The Liberal government's third budget calls for women's pensions to be determined according to their partner's income in future, thus reducing their level of benefits and their degree of economic independence. When questioned yesterday in the House on this subject, the Minister responded as follows: ``Nine out of ten women will get more money because of our reform''.
Did the Minister of Finance deliberately attempt to trick senior women by referring to inappropriate statistics which apply to single women, not married ones on whom there are no statistics in his budget documents?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in his budget, the Minister of Finance has tried to be as equitable as possible, by enabling the most vulnerable members of our society to continue to receive a pension over the long term, and he has done so by reducing what would otherwise have gone to the better off.
Clearly women will benefit from this exercise, for they constitute one of the major vulnerable groups in our society. We support a system of social programs which redistributes funds from the most well off to the most vulnerable.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Really, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whom the minister thinks he is addressing with that response to a simple, clear, precisely set out question. Either he just likes to hear the sound of his own voice or he did not get the question, so I shall repeat it.
On page 16 of the budget speech, we find the following, and I quote: ``nine out of ten single senior women''-not those with spouses but single women-``will be better off'' and so on. The reference was to single women, but the Minister is playing with the semantics of rich and poor. I want him to answer the opposition's question on what will happen to married women.
Why is the minister twisting his own statistics and what he said in his speech? Why will he not answer my question, not his own idea of a question, but what I asked?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the important question relating to women is how the government is treating women in general, whether single or not. And the important principle is not what the opposition member is proposing. The important principle is: How are we fulfilling our redistributory role by taking from the most fortunate a portion of their surplus to pass it on to the most vulnerable members of society, which include women?
(1120)
The present situation, particularly in Quebec, is such that it is mainly women who are poor and vulnerable, and our desire to help vulnerable women is what has prompted changes to our program in order to ensure them of long term protection. We make no distinction between categories of women. We want to give all women the protection to which they are entitled.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is determined not to understand the real question.
Will the minister admit, without any shilly-shallying, that the new method of calculating old age security based on family income treats women like dependent children and represents an unacceptable backward step for the women of Quebec and of Canada in their struggle for equality and financial independence?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the opposition is determined to create a problem where none exists, and to refuse to grasp the true principle behind our reform.
That underlying principle is that vulnerable women are entitled to government protection. In the system as it exists at the present time, the guaranteed income supplement already includes the yardstick of the couple's income, the revenue of the husband and of the wife. We have extended the principle that applies at the present time to the guaranteed income supplement to the reform as a whole.
We have brought in this reform because we, unlike the Bloc Quebecois, want people to be able to receive government assistance when they experience hardship. We are the ones implementing true social democracy.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, and we say women will continue to be hard headed.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. At a conference on violence against women organized this year by the UNESCO women's program, it was concluded that women's financial independence is the key to change. As the minister has already determined the fate of female senior citizens by making them more dependent, would he be willing to improve women's financial situation generally, and, if so, how would he do it?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, here again, the important principle is our desire to protect women who are most at risk, and we are doing so.
We will have revenues redistributed to the women who are the least well off. In Quebec it is clear that most of those receiving or
who will receive the increased pension are women. Furthermore, cheques distributed to couples will be divided equally between husband and wife so that each gets half the money due the couple and so that each may remain independent.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the key to change lies in women's economic independence. That means jobs.
In the budget speech, at page 26, the minister said, and I quote:
-that ten years hence increasing child poverty rates will be a thing of the past-Are we to understand that the Minister of Finance advocates the status quo in this area? Is he telling us that his government is resigned to keeping 1.3 million children in poverty?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. The key to women's equality lies in their economic independence. The government recognizes that fully.
When one looks at the initiatives we have taken in the past and looks even closer now at the initiative we took during this budget, we looked at women at every stage of their lives in order to ensure their economic independence.
When we look at the education changes we made in terms of increasing the eligibility for day care and the tax credits for going to school, we are ensuring single women get the same break as women who live in families. The child support of the WIS will be doubled in the next two years.
(1125)
In the seniors package we are ensuring that 90 per cent of women, whether they live singly or in couples, will benefit from this new seniors benefit. We are talking about the economic independence of women.
Yesterday it was somehow the fault of Canadians that the government has failed to meet its promise and has failed to scrap the GST. Today we find out it is blaming the provinces. We had this embarrassing display from government members from Saskatchewan saying to the premier: ``Please help us hide and expand the GST''. It is ridiculous.
Why does the government not admit, why does it not come clean with Canadians and tell us it has absolutely no intention of killing, scrapping or abolishing the GST despite what it said during the election campaign?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to answer that question. We do have every intention of keeping our promise and every intention of replacing the GST.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of trust. The government has betrayed the trust of Canadians on this issue. It made promises to scrap the GST. It did not say harmonization. The only people interested in the government's new super tax are the members opposite.
Ontario has said no, Manitoba has said no, Saskatchewan has said no, Alberta has said no and British Columbia has said no. The only provinces that the government is trying to get on side are the Atlantic provinces and the only way it can do that is to pay them.
Since the provinces have no intention of being co-conspirators in the government's efforts to fudge the public record, why will the government not simply live up to its election promise and scrap the GST?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member forgets is that there are significant advantages to a harmonization program. There are significant advantages to having the GST replaced by a retail tax on an equal basis across the country. The advantages are clearly there. If the Reform Party does not want to see those advantages, fine.
It is unfortunate to have the Reform Party accuse the Atlantic provinces of taking bribes.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who said they were taking bribes. We said nothing of the sort.
I remind the hon. member that the Deputy Prime Minister said in the House that the GST was a job killer. We also know the GST harmonized would kill 70,000 jobs in Ontario alone. That is four times as many as the public servants in Ontario are currently striking over.
It does not matter how many times Liberal members read from the small print in the red book. They can pretend all they want that harmonization was what they told Canadians on the campaign trail, but Canadians know that is not true.
I ask a simple question which Canadians across the country want answered. Why did you lie?
The Speaker: In the course of question period sometimes words are used that should not be. I ask the hon. member to withdraw the word ``lie''.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word ``lie'' and simply ask why did it break its election promise to scrap the GST?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record again exactly what was this party's election promise. It was spelled out not in the fine print of some hidden document but in the red book, the basic statement of the platform, the commitments of this party, on which it was elected by the Canadian people: ``A Liberal government will replace the GST
with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business and'', get this, ``promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization''.
(1130)
Our commitment was based on the concept of harmonization and any attempt by the Reform Party to say otherwise indicates how blind and deaf it is when it comes to the truth.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why did the minister turn a deaf ear to repeated demands the of the Bloc Quebecois that severe sanctions be imposed on anyone who helps, encourages or incites someone to mutilate a young girl?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill which we will reintroduce provides clearly that for anyone who engages in the mutilation of a child or of a woman it is aggravated assault within the meaning of that term in the Criminal Code and will carry very heavy penalties.
The principles that apply generally in criminal law with respect to those who aid, abet, counsel or assist will be as applicable to this offence as they are to any other.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since information and education are essential to solve this issue, why does the Minister of Justice, in co-operation with his colleague from immigration, not inform newcomers right away that the excision of the clitoris is considered to be a criminal practice that is not tolerated in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and her colleagues are aware that if we are to eradicate this criminal and savage practice we have to not only take steps in criminal law but also educate and inform.
The Minister of Health, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Justice have been working together devoting energy, time and effort to educating communities in Canada and those coming to Canada that this is criminal conduct and will be prosecuted where found.
We know in the budget that the federal government is planning to cut transfers to the provinces for health, education and CAP by $7 billion over the next few years.
We all know the provinces have been balancing their budgets. Is it not the real budget strategy of the government to get the provinces to balance the federal budget as well?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the numbers and facts in the budget and the actions of the government speak for themselves.
[Translation]
My supplementary is for the same minister and also concerns the massive cuts affecting transfers to the provinces, since the minister did not answer the first question. In spite of its sovereignist agenda, the Bouchard government pledged to eliminate the deficit created by the provincial Liberals. Must it also eliminate the deficit generated by the federal Liberals?
(1135 )
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is simply not valid. The premise is incorrect. The answer is that is not the case.
Over the last five years, women's groups have seen their subsidies go down 5 per cent every year. Yet, on Wednesday, the Minister of Finance said, and I quote: ``If there is one obligation before the government today, it is to do what we must so that confidence can overcome anxiety and hope can replace despair''.
Given the disturbing rise in poverty and social problems, and given the importance of the role played by these women's groups, will the minister explain the new 6 per cent reduction which brings to 31 per cent for the last six years the cumulative cuts affecting these groups?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government in its budget has stressed very much the economic independence of women.
We have talked about initiatives in tax credits. We have talked about changing the child support program. We have taken money to be gained out of that program and placed it into ways to eliminate poverty. We have looked at how we can empower single women to go to school and to get training through tax initiatives. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given her government's plan to promote gender equality, could the secretary of state tell this House about the impact that these new cuts will have on the promotion of women's equality?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very important in terms of women's equality is that the government has agreed to put forward a plan for gender analysis that will cross every single government department.
Gender analysis means that every time a policy, a law or an initiative is taken there will be a lens to look at that policy, law or initiative to see how it could disadvantage women or men. That kind of thing has led to changes in the employment insurance bill and to all of the initiatives we have seen in the budget.
The cowardly inaction of this government has given the U.S. an upper hand. That is odd given that when the Prime Minister was in opposition in 1985 he demanded that the federal government prevent American boats from entering Canadian waters without permission. He talked tough then; he is now rolling over.
When will the government stand up to U.S. election year bullying and declare unauthorized transit of U.S. boats an active challenge to Canadian sovereignty that will not be tolerated?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
He talks about the U.S. passing laws. The U.S. put its name to a law 150 years ago, the Treaty of Oregon, which recognized without contention that the inside passage was internal waters. In internal waters there is no right of innocent passage.
Irrespective of any laws the U.S. may have passed which ask it to look for the fees to be returned, which we have refused, this treaty has stood the test of time and will stand us in good stead if we have to look at this downstream.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at the core of this is the Pacific salmon dispute with the Americans.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs said this week that our disagreement with the Americans over Cuba was a very serious affair, while the west coast fishing dispute was merely ``an annoyance''. His statement underscores the government's attitude toward British Columbia: just an annoyance.
(1140)
Will the minister apologize to the people of British Columbia and tell the House what measures the government is taking to protect the interests of west coast fishermen?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the thrust of the hon. member's question.
All members of the House are concerned for the 16,000 commercial fishermen in British Columbia who fish a very difficult species. There are 4,000 stocks, 1,500 streams and a migration pattern that takes two to five years leading to the Alaskan and Aleutians Islands. There is a great concern about this.
The mediation process that has been going on since last summer, of which the hon. member is aware, has stalled. It has not been 100 per cent successful but it has been at least 75 per cent successful. The success that has been achieved was the basis of a discussion between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and myself yesterday. I can assure the House he will be going to Washington with some very good and very strong options that will support the fishermen of British Columbia and their concerns.
In November 1993, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, which cost more than $28 million, underlined the need to legislate against the marketing of human embryos.
How can he explain the fact that, two years after the tabling of the Baird report which strongly recommended the criminalization of egg trafficking, nothing has yet been done by this government to follow up on the commission's recommendation?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
The Department of Health has taken the position that is consistent with the expectations of all Canadians. In all cases we will deal with solid research that is well analysed and properly evaluated. The health of Canadians will come first and foremost in all decisions, and every principle of the Canada Health Act will always be maintained. That is our position and we continue to hold it.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is the government waiting for before it legislates? Is it waiting for another crisis like the contaminated blood scandal?
Will the secretary of state recognize at least that the voluntary moratorium implemented last July is a total failure and that the situation is getting out of control and will he assure us today that he will take his responsibilities and legislate immediately?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the rhetoric is helping at all. What the department has done and the minister has reiterated in the House is to pursue a line that allows for the re-establishment of public confidence in our blood supply system, in maintaining the process, and in ensuring that all the principles of the health act are maintained, observed and respected by everybody.
The minister indicated in the House on several occasions that inquiries such as the one to which the hon. member has referred have been proceeding according to the mandate of the commission.
We are allowing the commission to go forward. It has already presented an interim report. The government has acted very quickly and decisively on all seven recommendations that related to the federal responsibilities.
This week an unprecedented meeting was held in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia by a coalition of inshore fisheries groups from the Scotia Fundy region with senior officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Along with other hon. colleagues from the region I worked diligently to ensure this meeting took place, that fishermen's concerns were listened to and that a positive outcome could be achieved.
Would the minister please inform the House of the results of this three-day meeting.
(1145)
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and his colleagues for their participation in the meeting to which he refers, along with Neil Bellefontaine, the regional director general, his staff and the fishermen. It went on for three days and involved 200 fishermen representing 47 different groups in six fishery sectors.
It involved some difficult subjects such as groundfish management, fisheries legislation, licensing policy and the commercial licence fees for 1996.
I will be holding a press conference following question period that will give all the details of this. However, the measure of success that was achieved in the three days of talks is a positive indicator to me as fisheries minister that the management of fisheries at difficult times when the resources are very scarce will go on in a very positive, understanding, consultative and co-operative manner.
The finance minister, who is really the Liberal's defence minister, has announced $800 million in cuts to the defence department which are directed at equipment procurement, such as armoured personnel carriers, search and rescue helicopters, shipborne helicopters, submarines, that are all needed to maintain Canada's combat capability.
How and when will the defence minister manage to purchase this equipment which is essential to maintain our sovereignty and to support our troops around the world.?
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is absolutely wrong.
In the white paper in 1994 we committed to three major purchases, the armoured personnel carrier, search and rescue helicopters, maritime helicopters and if a deal was favourable, submarines.
The question of submarines is still to be decided and has not been affected by the budget announcement of this week.
The armoured personnel carrier announcement was made last August and search and rescue in October. Those programs will proceed.
With respect to maritime helicopters, as a result of the $150 million one-time charge two years hence, we will be deferring the maritime helicopter program decision for one further year.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear from the Liberal government. It has placed the blame for Canada's growing debt on the men and women of the Canadian armed forces and that is wrong.
The government has promised to foot the bill for some $23 million for a mission in Haiti and it will not even seek reimbursement from the United Nations, which is normal practice. At the same time it is gutting the defence budget by some $800 million which will put Canadian sovereignty at risk.
Will the minister agree to reassess each and every overseas mission until it can adequately fund the Canadian Armed Forces or at least make the UN contribute to our costs?
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party in the last election championed massive spending cuts. In fact, the leader of his party in reply to the Minister of Finance this week said the government is not going fast enough. Now we are told that we should not be cutting in certain areas.
In fact, the Reform Party tried to pose this week as the guarantors of health and other social programs. Canadians will see through this rhetoric.
Could the minister tell us what kind of concrete measures his government intends to take to put an end to the blatant abuse of human rights in Chinese orphanages?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question.
Federal government officials have visited China. During conversations with officials the issue of the situation with babies and small children in China has been raised. We have told them of our concern about the deplorable conditions we learned about in which some Chinese children are living. We have offered our assistance to help them deal with this situation. We have also referred them to UNICEF. We understand that right now China is in dialogue with UNICEF and that UNICEF will be providing some assistance.
(1150)
The Government of Canada supports UNICEF financially and we will keep an eye on this issue to make sure there are improvements being made.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well what we want, and what the Bloc Quebecois has been condemning for many months now. We want an unequivocal condemnation by the Canadian government of children's human rights abuse in Chinese orphanages. Behind the scene dealings will not protect Canada's reputation in the world.
I would like the minister to tell us when her government is finally going to adhere to a consistent policy on the issue of trade and human rights, in order to protect the reputation Canada used to have, and I do mean used to have, throughout the world?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is very sympathetic to the issues that the member raises with regard to human rights issues worldwide. We have officially addressed abuses to human rights in China. Among those, we have raised the issue of the conditions in which children and babies find themselves.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission will be convening shortly. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be attending that meeting in Geneva, along with, we hope, other parliamentarians. We will all have an opportunity to address these very serious issues, not only in China but in other areas of the world where we have serious concerns.
The Canadian government, through CIDA, has also put together a policy on human rights, democratic development and good governance. I would be very happy to share this with any parliamentarian here.
On January 24 the minister appointed Mr. John Desotti of Sudbury, judge of the Ontario court in Sarnia. At the time of this appointment, was the minister aware that a three-year-old, unresolved complaint alleging professional misconduct was pending against Mr. Desotti before the Law Society of Upper Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker. In order to be fair to the man and fair to the facts, I hasten to add that I was also aware that the complaint had been investigated and dismissed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that it was a three-year case, that a review into the matter was under way and that the appointment by this justice minister simply threw a cloak of immunity over Mr. Desotti and the Law Society of Upper Canada lost jurisdiction as a result of this appointment.
Because of his actions, which violated the fundamental principle of due process and violated the right of the complainants in this case to a fair hearing, I ask the minister what action he will take to have the appointment of Mr. Desotti rescinded until the complaint or the complainant receives a fair and just hearing and to ensure the ethics of the newly appointed judge are no longer in question?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, involvement in public life brings a certain responsibility, including a responsibility to be fair to the reputation of people. I invite the hon. member to bear that in mind.
What is required of us, as responsible public officials, is more than simply to cobble together bits of phrases that sound very righteous and to combine them with indignation.
Mr. Ramsay: Here is the file.
(1155 )
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, I know the facts of this case, so let me tell the House and the hon. member what really happened.
A client complained to the Law Society about Mr. Desotti when he was in practice. The Law Society investigated that complaint and found it without foundation and decided not to proceed. In those circumstances, having regard to the fact that finding had been made and looking at the facts and the nature of the complaint, I exercised my judgment and I brought the man's name forward to cabinet because he is going to be a good judge.
The client, unhappy with the fact that the complaint had been found without merit, asked for a review by a lay bencher of the Law Society. It was while that review was pending that the appointment was made.
Our judgment and our determination was that the appointment was appropriate and I invite the hon. member to be fair to Mr. Desotti and to the system.
Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House when these truly deserving members of the Canadian forces can expect this measure to take effect? This is another good news story to follow up on his clarification of the purchase of equipment which he made just a few minutes ago.
Hon. David Mr. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for his intervention.
Very few other members in the House have had such a long and distinguished record in support of Canada's armed forces and I think that should be recognized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, to answer the specific question, this measure, which is long overdue, will take place on April 1 of this year.
I would like to thank publicly the men and women of the armed forces and in particular, the 50,000 non-commissioned members who will be affected by this pay catch-up. These people have made a sacrifice over and above the sacrifice made by public servants in the last couple of years. They were not only caught with the freeze but their catch-up, which was due in the 1990-1993 period, was also caught in the freeze. This measure now corrects that injustice.
The morale of the men and women who serve in the armed forces is particularly good. I saw it last week in Bosnia. I hope this shows Canadians' appreciation for the work and the sacrifice that they have been making over the last few years.
[Translation]
In her study on the Correctional Service of Canada, Janet Laishes indicates that almost half of the suicides committed by inmates in federal penitentiaries in the last four years occurred in the province of Quebec.
Would the minister therefore acknowledge that the shortage of correctional officers to supervise inmates is one of the main causes of this problem?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised an important issue. We are currently reviewing the report he referred to, but I am not ready right now to accept the premise to his question.
Will the Minister of Transport please give the House a couple of simple answers. When will the government dispose of the 13,000 hopper cars and more important, what is the department's asking price? The farmers who are interested in buying should at least know what the numbers are on the price tag.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I know him to be a visitor to the transport committee and an interested participant.
(1200 )
In answer to his question on the hopper cars, the current policy of the government is to get out of the business of transportation assets and transportation services. That is a very successful policy. This means we are trying to create efficiencies.
The price, as the hon. member will know, on the hopper cars has yet to be established. That is only fair because, as pointed out earlier this fall, what we have to do as a government is consult with the interested parties, CN and CP, but also there has been a call by the farmers and the producers who will be using those grain cars and who want to have a say in the opportunity of taking ownership of those 13,300 grain cars.
We will have to get together and establish who will buy those hopper cars but only after all the parties have come to the table for a full and thorough discussion on the matter.
Page 38 of the red book says:
Quality accessible child care is an economic advantage for Canada. It enables single parents to end dependence on welfare and food banks by re-entering the workforce. It provides direct jobs for Canadians, particularly for women. On average, one person is employed for every five child care spaces created.It is clear the Prime Minister has abandoned his promise to a national child care program. In the budget the Minister of Finance clearly has abandoned that promise as well. A voucher system is not a child care system.
Will the secretary of state for women state publicly today that she will support a national child care program for Canada?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question that is extremely important. Everything she quoted in the red book is true; it was true then and it is true today.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is looking at how we can continue to keep that promise and implement it. We have to keep the process going. We have to discuss innovative ways we can accomplish this. If we cannot do it with provinces we still have a commitment to do it.
This week Canadians are celebrating International Women's Week, highlighted by International Woman's Day on March 8. It is an occasion to look back on the accomplishments of women in Canada and across the globe.
What is the government doing to further the cause of women's equality?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a very good question on a very important day.
The cornerstone of the government's initiatives for equality among women is gender analysis. I said earlier how that empowers and will increase women's economic independence, will look at their social life and will look at their physical well-being.
We talked earlier about some of the initiatives we have taken with regard to child support, with regard to the WIS, with regard to the Canada student loan programs, with regard to employment insurance. By simply applying gender analysis we have looked at hours of work instead of weeks of work because we know so many women work hours in terms of part time jobs and need to get benefits.
We have talked about empowering education and looking at the issues that will help young women get an education. We have talked about the court challenges program and we have done it. We have looked at violence against women. We have looked at female genital mutilation. We have the Firearms Control Act, which will decrease violence against women. We have created centres of excellence for health. I could go on and on.
The Speaker: I have a point of order and then I will make my decision on the point of contempt raised by the hon. member for Beaver River.
When the Leader of the Government in the House and Solicitor General of Canada quotes from a document, it would be better if this document were to be tabled, so that all members of Parliament can have a copy and stop misquoting it. I refer, of course, to the red book.
(1205)
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to comply with this well established precedent. Therefore I am pleased to table in the House the document from which I quoted. It is entitled ``Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada''.
For greater certainty, I present it to the table in both official languages.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask you if we need the unanimous consent of the House to table a document.
The Speaker: No, there is no need for unanimous consent of the House to table a document. When a minister or any hon. member quotes from a document, he or she has the right to ask for it to be tabled.
[English]
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, because of the great interest in the material I have tabled, I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to have it printed in its entirety as an appendix to today's Hansard.
The Speaker: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in light of the interest of members of Parliament with respect to the section of the red book that refers to child care, I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to at least have that placed on the permanent record of the House.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
I want to thank the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House, the Chief Government Whip, the whip of the Reform Party and the hon. member for Mississauga-South for their comments on this question.
[English]
In her submission the hon. member argued that an employee of the Prime Minister's office had attempted to coerce, intimidate and incite the staff of the House of Commons to refuse a request for printing which she had made on February 28. This, she claimed, constituted a contempt of the House and she requested that I rule a prima facie case.
As hon. members know, I did rule on the matter of the printing of this document when it was first raised on February 28. As I noted at that time, the House staff erred by not complying with the request made by the hon. member for Beaver River, which was entirely in accordance with the guidelines of the Board of Internal Economy.
The document was subsequently printed and I, in the House, apologized to her for any inconvenience. I also met privately with the member and she was made aware of all the circumstances surrounding this matter.
[Translation]
The Chair takes very seriously any matter concerning the privileges of members, particularly any matter which may constitute a contempt of the House.
(1210)
The hon. member for Beaver River is correct in pointing out that new forms of contempt may arise and the House should not be constrained in dealing with them.
[English]
In dealing with matters of privilege and contempt, it is the House which determines whether a breach of its privileges or a contempt has occurred. It is the role of the Chair, based on evidence presented by the member, to determine whether or not the alleged contempt is of such importance that the regular business of the House should be set aside to deal with the matter immediately; that is, whether or not the matter is prima facie.
Therefore it is the responsibility of any member in raising a question of privilege, particularly a possible contempt, to bring forth sufficient evidence to enable the Speaker to find that a prima facie case exists.
[Translation]
Beauchesne's, 6th Edition, Citation 117(1) states in part:
Once the claim of breach of privilege has been made, it is the duty of the Speaker to decide if a prima facie case can be established. The Speaker requires to be satisfied,-that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify giving such precedence-[English]
Since the original matter was raised on February 28 I have had further discussions with senior House officials. There is no doubt that House staff was responsible for the mismanagement of this printing request.
Since the official from the Prime Minister's office did not initiate the situation but rather reacted based on inquiry from House staff, it is difficult to conclude from the facts presented by the hon. member that the official coerced, intimidated or incited the staff of the House of Commons.
It appears to me that what occurred in this case was done inadvertently and that it represents an unfortunate but isolated incident.
I must find that the hon. member did not provide the Chair with sufficient evidence to allow it to find that a prima facie contempt had occurred.
I assure all members that the staff of the House of Commons continues to strive for a high standard of competence and professionalism in the services it officers. However, I do want to remind the staff as well as government officials that in dealing with members of Parliament confidentiality is key and that members must be able to rely on their complete discretion.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. member for Beaver River for having raised this very serious issue and assure her, and all members of this Houses, that corrective steps have been put in place to ensure that such an occurrence does not take place again.