Editorial writers in the weekend newspapers were appalled by the attitude of the Deputy Prime Minister, who now refuses to honour her formal promise to resign if her government did not scrap the GST. The Globe and Mail is now calling for the Deputy Prime Minister's resignation, while La Presse argues, with good reason, that her attitude seriously undermines the credibility of all politicians in Canada.
Since the Deputy Prime Minister had the time to reflect on all this on the weekend and since there is a wide consensus across Canada that she should resign, does she not feel that she should go back on her decision and honour her promise to resign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is for certain: I did not make any decision on my political future because of the editorials in the Toronto and Montreal newspapers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister herself had insisted that killing the GST should be a formal election promise, she cannot claim today that she spoke a little too fast, without thinking, and that it was an honest mistake.
Will she admit that not only her credibility but that of the whole government is at stake in this matter and that she should therefore resign, at least as Deputy Prime Minister and as a cabinet member?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always told voters-before, during and after the election-that a two-tax system causes many problems for small and medium size businesses, many problems in terms of trade, and that what we are doing with the new tax is introducing a harmonized system in keeping with our commitments on page 22 of the red book.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister should note that what causes problems for business, for all Canadians and for politicians is that a cabinet member is not keeping her promise. That is a source of problems.
By failing to resign, does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that she is undermining the integrity of the whole government and that she will then bear the heavy burden of creating a precedent in Canada by refusing to respond and to honour her promise? Does she not realize that she is undermining the integrity of the whole government, since she must honour her promises as a member of the government?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are meeting our commitment. On page 22 of the red book, we promised to replace the GST with a new tax that would be easier for trade purposes as well as for small business and for consumers.
That is why the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the organizations representing Canada's small businesses support what we are doing. That is why I do not have to resign for fulfilling our promises on page 22 of the red book.
(1420)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that, by not fulfilling a formal commitment made during the election campaign, she casts discredit on all politicians in this country, and that her only option is to resign? She has no choice, she must resign.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not accept the claim of the hon. member that I am discrediting women in politics.
[Translation]
I do not want to brag about women in politics, but Canadian women are well aware that if there is someone who worked hard to include them in politics it is my leader and my party.
During the last election campaign, the leader of the hon. member's party did not believe in a policy to recruit women; he did not want one. We had such a policy and I am proud that 37 women are currently in this House, thanks to our policy.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of the situation, and given that the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to resign to fulfil her commitment and preserve the credibility of her government, will she agree to submit her case to the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor, so that he can submit his written conclusions to the House?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is really sad is that the Bloc uses one of its few female members to do this job. I find it deplorable and so should the other women in their caucus.
[English]
The red book clearly states that more free votes would be allowed in the House of Commons. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Will her government keep one crucial promise and allow MPs to represent the wishes of their constituents in a free vote on the proposed gay rights amendment?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since we formed the government we amended the rules of this House. We allowed free votes on every private member's bill and motion. We allowed committees to propose legislation which was never done before. For example, take the case of Bill C-69. This was a bill that came from the procedure and House affairs committee and was sent to the Senate, but was passed by this House. It was a bill that did not come from the government. It came from committee.
We are gradually implementing all our reforms on how this place is going to work and we will continue to do so. We have had free votes and free votes will continue to exist.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on page 92 of the Liberal red book the Prime Minister promised that ``more free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons''.
To date we have yet to see one free vote on any piece of government legislation. Canadians have some very strong views on the gay rights issue and they deserve to be truly represented in this House.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister again, will her government allow a free vote on its proposed amendments to the human rights act?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been. For the last two and a half years practically every week when this House is in session we have free votes on private members' bills and private members' motions and we continue to do so.
(1425 )
In terms of her specific question, she has to wait. The Prime Minister will make a decision in due course.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it appears the Prime Minister is not willing to hold a free vote on this amendment. I hope that does not mean that closure is next.
How times have changed. The Liberals used to howl with outrage every time the Mulroney Tories limited debate. Now, whenever they start taking political heat from Canadians, they automatically introduce closure. They did it with MP pensions, they did it with gun control, they did it with the budget and UI reforms to name just a few.
Will the government allow all Canadians to have their say on this important amendment? Will the Prime Minister promise not to use closure to ram it through the House of Commons?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will decide whether this party will have a free vote on that amendment and he will do that when it is appropriate to do so.
In response to the question put by the hon. member, first, the reality is that for a party such as hers which is so interested in taking head counts in polls before deciding how its members will vote, the party opposite should know that as recently as this weekend the Liberal Party of Canada had no difficulty in deciding where it stands on the issue by overwhelmingly voting in favour of the amendment we proposed. Second, an Angus Reid poll which polled the views of Canadians across the country announced that the vast majority of Canadians are behind this amendment.
If that is not good enough for the Reform Party, there is something wrong with it.
At the meeting of the Quebec branch of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister waxed eloquent about the integrity of his government. And yet, in the Somalia affair, there are growing signs that information was falsified and concealed. Even the chief of defence staff, General Boyle, who was personally chosen by the minister of defence, appears to be very seriously implicated in this affair.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that the credibility of her government is compromised by the systematic refusal of her defence minister to suspend General Jean Boyle until the inquiry is over?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question
has been asked a number of times in recent days and I am compelled to give the same answer.
We have a process in motion. A commission of inquiry is looking into all aspects of the Canadian force deployment to Somalia. Some other issues that are perhaps tangential but which may deal with the documentation issue with respect to Somalia have been raised. The commission has started hearings and those hearings are ongoing.
All people concerned will have the opportunity to give their side of events and their points of view over the next couple of weeks. I would ask the hon. member the basic courtesy to allow all those people to come forward and let the decision be made by the commission in due course.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to observe the basic courtesies, but normally, when someone is the subject of an inquiry, he is temporarily suspended, precisely in order to get to the bottom of the events at issue. It is a question of credibility.
Since General Boyle was directly implicated by certain witnesses, why is the minister of defence making an exception to this sacrosanct rule by refusing to suspend the general until the inquiry is over?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would submit that those lacking credibility are the members of the opposition who will not allow the normal Canadian judicial process to take its normal course and allow people every right to give their side of events in an impartial setting.
It is not we who are out of step, it is the opposition that is out of step with the ideas and values of Canadians.
He also he indicated there would be a free vote on that issue today at 6.30 p.m. Could he confirm it?
The Speaker: I did not know where the question was leading. That is anticipating an order of the day. That question is out of order, but if he has another question he would like to put, I will permit it.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think I got my point across.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I will go to a supplementary.
If there is a free vote for a victims' bill of rights, why is it that the government will not commit to a free vote on gay rights?
The Speaker: I think somehow they are intrinsically tied. I am going to give the member the benefit of the doubt. The second part of the question is in order. The minister may answer the question if he likes.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me put the hon. member out of his misery.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: We will be here a long time if we wait until the hon. member finds the right way to ask the question.
The answer of course, is that when there are resolutions, as there are today involving victims' rights, members of this party vote as they see fit. I already told the House this morning that I am going to be voting in favour of the resolution because I share the objectives expressed by the hon. member. I expect that other members of the government side will vote as they see fit.
We are doing that because the resolution before the House today raises issues in which we share the objectives of all members of the House, that victims be treated properly and with dignity throughout the criminal justice system.
Will the Minister of Industry confirm that his government is preparing to modify regulations relating to Bill C-91 on the pharmaceutical industry in such as way as to greatly reduce the protection of drug patents?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have indicated to both types of pharmaceutical industries, the generic and the multinationals, that it is important for them to consider the impact of these regulations. Despite their highly complicated nature, it is vital that they work to the benefit of all Canadians.
I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to explain his position on these regulations. I am open to his ideas, because it is important for us to determine the best way of implementing the regulations.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we need to try to decode this. It is my impression that the hon. member is trying to tell us that he will be doing something to Bill C-91, as they tried to last year in response to Ontario lobbying. It was very clear at the time, but now they are trying to do the same thing in secret. We too have met with drug companies, and they do not share the minister's opinion in the least.
Will the minister repeat in this House the commitment made on April 28, 1994 not to touch the Drug Patents Act, either directly or indirectly, before the spring of 1997, or in other words not until the time set for its re-assessment?
(1435 )
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to be perfectly clear on this issue. The member is quite right. A review period was established in Bill C-91 that will come into effect in the spring of 1997.
At the same time, he understands that the NOC link regulations which were enacted pursuant to section 55(2) of that legislation are very complex. In order to determine whether they have the desired effect of appropriately balancing the interests that lie in this area between the rights of patent holders to protect their patents-which I believe is what he is endeavouring in suggesting that these should not be changed-against the interests that consumers have in the legitimate acquisition of generic products when patent rights have expired-to which I am sure he also does not object-I think he understands that the essence of patent protection is that it extends for a period of time after which it ends. That is the law.
The NOC link regulations are intended to establish a mechanism whereby both interests are adequately protected. In order to determine whether that has been achieved we are looking at the litigation that has ensued from those regulations and we will determine what the best result is to follow from that.
The tragic shooting rampage in Vernon, B.C. where a man killed himself after shooting his estranged wife and eight members of her family illustrates what can happen when warning signs are ignored for whatever reason.
Does the the justice minister not agree that it could save lives if we gave police the power to follow through on domestic violence charges after a complaint is made, whether the complainant asks for the charges or not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, such discretion is provided for already and is well within the administrative powers of police forces at present.
While I recognize the very genuine concern on the part of the hon. member in his question and the tragedy in Vernon, I must say, before concluding my response, that there is a healthy measure of irony in the hon. member's question.
It was the member and his colleagues who for months stood in the House to oppose the measures we introduced in Bill C-68 to more rationally control access to and use of firearms, to put in place systems and processes that would enable authorities to follow up in cases of domestic abuse and to make sure firearms are removed from persons who represent a danger to themselves or others.
To hear the hon. member today suggesting that further steps should be available in such cases is indeed a very distinct irony.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I probably should ask if the justice minister feels any better that these victims were shot with a registered gun. I wonder if that would make any difference.
In the mass murder in Vernon, the estranged wife did not ask for charges to be laid because she was afraid for her life, naturally. However, 10 people are dead because the police were handcuffed.
Contrary to what the minister has said, is he saying today that there is no way we can give the police the tools they are asking for, or the tools victims' rights groups are asking for, or the tools that Canadians are asking for to help prevent more needless deaths in these kinds of tragedies?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the tools or remedies or procedures that the hon. member is suggesting are either already available or well within the grasp of police forces in Canada. It is a
question of the police forces themselves making use of those remedies and those procedures.
With respect to the nature of the gun being responsible for the tragedy in British Columbia, let me observe that the reason we are after the registration of all firearms and the reason the House has now approved that in Bill C-68 is that information available to the police to better enable them to predict such tragedies and take remedial steps to remove firearms will be available to all police across the country. That is what we achieved with Bill C-68.
[Translation]
A report released on March 14 by the American secretary of state confirms that atrocities and human rights violations are on the rise in Algeria. However, the Government of Canada continues to refuse to suspend the deportation order hanging over the heads of Algerian nationals who have taken refuge in Canada.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that a climate of violence prevails at the moment in Algeria and that Algerian nationals should, like nationals of other countries selected by her department, benefit from a suspension of deportation measures?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee looking at conditions in countries where people are deported meets regularly to assess situations in various countries, because, as you know, when we decide to send someone back to his country, the risks are always evaluated.
Obviously, we will not send someone back to his own country when there may be reprisals or his life is at risk. We are very careful on this. We study each case, each file, when individuals are to be deported. For the time being, we are continuing deportations to Algeria.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be totally unaware of the rise of fundamentalism in Algeria, and her advisory committee is meeting behind closed doors.
How does the minister explain that decisions on whether deportation orders are to be suspended for a given country are made in conditions of secrecy, according to criteria known only to her officials? Why is Algeria not among the countries presenting a risk?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, each situation is considered on its merit. For a given country as a whole, various factors are taken into consideration. We are well aware of what is going on in each country. We also know what has happened to people after we sent them back to certain countries. We have consulted various authorities internationally as well.
I will repeat what I said. Each time we make a decision regarding a particular individual, we evaluate the potential risks they run in returning to their country. For the time being, we will continue to send people back to Algeria and continue to study each case in detail.
Justice Krever said in his interim report that our blood system was already one of the safest in the world. However, reports indicate a low level of confidence by Canadians in our system.
Can the minister tell the House what steps he plans to take to make our blood system better?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week there was a meeting of federal-provincial ministers of health where the blood system and its management was the major topic of discussion.
All provinces agreed it was important that we move collectively to try to restore public confidence in the blood system. All ministers of health agreed that we do have a safe blood system but we want to make it safer. As a result over the next number of weeks we have directed our officials to come back with a plan whereby we can have a system of governance where the lines of accountability and responsibility are very clear, transparent and open. By way of a working relationship, officials are directed to do meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, not just government representatives, but consumers and various activist groups across the country.
(1445)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue to which the hon. member refers involves a request by counsel for some of the parties to look at hours and hours of videotape in respect of which as I understand it production has already been made with respect to summaries of the evidence that was recorded thereon. The position taken by counsel for the department on that request is that the commission's time is better spent looking at other issues than at looking at hours and hours of videotape which may not be germane or relevant and the substance of which has already been disclosed.
I can say that the position taken by counsel is based on the premise that this is a collateral matter. May I also say my understanding is that counsel has offered to the commission that it should look at the hours and hours of videotape and decide for itself whether there is any purpose to be served in taking time to display it.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the public is going to be very happy with the answer from the Minister of Justice.
I will ask the Minister of National Defence again, how are you going to guarantee that the public-
The Speaker: My colleagues, all of your questions are to be directed through the Chair. Would you please rephrase your question.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of National Defence, how will the minister guarantee to the public of Canada that the Somalia commission will get to the bottom of all of the allegations concerning General Boyle and the whole alleged cover-up of information in the Somalia affair?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, the guarantee is contained in the terms of reference for the inquiry. I would hope that he reads the terms of reference.
It is not for us to debate on the floor of the House of Commons procedural matters that appear before the commission. That is something between the commissioners and the counsel for the various people appearing, including the government. It is not for here in the House of Commons.
For 10 years now, the municipality of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has been asking the federal government to take action to protect residents from the dangers of train derailments. Even though it privatises railway companies, the government is still responsible for safety in the railway sector.
Following the fifth derailment in six years in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, what does the minister intend to do to protect residents against these freight trains in urban areas?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of hazardous cargoes on trains, ships or aircraft is closely examined by the department. In the specific area the member has mentioned where there has been concern expressed by local authorities, it is being looked at by the Department of Transport at the present time.
As the member indicated in the preamble to his question, it is a subject that goes back a fair length of time involving rerouting of lines. As soon as I have information on this subject, I will be happy to share it with him.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the situation has been going on for 10 years and it is dangerous in Valleyfield. When the most recent derailment occurred in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, two railroad cars could have been carrying toxic chemicals.
Is the minister waiting for a chemical spill to occur in a residential area before taking action to protect residents? These trains go by polyvalente schools and travel close to a school and to the hospital. What does the minister intend to do?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier response, the issue of hazardous substances carried in tank cars or in other rail cars is a matter of serious concern.
The difficulty the member has posed is that because of the nature of this country's development, rail lines quite frequently pass through inhabited and municipal areas. It is simply not possible to give the type of blanket guarantee he has requested. I can assure him however that the specific concern of this area and the possibility of any bypass or diversion will be looked at. In fact, it is currently being looked at.
(1450)
The Speaker: Colleagues, words such as ``dishonour'' or ``dishonesty'' are not acceptable in the House. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word ``dishonour'' and rephrase the question.
The Deputy Prime Minister has now managed to bring into question her actions and has reaffirmed the cynicism toward self-serving politicians, all because she will not hold herself accountable for the things she says and does and her current failure to stand on principle and integrity.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why she insists on defending her bait and switch political say anything, do anything campaign to get elected?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not what I have done.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member continues to swim in a sea of confusion.
The Liberals have not kept their promise on page 22. It is not revenue neutral. It is not better for consumers. It does not promote provincial harmony; it promotes disharmony.
Her actions strike at the core of why politicians are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of respect. Fifty-one Reformers promised to opt out of the gold plated pension plan and we did. That is integrity. That is honour and it is standing on principle. Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not do the same thing, deliver on her promise to resign, put her seat where her mouth is and seek re-election if she is so confident she has done nothing wrong?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's claim that it would make more sense to resign and then have a $100,000 byelection to make a political point runs counter to the view of the people. People have an opportunity in an election to make their point. If the people of Hamilton East want to fire me in the next election, certainly that will be their right.
What is the use of NAFTA if the United States can change the rules by arbitrarily increasing restrictions on the import of wool suits from Canada?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any measure by the United States to unilaterally change the rules of NAFTA will be met with resistance and the appropriate response.
We have successfully negotiated through NAFTA an agreement relevant to wool suits. It is one which we paid the price for at the time. We are acting completely within our rights and obligations under NAFTA and I would expect the United States would as well.
In addition to that, even though we have been quite successful in moving wool suits from $5.6 million to $112 million in just five years, there still is a billion dollar trade surplus the United States has with us in terms of textiles and apparel. Therefore in addition to that, there is no cause for complaint.
The salary of CN president Paul Tellier was set by Ottawa at $350,000 annually for the years 1993-1995. Mr. Tellier also benefited from a generous mortgage loan from CN. Now, according to documents released a few days ago by CN, it appears that Mr. Tellier also received the sizeable amount of $200,000 in bonuses.
(1455)
In these times of budget restrictions for CN, which eliminated over 11,000 jobs, how could the government agree, before privatization, to such generous bonuses to someone already earning a more than decent salary?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the compensation of senior public servants and people in the private sector is not normally a matter to be discussed in the House.
The important matter which I think must be borne in mind by members on all sides of the House is to make sure that for our major corporations we get the most competent people possible.
I would suggest to the hon. member that as CN is in the process of being totally privatized, it perhaps would be inappropriate at this point for us to comment upon his salary as president of a private corporation.
How can the minister possibly justify a 50 per cent reduction in the fleet, one that fishermen will pay dearly for, and at the very same time a 50 per cent reallocation of the commercial catch to native fisheries?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member has some of his facts wrong.
In the sense of the commercial fishery and the 50 per cent reduction, we may not be able to achieve that in the short term. The maximum we could achieve is around 40 per cent through a series of licensing restrictions, licence stacking and voluntary buy back.
From the round table discussion which stemmed from the report, my understanding is that the seiners wanted it around 30 per cent, the gill net representatives wanted it between 30 and 35 per cent and the trawlers wanted it between 25 and 50 per cent. What we are doing in this case is we are representing essentially what the industry has asked for.
With respect to the Nisga'a the hon. member is totally wrong. The maximum number involved is around 25 per cent. This is done with the agreement of most of the parties involved. The Nisga'a have been negotiating for over 100 years and we have finally come to an agreement. I do not think it is right for the hon. member to try to throw off this very honourable agreement in principle on the basis of information which is not based on fact.
Yesterday people across Canada marked the national day of mourning for persons killed or injured at the workplace.
Will the minister assure the House that he will reverse the recent cuts in resources for enforcement of part II of the Canada Labour Code and instead significantly strengthen enforcement, particularly in light of the study by his own official, Henry Nur, which documents a direct link between decreased enforcement and increased injury and death at the workplace?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the national day of mourning on which I made a statement in the House on Friday. A number of union leaders and I were not far away from the House commemorating this important and historic day, which 10 years ago Parliament decreed would be the day every year we would remember those people who have lost their lives in the workplace.
The labour program is reviewing part II of the Canada Labour Code which concerns health and safety. A group is working together and has reached a consensus on 90 per cent of the issues. We hope that before the end of the year we can amend part II of the code so that health and safety will also be enforced.
The law of the sea convention is designed to protect the world's fisheries and stop the pollution of oceans. Eighty-three states have already ratified the law of the sea. In the throne speech the government states its intent to follow suit.
Given the importance of this piece of international law, can the minister indicate when Canada will ratify it?
(1500 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member clearly points out, it is a priority for the government. We have established it as a major international commitment.
At the same time, it is very important that we work toward a ratification of the straddling stocks agreements by all countries included so that the two can work hand in hand to not only provide protection for the broader ocean itself but to ensure Canada receives the kind of protection of its conservation of fish resources that was established so effectively by the minister of fisheries last year and continued by his successor this year.