My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the federal government put itself in the position of blackmailing the Government of Quebec by making its non intervention in the Bertrand case conditional on Quebec's renouncing Quebecers' fundamental right to decide their future themselves?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I told the House last week, the litigation before the court has become of interest because of the position taken by the Government of Quebec. Simply stated, it is that neither the courts nor the Constitution of Canada can have any relevance to a declaration by Quebec of its sovereignty. That proposition of course is profoundly wrong.
It is the question of whether the federal attorney general can assist the court in dealing with it that has attracted our attention. We are considering our position in relation to intervention. No decision has yet been made, but that is the reason we are considering it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a scrum this morning, the Prime Minister himself said that it would be much easier for the federal government not to intervene in the matter, provided the Government of Quebec agreed not to defend Quebecers' right to decide their own future. This is what the Prime Minister said this morning, in Montreal.
I ask the Minister of Justice why the federal government has now resorted to blackmail-there is no other way to describe it-against the Government of Quebec, when in fact the federal government has always implicitly recognized Quebecers' right to decide their future themselves by participating in the previous two referendums and by agreeing to accept the results?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process of a population of a province or a country expressing itself by referendum is not new.
Naturally, the opinion of the population when expressed by referendum is important. No one contests that. Nor does anyone contest the right of the population of Quebec to express itself on any such question.
What has caught the attention of the national government is that the Government of Quebec in the litigation which raises the legality of l'avant de project de loi and Bill No. 1 has taken the position that after such a thing might occur, neither the Constitution nor the courts have any role or relevance in determining what would happen then, or in the declaration of sovereignty by the province of Quebec. That is a very fundamental issue.
As I have indicated to the House, we are considering whether we can assist the court on those legal points. That is why we are considering intervention in that case. It has nothing to do with blackmail at all. It has to do with fundamental principles of law and the rule of law. That is what we have under consideration.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by wanting to put to the test of law Quebecers' inalienable right to decide their future, is the federal government not placing itself in the untenable position of wanting in a way to put a legal interpretation before democracy and a people's choice.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we do not believe democracy and the rule of law are incompatible concepts; the one is safeguarded by the application of the other.
There are important aspects of the rule of law arising from the position taken by the Government of Quebec in the Bertrand litigation. It may be that after considering the position we determine that we will not intervene. It may be that we conclude the matter is so obvious there is no need for us to assist the court. We might also await the disposition of the first instance and determine whether intervention might be more useful on appeal. All these matters fall to be examined.
In the meantime we are considering the position and I hope to be in a position in the coming days to make clear the course we will take.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is throwing up a legal smoke screen to justify its intervention in the Bertrand case, which seeks to deny Quebecers the right to make a democratic decision about their future. And yet, lest it be forgotten, the federal government participated actively in both Quebec referendums.
Since the government has allowed itself the luxury of a Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, and since he is here, it is to him that I address my question.
How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify the fact that the federal government has never, until today, attempted to challenge the legality of the two referendums held in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, referendums in Canada, and this was also pointed out in the white paper on consulting the people of Quebec, are advisory in nature. When the Government of Canada participates in a referendum, it is because it wishes to give its point of view in this consultation. That is what the Government of Canada did during the two referendums in question.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that as long as his government thought it would win the referendums, it did not challenge their legality, but now that its back is to the wall, now that it knows it is going to lose the next referendum, it is trying everything it can think of to prevent Quebecers from making a decision about their future? That is the explanation.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada had no reason to consider consultative referendums illegal, because by law a referendum must be consultative.
But since the hon. member is looking for contradictions, he will find them in the interpretation of victory and defeat, during the last referendum, by the leader of the yes camp at the time, Jacques Parizeau, who said, should his camp lose, that the next time would not be so very far off, and that the yes side would then have its revenge, but, should his camp win, that it was time to turn the page, that the die is cast, that the decision was final. There is the contradiction.
Once the ballots were counted, however, the Prime Minister changed his tune: ``Sometimes in the course of a mandate you are faced with a situation where you cannot deliver. You have to have some flexibility''. That is quite a switch.
Who should Canadians believe, the Prime Minister on the campaign trail saying he will keep all his promises, or the Prime Minister in office saying all his promises will not be kept?
(1425)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to welcome the leader of the third party back to Parliament. Clearly a number of interesting developments have taken place during his absence. I think he is now in a position to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure all hon. members will refrain from commenting on the presence or absence of any member.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am just very pleased the leader is here now. I really welcome-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The answer please.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, when members of the Reform Party first came to the House they made a very clear promise to the Canadian people about a new style of politics. Yet we have seen in the past two and a half years a series of Reform members of Parliament making what can only be most charitably described as the most inelegant, inappropriate, unacceptable statements ever heard in the Chamber.
It would seem that if ever there has been a promise broken it has been broken by the leader and the members of the Reform Party in the way they have abused the House with that kind of language and the statements they have made.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not be diverted from the issue at hand, and the issue at hand is the integrity of the government.
When the Liberals were in opposition they denounced NAFTA. Once in power they accepted it. When in opposition they said the CBC budget was sacred. Once in power they slashed it by $377 million. When in opposition the Liberals wanted to kill the GST. Once in power they hid and harmonized it. In opposition the Liberals slammed every single policy the Conservatives dreamed up. Once in power they dressed up legislation and claimed it as their own.
Which Liberal Party should Canadians believe, the Liberals in opposition who denounced every Tory policy, or the Liberals in government who have adopted those policies?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party talks about what is to be believed.
We can think of an example. About a month ago the member of Parliament for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley stood up in the House and outside the House and denounced with a most foolish allegation the existence of moles in intelligence operations. Now the same member totally denies those allegations and said they did not happen at all.
When it comes to veracity and integrity, the Reform Party has nothing to tell anybody in the House or any Canadian. It shows day in and day out total disrespect for any form of integrity whatsoever.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister can bluster and fume all he wants, but for Canadians the issue is the integrity of the government and they will not be diverted from that.
During the last election the Prime Minister promised to restore honesty and integrity to our institutions. He said that if it is in the red book it will be done.
The government has kept less than 25 per cent of its red book promises. The Prime Minister now says it is unrealistic to expect the rest to be kept.
The Prime Minister also said last week that politicians should not sign contracts to keep their promises. Correct me if I am wrong, but is the Prime Minister's signature not on page 1 of the red book?
By failing to live up to its election promises, is the government now saying the Prime Minister's signature is not worth the red book it is written in?
(1430 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the hon. leader of the third party made a very clear commitment to the Canadian people that his party would stand for a degree of fairness, equity and justice of all Canadians. Yet we have seen repeatedly members of his caucus totally and completely disregard that commitment.
When will this member and this party stand up and give Canadians and members of the House a very clear statement and undertaking on their belief in human rights in Canada? Or will they simply have to rely on the statement made by the Reform member from Kootenay East when he said nothing will be done about the situation?
While thousands of guaranteed income supplement applications are held up in the department's offices because of computer problems, today we learn that the minister's own brother has
apparently benefited from the direct intervention of the minister's office to speed up his GIS cheque.
Does the minister acknowledge what was reported today, that his own office intervened on behalf of his brother, who thus received privileged treatment?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret having to inform the House that I have no living brother.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that statement was made by the union president, who had it on good authority.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Lalonde: When will the minister commit to a specific date by which people, including his brother if he had one, will have an answer on why they are being deprived of the difference between $395 and $865?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said in the House last week in response to a question that this was a serious matter. It is because of the number of people waiting and who have been informed improperly of their situation. They do not need to be made more anxious. They already have enough problems.
I indicated at that time we would do everything we could to resolve the matter. I have been checking constantly on this. We have been calling people. We staffed the office even over the weekend to make sure people were advised either by phone or in writing, whichever was most appropriate.
There is no excuse, as I said last week, for these kinds of errors. We attribute them to glitches in the technology the department has introduced. That is not acceptable to those people who are upset by these kinds of problems. We will do everything we can to get them resolved as quickly as possible because we understand how important these problems are for people who really care.
Does the government still believe in what the Prime Minister said during the last election, that there would not be a promise in the campaign he would not keep, yes or no?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know it takes a long time for the hon. member to fully take in the messages and the answers we provide.
Surely by this time the hon. member has had the opportunity to look at the red book, page 22, and understand the commitment we made to replace the GST and to come out with a different tax is being fulfilled by the Minister of Finance and by the government. That is very clear.
(1435)
As for the other promises, the latest estimates show we have accomplished well over 60 per cent of the commitments in the red book. Considering we are just halfway through our term, it seems we are ahead of schedule.
I can commit to the hon. member that by the time we reach the election we will be able to tell her fully what is in the red book, being able to provide all those commitments we made. I know she will be glad to take the red book in hand, with the commitments made, when she applies for unemployment insurance after the next election.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance actually kept his promise, I would be interested to know why he said in his press conference: ``We made a mistake''. It would seem incongruous.
The promises the government has tried to keep have cost Canadians dearly: $1 billion to harmonize the GST, $2 billion to cancel and replace the EH-101 helicopters, and close to $1 billion for the privatization of the Pearson airport, all of which are Conservative policies from the last government. That is $4 billion of taxpayer money to try to keep a few red book promises, and the meter is still running.
How much is the government willing to spend to cover up the fact the red book does not mean anything any more?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly being very selective in her examples. The reality of the examples she used is that the major reforms and changes being made to the GST will provide enormous savings to small business. They will provide a harmonized tax which will save administration costs.
The cancellation of the Pearson airport contract has meant untold millions of dollars for the Canadian consumer and taxpayer who would have been hosed by the previous government. On the cancellation of the Cadillac style helicopters, we were able to get Canadians a much better deal.
It seems getting a good deal for taxpayers is the hallmark of a good government.
[Translation]
Saturday's La Presse confirmed that the federal government mounted an exceptionally huge operation to award as many immigrants as possible their certificate of citizenship before October 20. However, on October 16, in response to a question by the Bloc Quebecois, the minister of immigration said, and I quote: ``What is being done with respect to citizenship processing in the province of Quebec is nothing different from any lead up to any provincial campaign''.
Given that the fears of the opposition are now confirmed, how does the immigration minister explain it as routine business? Was the government trying to hide this information?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight. Was it a dirty trick, as a major Quebec daily called it, a dirty trick in the usual sense of the word? Generally, the expression is used to describe something underhanded or illegal. Was citizenship granted to people illegally? The answer is no.
Everyone who received a certificate of citizenship was entitled to one and was entitled to vote. Did my predecessor, now the Minister of the Environment, deny that the department was making a special effort to issue citizenship certificates? No.
He said in this House, on October 16, that we were issuing citizenship certificates in this case as in any other government campaign. Those are the facts.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that in this case an unprecedented operation was mounted. They went into overdrive and worked every moment, including holidays.
Could the minister confirm today, from her seat, that the operation run on the eve of the Quebec referendum was exactly the same as the one run in Ontario last year and the one currently underway in British Columbia?
(1440)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to disagree with the member for Frontenac, who sees something underhanded here.
I repeat yet again that these people were citizens entitled to their Canadian citizenship. In November 1995, in British Columbia, there was a backlog of 20,000 people awaiting their citizenship certificate. Today, 16,500 people have received them.
Was a particular effort made in Quebec? Yes, and my predecessor said so clearly.
One hon. member: Why?
Ms. Robillard: Especially since the new electoral act in Quebec required proof of Canadian citizenship. People put a huge amount of pressure on the minister to have their citizenship certificate.
Once again, these people voted perfectly legally and they are Canadian citizens.
On June 9, 1993, as opposition leader during a meeting with farm leaders, he stated: ``A Liberal government would call a producer plebiscite on barley marketing issues''. Would the Prime Minister still honour that result and call that question?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that he is not reflecting accurately the meeting on the date to which he refers.
What the Prime Minister did say on that occasion, if I remember it correctly, are words to the effect that: ``no fundamental change in the Canadian Wheat Board would be undertaken or contemplated without the benefit of some kind of producer consultation.
If the hon. gentleman recalls correctly, at that time the previous government was very much in the process of fundamentally altering the Canadian Wheat Board without the necessary legal authority to do it.
We have put in place a consultative process through the western grain marketing panel, which is now completing its work. I expect to have its report before the end of June. Once that report is available for all to review and scrutinize, we will all have a more thorough, thoughtful and factual basis on which to make any future decisions that are required.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, politics sure is a strange animal.
Immediately after the election, on November 13, the agriculture minister said at an annual meeting with Manitoba pool elevators with regard to plebiscites: ``They are the most appropriate vehicle by which to determine what farmer preferences are''. Does the minister still believe this or was that just a shot from the lip?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows from other questions in the House which I have answered, I have not ruled out
the possibility of a plebiscite in appropriate circumstances in the future.
I have also pointed out to the hon. gentleman, both in the House and outside, that plebiscites of the kind that he is proposing can be divisive and can make the problem worse rather than helping to solve it.
Yesterday, thousands of Liberians were cramming on board a ship to flee chaos in Monrovia while rival factions kept on fighting. Civil war in Liberia has reached unsurpassed levels of violence, claiming many more victims. The number of casualties since 1989 is estimated at more than 150,000.
Can the minister give us an update on the situation in Liberia and tell us whether the peace talks planned for tomorrow and Wednesday in Accra, Ghana, will go ahead as scheduled?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member properly points out, the serious situation in Liberia has become even more extreme. The hoped for settlement was shattered this weekend by a major disruption and the emergence of a new conflict.
(1445 )
The United Nations is seized with the matter. UN peacekeepers are still in the area and are attempting to restore order. All we can offer at this time is the strongest encouragement and support for the negotiations to take place.
Because it is such a troubled situation and there are so many factions now in conflict, one cannot be overly optimistic other than to say that we support every initiative in Liberia by the United Nations at the present time. We certainly hope for and support the efforts being made to bring about negotiations in the next two or three days.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned that he would support any effort by the United States to bring an end to the serious crisis in Liberia.
I have a supplementary for the minister. What is the exact role the Canadian government intends to play to facilitate the ongoing peace initiatives and diplomatic negotiations aimed at reaching a lasting ceasefire agreement?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a circumstance in which the Canadian government takes a direct role. That matter has been undertaken by other parties, particularly through the United Nations.
I could comment that through the efforts of my colleague, the Minister for International Co-operation, we have been offering funds for democratic development to help in west African countries that are prepared to start developing support for democratic institutions for better government. We are prepared to continue to offer that support so there can be a ceasefire or an agreement to end the conflict.
My colleague would be prepared to take a look at how we might extend that kind of democratic aid and assistance to that country to help rebuild its institutions.
Could the Minister of Finance update the House on the appointment of a bank ombudsman to ensure that Canadians are being treated fairly?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, individual banks have, over the course of the last year, appointed ombudsmen, one per bank.
However, this morning Mr. Michael Lauber was named as the first Canadian banking ombudsman overseeing the entire system. The specific goal of the first Canadian banking ombudsman is to ensure that the banks live up to their responsibilities to the small business community.
Mr. Lauber, who is not a banker, will report to the government and to the Canadian public on the results of his activities every three months. We certainly welcome this initiative by the bank.
Perhaps I could take this occasion to congratulate all members of the industry committee. This appointment in no small way is due to their concerns and the constant attention they have paid to this issue.
Is the Minister of Finance going to maintain benefits for seniors or is he going to increase payroll taxes, thereby killing thousands of jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason the government set up, along with the provinces, the commission which is currently going across the country to examine the CPP is precisely to deal with the question of the survival of the CPP. How will the CPP be maintained? The government stands four square behind it, as in fact do the provinces.
At the same time, we are dealing with very real problems which have resulted from the inattention paid to them over the course of the last decade. It may well be that premiums will have to rise. It may well be that there will be changes in the benefits.
The government has said very clearly that it will not accept the recommendations of the Reform Party which would eventually lead to the evisceration of the Canada pension plan.
(1450 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are getting somewhere. We have an acknowledgement that benefits are going down and premiums are going up.
This month, 150,000 young Canadians will be graduating from our universities. Hard working, educated and motivated young Canadians are going to find that their jobs are in serious jeopardy because the government will be raising payroll taxes.
I want to know which promise the government is going to break. Is it going to break the jobs, jobs, jobs promise to young Canadians or is it going to back off on its commitment to seniors because that basically is what it is going to come down to?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may think that he has torn some incredible admission from the government.
This government, many months ago at a finance minister's meeting with the provinces, set out very clearly that premiums may have to go up, that there may have to be a change in the benefits.
It may well be that the member is only now coming to this conclusion, but it is one that most Canadians realized after the chief actuary issued his report some time ago on the CPP.
On the question of jobs, if members take a look at what is happening at the present time, over the course of the last three months nearly 135,000 new jobs have been created. Since this government was elected, well over 500,000 jobs have been created.
We are providing jobs in the new economy. We are providing jobs for young people. We are providing the kind of jobs that are permanent. That is what the statistics demonstrate.
[Translation]
On March 29, the Minister of Finance admitted in this House that the new Canada-U.S. tax treaty was unfair to Canadians and Quebecers receiving U.S. pensions and that he did not agree with the Americans' way of doing things. However, he is not doing anything to help his fellow citizens.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House about the discussions he has had on this matter with his American counterpart, Mr. Rubin, by disclosing among other things the various options put forward by this government to resolve the issue of U.S. pensions?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is quite relevant. I should mention that the problem lies in a new interpretation of the American legislation.
As the hon. member has just pointed out, I met with Mr. Rubin in Washington about two weeks ago. We discussed this matter at length. We have still not found a solution, but the Americans are working on it, as the matter is in their hands.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how will the Minister of Finance compensate pensioners in Canada and Quebec who are paying for the unfair tax treaties signed by their own government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem lies in the American legislation. The Canadian government is certainly very concerned about this problem. There is no doubt that great injustices have been created for Canadians. We will continue to work on this, but it must be said that the Canadian government is in no position to compensate all Canadians affected by changes in foreign legislation.
Having said that, I think, as I said right at the beginning, that the question is quite relevant, and we continue to work on this problem.
A quarter of the inmates have escaped. There has been a suicide and several slashings. There have been assaults on inmates and on guards. The list goes on and on.
Why did the government build a comfort cottage instead of a prison? When will it put the safety of Edmontonians ahead of the pleasures of inmates? Shut the place down.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as was reported to the House, the Solicitor General of Canada took active steps to make sure that the safety of those around the institution was addressed by transferring almost 20 inmates to provincial institutions.
We have looked at the security features of the institution. We announced concrete measures to make sure that safety was addressed, such as a fence and cameras. We are taking the necessary steps to address that. It is going to take six to eight weeks.
(1455)
In the meantime we are looking at the security features. More important, we are reviewing the whole premise of medium and high risk offenders and whether they should be brought back to the institution. It is under review currently and we will make sure that is properly followed.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not interested in fixing the problem. It is not interested in punishment or deterrence. If it was, it would not be building comfort cottages like the Edmonton institution. It would be building prisons capable of keeping maximum security inmates inside the gates.
The Edmonton institution is a proven failure. When one-quarter of the inmates escape then there is no hope. Will the government sell the prison to the Holiday Inn-I am sure they can use it-and then build a prison that will ensure the safety of Edmontonians?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is giving Canadians the false impression that inmates are getting a free ride.
I would like to quote from a recent article from the Ottawa Sun which states: ``What is clear though is that the Reform Party is misleading the public when it claims that convicts are having it good''. It goes on further to say: ``Credit for reducing costs must go the Corrections Canada managers who amazingly cut 15 per cent from their headquarters budget, instead of hitting the hard working guards''. It concludes: ``The bottom line is that, for the most part, the perception that Canada's inmates are getting a free ride is untrue. There will be horror stories to be sure but it's important to note that our prisons are well-managed and our governments are not soft on crime''.
I agree with that fully.
Buildings not only have to be architecturally beautiful but they also have to be functional and operate in an efficient way.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue to inform the House what steps customs have taken to serve users of this new, beautiful terminal.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the open skies agreement, Vancouver is strategically placed to become North America's premier gateway to the Pacific rim. Revenue Canada has planned well for the increased trans-border traffic.
The new terminal, which has the largest customs hall in Canada, has modern facilities, increased personnel, and both primary and secondary facilities have been increased.
The big thing is that 2,400 passengers per hour, a 40 per cent improvement, can be effectively and efficiently processed. This is good not only for travellers and good for Canadians, but it is good for the economy of Vancouver, the member's province of British Columbia and all of Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Since Israeli companies, unlike Canadian companies, have free access to the European textile market, will the minister and his government make sure that measures are taken to prepare the Canadian textile industry to compete with Israeli companies in a free trade environment?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly relay the concerns of the hon. member to my colleague, the Minister for International Trade.
I would like to take the opportunity to point out that the initiation of discussions on a free trade agreement with Israel and a similar offer to other major countries in the Middle East is one of the most important ways we can help economic development in the area. It would help to stabilize the area. I believe it is a major contribution in seeking some kind of peaceful solution in the area. Therefore, we will pursue it.
I will most certainly take the hon. member's concerns to the minister and I will make sure he gets an answer.
(1500)
How does the Prime Minister square this huge loss of jobs in Newfoundland with his election promise?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that jobs have been created in many parts of the country.
In Newfoundland and Labrador at this stage there is no doubt there is a serious problem with the ratcheting down of the Hibernia project. There is no question that will have some impact on employment levels in Newfoundland.
We are suffering on the east coast from the moratorium on cod. It is a tremendous challenge for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a great challenge for the Government of Canada.
Those people who believe in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador can also look forward to the development of Voisey Bay as an alternative to some of the traditional employment we have seen in that province.
I am pleased to see the hon. member concerned about what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to the support of her party when we bring forward measures to support those people in their time of need.
Over the past 40 days gas prices have unjustifiably sky-rocketed eight cents to ten cents per litre across Canada. In the U.S. gas prices have risen only a fraction of Canadian increases, yet President Clinton has taken action by launching an investigation into price fixing to protect Americans.
Will the government now take action to protect Canadians from gas price gouging, or must Canadians wait for another act of God to get the government to act on behalf of Canadians?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the Competition Act covers this. The government is vigilant in ensuring that prices are not set in contravention of the Competition Act.
The hon. member also knows the industry committee has been very active and is having before it tomorrow the director of competition to deal with this matter.
The hon. member should also be well informed that the question of prices and the prices of gasoline is not a matter necessarily regulated by the federal government. The hon. member should perhaps be looking at the provincial government in his province for some resolution of this matter.
Will the Secretary of State for the Status of Women tell the House why the government is seeking this census information?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is very well recognized around the world as the leader in measuring and valuing unpaid work. It was decided at Beijing that we would strengthen that commitment and that all the other United Nations countries would more accurately examine the amount of unpaid work done by women, which means child rearing and housework.
It is interesting that in 1961 Statistics Canada measured unpaid work at $14 billion and in 1992 it was $234 billion. Using the census, we will be able to get small area demo../graphics and reach every household so we can use this in future policy and planning of the government.
Never have I heard in the House a member identified by their riding and their colour.
(1505 )
In terms of the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, the member for North Vancouver identified me as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who is black, portrayed me as being visibly very angry about the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, and portrayed me as yelling very loudly in the House, screaming and appearing hostile.
I did not scream or yell. I have had no occasion to speak with the member to show any hostility. I walked over to a member I identified as someone I thought might want to separate himself from the clipping that was circulating and said ``have you seen this?'' I then walked across the floor. Whatever shouting went on may have taken place by Reformers on the other side of the House or members on this side of the House.
The Speaker: Colleague, the hon. member for North Vancouver is not here now. You have named him in your point of privilege. I wonder if we might postpone this, taking full knowledge that you have raised a question of privilege, until such time as the member for North Vancouver is here in the House. Would you be in agreement?
Ms. Augustine: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. member for his well reasoned arguments, and the deputy government House leader and the chief government whip for their contributions to the discussion.
In his submission the hon. member explained that on December 1, 1994, during the last session, he had placed a question on the Order Paper. At the time of prorogation on February 2, 1996 the question had not yet been answered.
On March 12, 1996, shortly after the start of this session, the hon. member resubmitted the question on notice as two questions, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 39(5)(a) requested the government reply to these questions within 45 days.
In his submission he argued the government had had almost two years to respond to his question and had failed to do so.
[Translation]
May I remind the House that proragation effectively clears the Order Paper, and as such, cancels the requests for information contained in Questions on the Order Paper. In other words, members who wish to pursue their requests for information from the Ministry must resubmit their questions for them to be reconsidered in a new session. May I also point out that the Standing Order states only that, and I quote: ``a member may `request' that the Ministry respond to a specific question within 45 days''. It is not, as such, an order of the House. However, the government must in all respects endeavour to respond to questions adhering to the spirit of the rule.
[English]
When raising his question of privilege on April 24, 1996, the hon. member had not yet allowed the 45 day response period to lapse. If after 45 days the hon. member's questions have not been answered, Standing Order 39(5)(b) provides him with the mechanism by which he can raise the subject matter in the House during the adjournment proceedings.
(1510)
Of particular concern to the hon. member was not so much the delay in the delivery of the responses to his questions but rather comments about the questions allegedly made by an unnamed spokesperson for the government House leader's office. According to a newspaper article of April 21, cited by the hon. member, an official in the government House leader's office was quoted as having said that the request was outrageous and that the government had no intention of diverting personnel to answer the questions.
The member argued these comments showed contempt of Parliament and noted that if the government had no intention of responding to these questions he was being hindered in the performance of his duties. This is a very serious matter.
[Translation]
As Speaker Sauvé noted in a ruling given On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of the Debates, if there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member, and if it could be shown that such action amounted to improper interference with the hon.
member's parliamentary work, then this could constitute a prima facie question of privilege.
[English]
In their interventions both the deputy House leader and the chief government whip explained that the questions posed by the hon. member were complicated and detailed in nature but assured him responses were being prepared and would be made available when ready.
Given the response of the deputy government House leader, it is very difficult to accept the veracity of the remarks allegedly made by an unidentified person in the government House leader's office. As such, I cannot find that the member has been obstructed in performing his duties and hence there is no question of privilege.
Let me point out to members and officials alike that the minister has indicated that responses to these questions are being prepared. Written questions posed by members are an important tool at the disposal of members of the House and are used to solicit information as well as to help hold the government accountable for its actions. It is precisely for this reason that the members of the ministry are responsible to the House for the actions taken regarding the preparation of the responses to these questions.
[Translation]
I thank all hon. members for their input.