed how open-minded we are. For the first time, we proposed that the federal government not spend money in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the province concerned.
We also proposed to enshrine Quebec's veto and status as a distinct society in the Constitution.
These are specific demands that the Bloc Quebecois had made and I hope that, for once, the Bloc will be open-minded enough to work with us at building a better Canada.
That is a big step forward for a government which shut out and shut up Canadians, even its own backbenchers, during the referendum campaign last fall.
Like most things concerning national unity, there is a great deal of confusion in cabinet and in the whole caucus over what this strategy actually is, and what giving Canadians a say really means.
My question is for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wherever he is. Will Canadians have a real say in the future of their country in a national, country-wide, binding referendum? Yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the member is fixating on a particular issue.
If she were listening to the people in her riding, I think she would hear them say that the real job of the government over the next 18 months has to be getting Canadians back to work.
We have provided a blueprint for economic reform. We have shown an openness to change. We believe that Canadians do not want more constitutional wrangling. What they want is job creation. That is what we have delivered with the throne speech.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Exactly, Mr. Speaker. That is the point. Canadians want economic changes. They want to feel safer about it. They want to know that there is going to be a country here once the economy gets better. They want that security.
They saw no tax relief, no tax reform in the speech from the throne yesterday. They are demanding a real say in the future of the country. They have ideas that are worth listening to on the economy, on areas of personal security and safety and on areas of national unity which seem to take up a fair bit of the throne speech.
Is the government willing to bring Canadians in at the beginning of the unity process? Is it willing to listen to them truly? At the hind end of it, once all the plans are on the table, will the government say that it is giving the people the ultimate opportunity to say yes or no? At the end are these things going to make Canadians feel more secure? Will she commit to that, yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want Canadians involved at the hind end. I want Canadians involved in the beginning. I want Canadians such as those I met last week on Signal Hill in Newfoundland who have pledged to do their bit to bring this country together, like the Canadians I met in Winnipeg who are fighting to keep this country together with innovation and new ideas. We want to listen to their ideas.
We want to listen to the ideas of caucus members, like the member from Toronto who put together a plan to bring Canadians to see each other from coast to coast. We intend to involve Canadians in every step of the process of nation building.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister commits to having them involved in every stage of the process, it means that the government can do nothing less than have a national, binding referendum at the end once it gets going.
I find this unbelievable. She talks about economic security. It is good to talk about but the track record of the government is such that it is not going to happen. Bringing people together is a great idea, except the Deputy Prime Minister said just the other day that we need to go back to the spirit of '67 and live it again.
The year 1967 was a wonderful year but we are in 1996. We are moving toward a new century. Let us move forward, not backward. Top down first ministers' conferences, distinct society status, special status and vetoes simply will not fly any more.
(1430)
Why does the government insist on recycling the same Mulroney policies and problems for national unity, for the economy, for Katimavik-2 and all these wonderful things? When Canadians
rejected them, they thought once and for all in the Charlottetown accord, why the resurrection of these policies that did not work?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I may have been in politics for a long time but in 1967 I was not in politics. I was a Canadian who had an opportunity to understand for the first time the uniqueness of my country. As a high school student I went to Expo'67. I saw the city of Montreal. I saw the francophone nature and the spirit in the community.
If we can recapture the spirit of 1967 we will be well on the way to building for the 21st century.
In recent months, a wind of protest has been blowing across the country, even in the minister's own riding, against the so-called UI reform, which reduces benefits, limits access and penalizes young people, women and seasonal workers.
In light of the deep concern expressed by so many people, including some of his own constituents, and of repeated requests from the vast coalition, in Quebec and Canada, against this UI reform and those who support it, notably the churches, does the minister undertake to withdraw and review his bill to ensure that the bill that will be tabled meet the expectations of Canadians and Quebecers?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question; indeed, it deals with a very important issue for people from coast to coast.
We have heard time and time again that this reform hits some people harder than others. I wish to thank my predecessor who, before the House adjourned for the Christmas recess, had made a commitment to ensure that those provisions that cause the most concern, that is to say those setting the benefit amounts and the rule regarding the number of weeks of work, are amended.
We must realize, and I hope my hon. colleague does, that the changes that need to be made to the whole UI plan are important and that they are supported by many people across the country.
However, I fully agree with my hon. colleague that certain aspects should be reviewed. And because, during the past two months, all the hon. members of this House have had the opportunity to listen to what people are saying across the country, I hope that, once committee work resumes, we will be able to put our heads together to resolve these thorny issues.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the thrust of this bill is to make cuts that will eventually amount to $2 billion. And unless changes are made, a great many people will suffer.
Could the minister reassure the public, the men and women of my riding and his and every other riding in Canada, the ordinary people, by telling them today that those who have jobs and those who wish they did can rely on a real UI system, the one they are currently contributing to, wherever they live and regardless of their age?
(1435)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague and anyone who is concerned about this reform that we will be absolutely fair and we will try to ensure that access to the UI program always remains tied to the ability to find a job or to obtain training.
I think that we can all agree that, try as we may to remedy the problems facing the jobless, the bottom line is that we really should find jobs for them.
Since 1989 Canadians have seen their disposable incomes fall by 8.6 per cent. Leading up to the election campaign the current government made many promises about scrapping the GST, suggesting it was going to reverse that trend. That was what it suggested.
However, yesterday in the throne speech it signalled that it has absolutely no intention of scrapping the GST. I would like to know from the finance minister why it is reneging on its promise.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what was said in the throne speech is the exact wording, the exact spirit that was set out in the red book.
It is our intention to harmonize the taxes. Clearly it is a request of thousands of consumers across this country and the vast majority of small and medium size businesses. This would give us a single tax with much more fairness and much greater ease of administration, which is our intention.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe someone in the finance minister's position does not understand why regular Canadians are so fearful about their economic futures.
Canadians want less taxes, not different taxes. I remind the finance minister of his statement in 1990 when he said: ``I would abolish the GST''.
Assuming the finance minister is a man of his word-I make that assumption-I ask him again why is he breaking his promise and not abolishing the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention to carry through on its commitment. That intention was very clearly set out in the throne speech yesterday and it will do so.
On the other hand, the hon. member had promised us the Reform Party's budget for this year and came up with five little words on a piece of paper. When is the Reform Party going to live up to its commitment?
As we know, Quebec has been asking since 1965 that it be given full powers regarding manpower training. Yet, we learned this week that the new human resources development minister is giving himself three years to withdraw from this provincial area of jurisdiction.
Why is the minister refusing to immediately give full powers to the Quebec government, when all the stakeholders from labour and management, the various community groups, and even provincial Liberals in Quebec support that demand?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for any misunderstanding which may have resulted from my discussions with the Quebec minister responsible for this matter. I fully agree with the hon. member that there is a consensus in Quebec regarding the manpower issue, but there is also the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada. That commitment was reflected in the second part of the UI legislation that was before Parliament at the time of prorogation.
All I said, and I am repeating it, is that the act and the commitment made by the Prime Minister provided up to three years to withdraw from this area which, we all agree, should be transferred to the provinces.
That being said, I usually do not take longer than is necessary to do what is required. Consequently, as soon as negotiations with Quebec and other interested Canadian provinces are completed, I will be pleased to give effect to the Prime Minister's commitment.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary deals with a different but somewhat related issue. Will the minister confirm that manpower training is part of the government's constitutional plan A and that the government is deliberately postponing its withdrawal from that area to extol the virtues of federalism in Quebec, at the expense of thousands of men and women, mostly young ones, waiting to get adequate training?
(1440)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians demand that the government address their concerns about personal security and they demand more than one measly paragraph in yesterday's throne speech. The immediate repeal of section 745 of the Criminal Code, which allows for the early release of first degree murderers, is one demand we are hearing from thousands of Canadians.
Will the minister respond by removing section 745 from the Criminal Code and ensure that first degree murderers spend at least 25 years in prison?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. member not to take the size of the paragraph in the throne speech as the measurement of the importance we attach to criminal justice issues.
I would rather have the hon. member refer to the eight strong, separate pieces of legislation that have already been produced during this Parliament to strengthen the criminal justice system.
I would rather have the hon. member bear in mind the important changes we brought to the sentencing process in the Criminal Code, to strengthen and toughen the responses in the Young Offenders Act to violent crime by young people, and to solid gun control. Those are the measures which make a difference.
As to section 745, in Alberta a week and a half ago I met with Darlene Boyd, whose daughter was abducted and murdered some 15 years ago. I spoke with her, as I have with so many other survivors of victims of murder about their concerns with section 745. We have already made changes and are considering others to make sure this section fulfils at once the interests of victims and humanity in the justice system.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister can show the people of Canada he is serious about the things he speaks about by the simple removal of this section from the Criminal Code, but he refuses to.
The prime suspects in the murder of Melanie Carpenter and Mrs. Salter from Edmonton were out on early release. The throne speech gave Canadians no reassurance that the early release of violent offenders will stop.
I ask the Minister of Justice if he will introduce legislation to eliminate immediately the statutory release of offenders which has allowed these atrocities to take place.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that in subjects that require certain rational analysis the hon. member resorts to a combination of oversimplification and distortion.
No one released from prison under section 745 to date has been implicated in a crime of personal violence. Second, the suspect in the Melanie Carpenter case was not released under section 745, but was on parole for other offences.
Third, we do not share the oversimplified view of the hon. member that the answer lies in scrapping the entire provision. That is one possible approach which we are considering. We also believe we should look at ways to improve the section and limit it to the exceptional cases for which it is intended so that we can achieve the dual objectives of protecting the public, including victims, and showing humanity in the system of justice.
Last year, the government adopted a plan to promote gender equality. Among other things, that plan provided for a review of policies, in terms of their impact on gender equality. As we know, there is a major imbalance in the number of temporary and seasonal jobs held by men and women.
Could the minister tell us about the results of the review conducted under that plan?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member is a very important one. We are trying to apply, as a result of a lot of interest having been exhibited by individuals and groups very interested in this question, criteria to all of the programs we are considering as to what the impact would be in terms of equality across not just gender lines but also different age groups.
(1445 )
It is an extremely complex question. Although significant work has been done on it, I can only advise the hon. member that I am looking forward to discussing the matter with colleagues from around the world, members of the OECD countries. The capacity to analyze the impact through a variety of programs which we have the responsibility of administering is extremely difficult. I do not want to suggest in any way that we are delaying what we would like to achieve.
For example, I look forward to the parliamentary committee's being able to give us some direction on how we can address this extremely important question
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House of the measures which he intends to take in the new UI reform project to finally bring into realization his government's plan to promote gender equality?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the parliamentary committee meets again and reviews the legislation formerly known as Bill C-111 we can show why we feel it is essential to change certain aspects of the proposed legislation, precisely because the impact of that legislation on some sectors and groups was not acceptable.
Those who will closely follow this issue will realize that the changes that we think we can make will correct, at least to some extent, a problem which has been in existence for a long time and which could not be solved by the bill. We intend to continue to work so as to create a balance and treat all those who work with fairness.
Fishermen, their associations and their communities are concerned with increased licensing fees, the quota system and proposals to professionalize the fishery.
Will the new minister confirm to the House and to these concerned citizens in Carleton-Charlotte and across Atlantic Canada that he will consult with them and consider their recommendations when implementing new policy and not just listen to the DFO bureaucracy?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his first question this session in the House.
The fishermen in his riding and in adjacent ridings are concerned about a number of things, including licence fees. There have been tremendous consultations on that and many changes. The licence fees are set for 1996 but there is some flexibility for 1997.
On the criteria for reduction to a foundation fishery, the rules were basically agreed to in principle by the fishermen. There is some flexibility and so we can look at that.
Concerning quotas, we will be quite happy to look at that. My department is very sensitive to the needs of the people in the fishing industry.
We have told them over the last three weeks that we are looking forward to talking with them after they vacate the departmental offices.
I ask the Minister of Finance why and how did they fail to work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the policies of the government have not failed to work.
The leading indicators are up, as the hon. member, an economist, well knows. We have reported this morning another record trade surplus for the country and retail sales are showing an improvement.
Perhaps the most important statistic of all is that during December and January last we created 123,000 private sector jobs.
(1450 )
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is strange indeed that apparently Canadians do not realize any of this. They must be stupid or something. Why would they be so pessimistic?
Canadians are likely to become even more pessimistic when they find out the throne speech has shifted the emphasis away from needed deficit elimination to costly subsidies and ineffective direct job creation programs.
Does this shift in the financial priorities of the Liberals signal a return to traditional policies in a prebudget mode of damn the deficit and future generations, full steam ahead, getting re-elected at all costs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the throne speech reaffirmed the policies the government has undertaken since it took office, the policies set out in the red book. Those policies are a measured pace of deficit reduction that is giving us better results than almost any other industrial country. It is giving us the policies that will give us a framework for growth and jobs in terms of newer technologies, in terms of support from small and medium size business and in terms of our exports.
I am sure it was a misstep or a misquote by the hon. member. The Canadian people are not stupid. The proof is that they have rejected unequivocally the scorched earth policies of the Reform Party and have accepted the balanced approach of the Liberal Party.
This week it was made public on the Radio-Canada program ``Enjeux'' that, in 1992, a special Canadian forces unit simulated a terrorist attack on the Citadel in Quebec City in order to test its security. It would appear that, because of the excessive force used during this exercise, a tragic outcome was avoided by only a hair's breadth.
How can the minister explain these events, and how can he justify the fact that the senior officers who authorized them are not only still in the employ of the Defence department, but have even been promoted since then?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an incident did occur at the citadel in Quebec City on February 6, 1992. A full military police investigation was launched and measures were taken by the military in terms of disciplining some of the people involved.
New evidence came to light subsequently in 1994 and the investigation was reopened. Since there is somewhat of a connection because of individuals involved with this incident and the deployment to Somalia, the matter will now rest before the Somalia commission and I should not speak any further on it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to the minister's answer, would the minister confirm that the newly appointed Brigadier-General Daigle, who was promoted despite what occurred at the Citadel and in Somalia, has been approached to command the new peacekeeping mission to Haiti? If so, how can he justify such a decision?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a debate will take place later today on the question of deployment to Haiti. It is premature to be talking about that in terms of who would command if Canada has not even agreed in
principle to accept such an engagement, which will depend on the request by the United Nations.
With respect to the individual the hon. member has maligned, a man recently appointed as a general officer, General Daigle of Montreal, a member of the royal Van Doos regiment, the chief of defence staff and I have full confidence in this individual.
What will the minister do to clean up the HPB and protect Canadians when lives are at stake?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
The allegations contained in the report are very serious. I am sure that is the reason the hon. member is making these allegations on the floor of the House of Commons.
I have asked my senior departmental staff to provide me with a complete and comprehensive report with regard to the allegations.
I hope that when I provide the information to the hon. member, if he is inaccurate in his assessment of those officials at Health Canada he will have the courtesy to apologize.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a very similar thing happened a few years ago with the silicone breast implant issue. Scientific data were suppressed. Thousands of women suffered because of that decision, and the minister knows that.
Now a similar cover-up surfaces in the HPB. The minister is responsible. The HPB is important to the health of Canadians. When will he clean it up?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not share the premise of the hon. member's questions.
These are serious allegations and I take them seriously. I have asked for a comprehensive report on this matter.
The hon. member must state his case clearly. If he is inaccurate in his assessment, will he do the honourable thing and apologize to the officials involved?
In November new energy efficiency regulations were announced which set energy efficiency standards for fluorescent and incandescent lamps. These regulations will be extended to all lamps imported into Canada and even those traded interprovincially.
Can the minister shed any light on the effect these regulations will have on Canadians and our environment?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question. The regulations to which she refers are an example of the kinds of regulations that make sense.
These regulations were developed from the outset with all stakeholders involved, in particular the lighting industry. They make both economic and environmental sense. Those who use the lamps will enjoy significant savings on their energy bills.
In terms of the environment, which is perhaps most important, the use of these lamps will lead to a significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. By the year 2000 the use of these lamps will lead to the equivalent of taking one million cars off Canadian roads.
My question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. How does he intend to reach that objective? By continuing to attack the unemployed? By dumping on the most disadvantaged and on students? By shoving our seniors over the poverty line? Or, as he has already suggested, by adding to the burden of taxpayers already being smothered by Revenue Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to do so by continuing the highly beneficial policies put in place by this government, that is to say investment in research and development, assistance to small business, export development, all measures aimed at job creation.
As we have seen, we created 123,000 private sector jobs in December and January, the bulk of these in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if I am to understand the Minister of Finance correctly, he has just informed us that he will continue to go after the least well-off in order to reduce his deficit.
I would like to know just when he intends to table his new budget.
(1500)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): At last, Mr. Speaker. It is my intention to bring down the next budget on Wednesday, March 6 at 4.30 p.m.
[English]
I will be bringing down the government's budget on Wednesday, March 6, at 4.30 in the afternoon.
In the upcoming budget the minister may be putting at risk the viability of the mining industry by discussing tax increases, changes to the resource allowance, that will have the effect of raising that industry's tax rate by up to 10 per cent.
Will the minister promise the House that any changes to the resource allowance will be revenue neutral, thereby assuring the mining industry that it will be able to provide the jobs Canadians are demanding?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having just announced the date of the budget I am sure the hon. member understands that I will wait until the budget is brought down before giving any indication of whatever kind of measures the government intends to bring in.
On the other hand, I can assure the hon. member the Minister of Natural Resources takes her job very seriously. She has certainly made her views known to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is reassuring or not. What we need assurance of from the government is that its idea of tax fairness is not to tax and gouge everyone equally.
Since he took power, this minister has increased taxes in each of his budgets. The resource industries need to know that this resource allowance will be revenue neutral.
Can the minister assure the industry today that whatever changes he makes will be revenue neutral, and that the industry can go ahead and create the jobs Canadians want?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the hon. member's question. He knows that I am not going to reveal the budget piecemeal, that I am not going to answer his question today.
I really wonder why he finds it so necessary to create strawmen, to create fears. Is he playing politics? I would find that absolutely unspeakable behaviour.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicated that he is going to introduce his budget next Wednesday. Since he has been consistent in setting targets for deficit reduction and for the rate of inflation, would the minister give some consideration in the upcoming budget to setting targets for job creation for the first time so that we could have a goal to work toward?
Also, would he call on the corporate sector now to begin playing its role in becoming more responsible in creating jobs and getting Canadians back to work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record of job creation since the government took office, it is close to 600,000 jobs. It really demonstrates that the government would prefer to be judged by its actions rather than by predictions at some far flung date.
In terms of challenging the private sector I believe the member's point is very very well taken. In the throne speech yesterday, the government indicated very clearly that as the Canadian people are in the process of cleaning up the national balance sheet and as a number of provinces are doing the same, there is no doubt the hon. member is right. The time has come for the Canadian corporate sector to do its share.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, before we proceed to the business of the day I have received notice of two questions of privilege. The first one is from the hon. member for Beaver River.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states:
When any of these rights and immunities, which are known under the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of Parliament.Yesterday I was handed a copy of a document entitled ``SFT Communications Briefing Book''. There was no author. There was no copyright, no confidential wording on it at all.
As caucus chairman, I sent my staff to Printing this morning and ordered 60 copies of it for our caucus, for our research staff and for the press. I got a call later in the day saying that a Mr. Simpson in the Prime Minister's office told Printing not to reproduce or release copies to anyone except Liberal MPs.
After caucus, I immediately called Mr. Simpson in the PMO and asked the reason for this ridiculous action. He said that someone in the Prime Minister's office had told Printing not to go ahead with my request and not to release the 48 copies that had already been run off. Mr. Simpson said that he did not know who gave the edict to deny my rightful request, but someone would get back to me.
At 1.10 p.m., just before question period, I received a call from Printing saying that there was a mix-up and my job would be delivered to my office. And it was.
I had also been requested some time during the morning to provide a copy of my ``With compliments of Deborah Grey'' slip to be reproduced with the document. Had I wanted that on there, I certainly would have sent it on to Printing. I did not send it down and it went ahead.
When I make a request of Printing, I make the request hoping it will-
The Speaker: I must tell the hon. member that I was briefed on this matter before question period by my staff. The error that occurred was the fault of the House staff, therefore my staff.
This has been corrected. We regret any inconvenience. We are glad that this matter has been cleared up. I assure the hon. member that we do not take our direction from anyone else. It was an error on the part of the House staff.
As the spokesperson for the House staff, I apologize for it. I am glad that it has been cleared up. I do not believe that there is any need for a question of privilege to pursue this matter. I believe that I have been fully briefed. I believe this is the answer. I have looked into it. I wish to assure the member of that.
I refer the Chair to Standing Order 8:
At the commencement of every session, or from time to time as necessity may arise, the House may appoint a Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and also an Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole-(1510 )
The phrase relevant to privilege and rights of the House is ``the House may appoint''.
A press release dated February 26 on the letterhead of the Prime Minister's office reads: ``Prime Minister appoints''-and then the name of the member for Madawaska-Victoria-``as Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole''.
Standing Order 8 is clear. This appointment is the right of the House as a whole, yet the Prime Minister has claimed the appointment as a power of his office. I contend that the Prime Minister has usurped and interfered with a vote of the House on this appointment, making and declaring the appointment as a fait accompli.
Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege I will move the appropriate motion to have it referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for deliberation.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I think you will have recognized that this is not a question of privilege. Perhaps the member could argue that it is a breach of the standing orders but it would not be that either, although it would be the relevant thing for him to have raised.
Second, this issue is presently awaiting a vote of the House. Deliberation on it by the House has concluded and the vote will take place later this day. Therefore I would argue that the Chair cannot even entertain the point in question had it been raised as a point of order which it was not. It was raised as a question of privilege.
Finally, I am sure the House knows that when the Prime Minister proposes the name of a candidate he does so on behalf of the majority of MPs in the House of Commons, those MPs being the supporters of the Prime Minister and the government. In any case, the point will become moot by the end of this day once the issue is voted on.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I understand that after this announcement was put out there was a clarification within 24 hours. We would hope this type of thing would not cause any inconvenience. I would rule that this is, in this case, not a question of privilege.
The Speaker: I well understand that the member raises this as a point of clarification. However, I thought I had explained the issue. I believe it was a series of compounded errors. It is the responsibility of the staff who answer to me. This type of thing will not happen again. I take full responsibility. No one is going to be able to censor what members of Parliament get or what they ask for if that is the clarification the member wants.