senior officials from the Department of Finance made Revenue Canada reconsider its position and grant these exemptions.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the minister justify the fact that two family trusts were allowed to transfer over $2 billion worth of assets to the United States, without paying any tax on capital gains, this with the government's approval?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of National Revenue answered this question quite satisfactorily yesterday. This was something that happened under the previous government, in 1990-1991. Since taking power, we have put into place many measures to rectify this sort of situation.
That being said, as the minister announced yesterday, we, too, are concerned about statements such as this one, and she therefore thought it best, and I agree with her, that the matter be referred to the finance committee for thorough examination.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly not wish to play cat and mouse with the finance minister on a question such as this. He knows full well that the very minimal measures he has put in place do absolutely nothing at all toward resolving the case we have mentioned here. His measures will not resolve this case. It could happen again, it could have happened again yesterday. We need some clear answers, some real answers.
We will simply ask him how he can explain that senior officials of the finance department, his department, who are still there, according to our information, applied very strong pressure on Revenue Canada to allow this tax free transfer of $2 billion in assets to the United States. How does he explain that these officials still have their jobs and that they work in his department?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we obviously have here a situation calling for very serious consideration. Indeed, I would say that the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in a very serious and responsible tone are to the point.
That said, the auditor general did not mention any pressure from finance officials. He said discussions took place, but there were no transcripts.
(1420)
Let us be quite clear. Since coming to office, we have put in place many measures dealing specifically with family trusts. In fact, not only were measures dealing with family trusts introduced by our government in our February 1995 budget, but they went much further than recommended by the finance committee.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance will not dispute the fact that, ever since the Bloc Quebecois was elected to the House of Commons, as everyone will recall, we have always condemned the unfair advantages attached to family trusts. The minister will also recall repeatedly turning the official opposition's claims to ridicule, saying that family trusts are no big deal.
But the auditor general cited examples. After reviewing two cases, just two, he found that $2 billion in assets had been transferred. That does not seem insignificant to me.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge today that the carelessness he has displayed over the past two and a half years, while we were demanding aggressive action on his part, is costing a small fortune to ordinary Canadians, who do pay their taxes and do not benefit from family trusts? If only two cases led to the discovery of $2 billion in capital being tax-sheltered abroad, you can imagine what the overall amount could represent for Canadian taxpayers.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the minister said yesterday that she would refer the matter to the finance committee. The auditor general himself has admitted that this is a grey area, and one that is highly complex. Because we feel transparency is of the utmost importance, I believe an open discussion in the finance committee is the best way to discuss the matter and find a solution. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will accept this as a responsible reply.
Having said this, yes, the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that the Bloc Quebecois were the ones to raise the matter of family trusts. That is, moreover, the reason we referred the matter of family trusts to the finance committee right at the start of our mandate. The Bloc Quebecois has continued to talk, while we have acted, doing away in our latest budget with any possibility of using family trusts as a means of evading taxes owed to the people of Canada.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there must be no more attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes. The February 1995 budget contains no measure for avoiding such cases, for stopping Canadian capital from being siphoned off to the U.S., nothing. As for referring the matter to the finance committee, that would require the committee to meet. We have been calling for that for two months now, and there have been no serious meetings yet to review the taxation system.
Since it is obvious that senior finance officials have intervened, and in highly dubious circumstances, does the minister acknowledge that it is his duty to cast light on the circumstances surrounding a decision which will mean the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue to the federal government and to Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that, in a debate as important as this one, the opposition finance critic is unable to assume the same responsible tone as his leader.
Let me just repeat that, in our 1995 budget, we eliminated any possibility to use family trusts for tax purposes.
I would like the hon. member, who advocates transparency, to tell me this: Is he afraid to see the finance committee review this matter? I think the important thing is transparency in showing the responsibility borne by the department of revenue, the department of finance and the Government of Canada.
(1425)
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Let me put the question to the Minister of Finance again, Mr. Speaker.
If the minister is not afraid of reforming the tax system, why is he having the work done behind closed doors by the very experts who advise their clients to transfer $2 billion to the U.S.? That is what is happening.
My question to the Minister of Finance is quite simple. Will he call for an independent review to be conducted immediately to shed light on both cases identified by the auditor general and any other case that may have surfaced since, particularly since he became the Minister of Finance, because he certainly did nothing to eliminate these scandalous family trusts?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the House should be aware of what the opposition is asking.
A situation had arisen under the previous government and in 1991 the auditor general reported on it. As in other instances, this government takes very seriously the reports of the auditor general. We have said we believe that the Canadian people are entitled to have all of the facts. We think this should be looked at openly in the finance committee.
What is the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois saying? He is saying: Do it behind closed doors. Do not do it in front of us. Do not let the Canadian people have the facts. Do not sit there in open, public debate to take a look at it. What is the matter? Are you afraid of the truth?
The finance minister responded by saying that the issue had been discussed extensively at federal-provincial meetings and that a general agreement existed that one level of government would not tax away tax reductions made by another.
Does such a general agreement in fact exist, and if it does, will the finance minister table it in the House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked this question yesterday and I answered it.
I said that there was a general understanding among all of the finance ministers that it would be counterproductive for one level of government to fill in tax room given by another. What we really wanted to do was to get the economy going.
He knows there is not a written agreement. I said that yesterday. I made it very clear the previous six times he asked the question. The matter was discussed among all of the finance ministers and that agreement exists. I repeat it here again in the House.
If the hon. member would like to ask me the question another 16 times I will give him the same answer.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government, through its GST harmonization program, temporarily left $170 million in the pockets of New Brunswick taxpayers, a tax reduction.
Two weeks later the Liberal premier of New Brunswick announced that he was working on a new business tax to get that $170 million into provincial coffers, a case of one level of government taking away a tax reduction granted by another, precisely the thing that the finance minister had said the federal and provincial governments agreed not to do.
Given the fact that his verbal agreement with the provinces is obviously being disregarded, will he commit to reaching a written federal-provincial tax relief agreement with the provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because the leader of the opposition party cannot find anything real to talk about, he continues to set up straw men. Let me take the hon. member's situation.
In order for the governments of Atlantic Canada, the Government of New Brunswick in this instance, to go through a period of profound structural change leading to very deep tax reform, the federal government embarked on a cost sharing proposal with Atlantic Canada.
Effectively that cost sharing proposal said that the provincial governments involved would pick up the first 5 per cent loss on their revenues and then there would be a sharing after that.
(1430)
It was very clear that the provincial governments were going to have to make up their losses in two ways: through increased economic activity and the possibility of tax increases elsewhere. The hon. member has talked about the shift from consumers to business. What may well happen in some of the provinces is that they may well go back and take some of that tax savings from business in order to keep the consumer cost down.
The hon. member really ought to understand, first, what was done and, second, he ought to try not to contradict himself consistently every-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The leader of the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): In other words, Mr. Speaker, a tax reduction granted by one level of government has been sopped up by another level of government, which is precisely my point.
Yesterday Ontario cut its payroll taxes, something that the finance minister and everybody else has said creates jobs. However, the federal government is killing jobs by holding its payroll taxes high to support an inordinate level of UI contributions and proposing further increases to try to stabilize financing of the CPP.
If there really is a federal-provincial understanding of harmonization for tax relief, why is the federal government creating upward pressure on payroll taxes while the Ontario government is trying to cut payroll taxes at the same time?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the leader of the third party minus three that in the last budget, payroll taxes were cut by $1.2 billion.
Second, as a result of the deficit actions taken by this government and by the provincial governments, interest rates in this country are close to 4 percentage points lower than they were over a year ago. That is a substantial tax decrease for Canadians.
The question I would put to the leader of the Reform Party is this. If today he recommends that there be further decreases in unemployment insurance premiums, why did he not recommend that in his budget of a year ago but recommended instead that unemployment insurance premiums be kept at a very high level.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As we go into the second round of questions, I hope, and I will be looking for your co-operation, for shorter questions and shorter answers.
[Translation]
Last Friday, the minister's remarks on the federal government's withdrawal from the area of manpower were distressing to say the least. So with no follow-up to the proposed agreement tabled by Quebec on January 18 and negotiations with Quebec at a standstill, the minister acknowledged that the time had come to sit down at the table, but with representatives of all the provinces.
Are we to understand from the minister's response that Quebec should wait until all the representatives of all the provinces reach an agreement, when, in Quebec, a consensus was reached years ago on the patriation of manpower policies and programs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member is right. The consensus in Quebec is well known. However, I think everyone would agree that, before the federal government puts its position forward, we should all be sure what we are prepared to propose.
Quebec's proposal contains some very interesting points. Our commitment is simply that, when we have a proposal ready, and we should have one soon, we would like to put the federal proposal to the representatives of all the provinces. However, Quebec is obviously much further ahead in its approach, and the consensus there, which the member referred to, is well known.
I hope that once we have clearly defined Canada's position on all the issues, not just on manpower training but also on active measures, we will be able to move rapidly by sitting down at the table with Quebec's representatives and reach an agreement.
(1435)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has reassured me by saying that the mother of all negotiations is not dead.
Can the minister confirm he is ready to negotiate with Quebec not only on manpower training but on all active measures, as requested by Quebec?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, there will be rather significant differences among the 10 provinces and the territories with respect to the resources and networks needed to deliver programs. But, to get back to the situation with Quebec, there is no doubt that, even in Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, which is now before Parliament, all active measures are on the table.
As I was saying to the hon. member, the first thing we want to do is look at the commitment made by the Prime Minister and by others to withdraw from manpower training, but we are also
prepared to look at all the elements, including active measures, being discussed with Quebec and the other provinces.
I invite the Prime Minister to come to Alberta and say that. I hope when he comes he brings a very large Inuit carving with him because he will need it, I guarantee that.
Can the Prime Minister explain how his taking a billion dollars out of the pockets of Canadians to finance a tax break in Atlantic Canada demonstrates the Prime Minister's commitment to equality and why will Albertans really applaud the picking of their pockets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member requires is a bit of a lesson in understanding the nature of the Canadian economy.
The Canadian economy is very different in Alberta than it is in Nova Scotia. It is very different in Ontario than it is in British Columbia. For instance, would the hon. member suggest that the oil and gas taxation policy be the same in Alberta as applies to the manufacturing industry in Ontario? Clearly not, because they are different circumstances.
We are dealing with deep structural change. It is the kind of structural change that let the Canadian government help the western grain farmers. At this time Atlantic Canada is going through a very positive set of changes and it is the responsibility of the Canadian government to enable and facilitate that change.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want from coast to coast is equal treatment.
Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta, has called for equal tax treatment. Even the Prime Minister's little buddy in Alberta, Grant Mitchell, has called for equal treatment. He says: ``Albertans expect to have the federal portion of the harmonized tax collected in Alberta reduced to equal the level collected in those provinces''.
When will the Prime Minister demonstrate his true commitment to fiscal equality by either lowering the GST for the rest of Canada or trashing this obvious payoff to Atlantic Canadian premiers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, by equal treatment, is the member saying that the same taxation regime should be applied to the oil and gas industry in Alberta as is applied to the manufacturing industry in Ontario? Is the hon. member saying that Ontario should not have been given a billion dollars in stabilization payments in the 1990s? Is he saying the federal government should not have helped out with tax reform in 1972 to compensate for the revenues lost by provinces?
If that is what the hon. member is saying, then it is very clear that he does not understand the Canadian economy, what holds it together and what is going to make it grow.
In 1982, the Liberal minister of immigration decided that Victor Régalado, a Salvadorian national, was a refugee within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. In the past 14 years, Victor Régalado married a Canadian, had two children born in Quebec, and has shown that he was not a threat to national security. Yet, we learned this morning that departmental officials have decided to deport Mr. Régalado for reasons of national security.
(1440)
Since these officials could not justify Mr. Régalado's deportation order, could the minister tell us in what way Mr. Régalado is a threat to national security?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, under the Privacy Act, it is very difficult to publicly discuss the case of a person currently in Canada.
I also want to say that, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I have a duty to ensure the integrity of the system. I do not see why we would not, in this particular case, clearly follow the acts and regulations relating to immigration.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has the discretionary power required to resolve this situation. The minister, her predecessors and her officials have demonstrated negligence and a lack of compassion in this case.
How can the minister explain that a foreign national having no status can live, work and study here for 14 years without immigration authorities making a decision in his case?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a lack of compassion to apply the law and thus act fairly toward those waiting to emigrate to Canada.
It has taken a long time, yes, but I must point out that people have the right of appeal to all levels in Canada. Right now, this case is being handled according to the provisions of the Immigration Act and Regulations. I can assure members of this House that we are acting in all fairness in this case.
Canadians have the right to know the minister's agenda. Is it his intention as a next step in his agenda to pursue family and dependant benefits for same sex couples?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the hon. member thinks he is on to something here, which might be his first argument against Bill C-33. We would think for a party that speaks so much about firearms it would know the difference between finding a smoking gun and shooting blanks.
The hon. member should know the protected document that was taken from my files refers to a discussion paper enabling the government to participate in tribunals and before courts in which there are claims for same sex benefits under federal programs.
As Minister of Justice I am obligated to defend those claims on behalf of the government and I would expect to find in my office a paper that discusses just how I will defend them. That is what the document is about.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the discussion paper that should be introduced into the House for public debate.
My question to the minister is very specific. I want to know what Canadians have the right to know, whether the government intends now or in the future to legislate or regulate what is listed in this secret initiative document, family and dependant benefits for same sex couples and changes to marital and family status. Yes or no?
(1445 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand from recent events why the hon. member would be afraid of public discussion of ideas. There seems to be a price to be paid for it in his party.
I do not have to claim same sex benefits. There are parties before the courts all the time doing that. As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I am obligated to respond on behalf of the government. In the discharge of my responsibilities I am preparing discussion papers which will frame a discussion of the policies and approaches to deal with those claims.
If the hon. member's reference is to Bill C-33, the bill speaks for itself. It does not deal with benefits; it deals with discrimination.
A few short days after the famous top to bottom search of the defence department, military police detained Corporal Purnelle, at the Quebec City airport, in order to prevent him from meeting with commissioners and lawyers of the Somalia inquiry in order to hand over information. Worse yet, the chairman of the inquiry had to intercede personally before the army would release Corporal Purnelle. I think that operation camouflage is still going strong.
How can the minister justify the army's decision to place Corporal Purnelle under surveillance for six months, thus preventing him from speaking with the Commission?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not addressed all the facts correctly.
Any member of the armed forces has the right, the duty and the obligation to make evidence available to the commission. I have stated that in the House previously and I state it again today. The obligation to make evidence available does not obviate their responsibility under the National Defence Act to abide by Canadian forces discipline.
If someone wants to give evidence to the commission or if they want to travel to Ottawa to see the commissioners, obviously they have to seek permission of commanding officers so their posts are not abandoned in a wanton way.
This individual had every right to come here. All he had to do was ask before he arrived. That is the reason there may be a disciplinary matter involved.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by the minister's answer. I think he was arrested simply for his own safety, probably.
The minister has no understanding of what goes on in his department. Does he plan a quick response to the demands of counsel for an end to the blackmail and intimidation of Corporal Purnelle, no doubt for his own protection?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to turn the hon. member's comment on him, sometimes I wonder what is going on in his head because he obviously does not pay attention to the facts.
The Minister of National Defence does not get involved in disciplinary matters with the Canadian forces. That is a matter for the forces to deal with. However, I can assure the hon. member and all members that no member of the armed forces will be prevented from giving information to the Somalia commission.
Over the past two weeks the minister has met with a number of stakeholders both here and in Vancouver. I thank him for taking the time to meet with many of these groups.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question please.
Mr. Dhaliwal: Could the minister inform the House of the results of these meetings?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to announcing the return of salmonoid enhancement programs, I did have the opportunity when in British Columbia to meet with eight different groups representing many sectors within the commercial fishery, union groups, aboriginal groups, packers and coastal communities.
We all agreed on the objective, sustainability, viability of the industry and conservation, although there was not a 100 per cent consensus on the way it should be achieved.
In every group discussion was positive and many suggestions were offered which, I am pleased to announce to the House, I will be able to take into consideration and in the next few days announce some adjustments and fine tuning to the main plan that will remain as is but will be adjusted to soften the blow.
The Minister of Justice has indicated in introducing legislation in the House that Parliament and not the courts should settle certain important issues. Why then is he content on the issue of same sex benefits to allow the courts and tribunals to settle those questions? Why will he not table legislation that respects the vote of Parliament that same sex benefits not be provided?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what vote my hon. friend is referring to.
What the government has acted on is discrimination. That is what Bill C-33 is about, and any effort to divert the discussion from discrimination to collateral matters such as benefits or provincial matters such as marriage or adoption is simply an effort to avoid the true issue of Bill C-33.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you will check the record that Parliament voted on this in the fall.
It was the minister who made this connection when he said in XTRA West on March 12, 1994: ``If the government takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''.
Is that his position? If it is not his position, will he clarify any legislation before the House to ensure there is not mandatory provision of same sex entitlements?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no need to clarify Bill C-33; it speaks for itself. It deals not with benefits, it deals not with marriage, it deals not with adoption. It deals with discrimination, which we are against.
In terms of benefits and logic, I point out to the hon. member that in the years since March, 1994, when that quote was recorded, the Supreme Court of Canada decided the case of Egan and Nesbit. It decided that notwithstanding that sexual orientation is a ground within section 15 of the charter on which discrimination is prohibited, the benefits do not automatically follow; so much for logic, and that is the law.
[Translation]
The Sims report on part I of the Canada Labour Code was divided in its opinion on the use of replacement workers.
Could the Minister of Labour tell us his position on the use of replacement workers, commonly known as scabs. I would like a clear answer.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member said, the Sims report was divided on the matter.
In April, I consulted within the department. That is now concluded. Here again, unfortunately, there was no consensus. I am currently giving the matter consideration and will soon submit my position to cabinet and to caucus. When the amendments to the Canada Labour Code are tabled in the House, the hon. member will have the opportunity to learn the government's position, which he will no doubt comment on.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to say that the use of strike breakers aggravates labour disputes and that anti-scab legislation would contribute to establishing and maintaining civilized negotiations?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I could propose the best labour legislation in the House. If the parties do not bargain in good faith, there will always be disputes. So I hope I will be able to propose amendments that will bring some balance to collective bargaining so we may have industrial peace.
(1455)
He said: ``We have a new chief of defence staff who has laid down the rules to senior military officers that they have to behave in a way with the public's money as the public would have them behave''.
Will the minister today tell the House and Canadians specifically the new rule on spending limits on retirement parties?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question fully yesterday.
Members of the armed forces must be very cognizant of the fiscal realities facing the country. They have to be very careful how they administer their budgets.
The example given yesterday was obviously extravagant and unacceptable. I appreciate that in military tradition ceremony is very important, but this must be balanced with the need to be prudent with taxpayer money.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the auditor general reported serious problems with the Department of National Defence's ability to deal with the government's increased demands on our troops.
How can the minister allow expenditure of taxpayer funds on retirement parties when the auditor general reports that equipment deficiencies do not allow our troops to perform their assigned tasks within acceptable risk levels?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much of what the auditor general said yesterday in his report has been debated in the House. It has been the subject of questions and answers in question period.
Since this government has come to power we have addressed those concerns. We have re-equipped by announcing the armoured personnel carrier purchase. We have provided new bullet proof vests, new guns, new night time vision goggles. We have given a lot of new equipment to the army so it can do its job in peacekeeping missions.
On Parliament Hill and across Canada young Canadians are embarking on a worldwide campaign to ban the use of anti-personnel land mines. What will the government do to support this initiative by the Red Cross and young Canadians to ban land mines?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago when I visited Bosnia perhaps the most disturbing sight was a number of young people who had lost limbs due to the vicious weapons of anti-personnel land mines.
That is why it was so encouraging today to go on the front lawn of Parliament Hill where young Canadians were out showing their
faith and solidarity with other young people around the world to share some of the responsibility for bringing to an end the use of these awful weapons.
Canada is one of the few countries that have banned outright the use of anti-personnel land mines. Furthermore, we are leading the fight in the United Nations and the OAS to have an outright ban. It was very encouraging this morning when the Prime Minister met with the German foreign minister who indicated they will work with us in a culmination of partnership to bring an end to the use of these weapons.
That is the way we keep faith with the victims of land mines I saw three weeks ago.
A Canadian citizen, Stéphane Sbikowski, has been a prisoner in a Venezuelan penitentiary for 17 months now, without his case having even been heard.
Three weeks ago, we asked the Secretary of State for Africa and Latin America if she intended to use political pressure to speed up the hearing of Mr. Sbikowski's case. Her reply at that time was that her department would contact us-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Would the hon. member please put his question?
Mr. Bergeron: -to inform us of developments. The response left something to be desired. Given the danger Mr. Sbikowski is faced with each and every day-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but the hon. member for Delta has the floor.
The minister knows full well the practical effect of treaty negotiations is to reallocate half the fisheries resource. How can the minister justify asking the B.C. industry to finance its own downsizing when he is prepared to give away half its catch?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would make up his mind. Two days ago it was 25 per cent; now it is 50 per cent. The truth of the matter is that this has been taken into consideration. Whether or not the hon. member can add, subtract or divide I have to say that the allocations will be put in place as part of the fine tuning. Those people who have to make the decisions will make the decisions on all the information that it is possible to provide them with at the time.
In this House on February 4, 1994 the minister promised that an investigative brief would be prepared. He assured the House that standard procedures would be followed. Neither has happened.
Did the Minister of Justice ever intend to keep his promises? Why did he break them? Why did he change his mind and why should we believe him in the future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will overlook the provocative nature of the question in order to first acknowledge that the hon. member had the courtesy of giving me notice before he asked it, although he did not tell me how he was going to ask it.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if we could have the short version of the answer.
Mr. Rock: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that an investigative brief is a collection of a summary of the evidence. I have done better than that in this case. I have given Mr. Kelly's lawyer all the evidence. He has had it in his office and Mr. Kelly has had it in British Columbia. They have got the evidence. They have got full disclosure. I am going to be fully briefed before I make the decision. We are going to do it in accordance with the rules.
As a rule, parties distribute things on the desks of their members and sometimes the House leaves things on the desks for members. However, I have been here a while and I do not remember my desk
ever being turned into a post office or a propaganda platform for whatever position other members may wish to advocate.
I would like the Chair to review this matter and at some point to make it very clear that people should not be doing this sort of thing. We have the right to come to an empty desk. If there are messages there from the House or from our respective whips, fine, but let us not get into this business of having junk mail on our desks when we come into the Chamber.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully concur with the sentiments of the hon. member that the kind of activity that was tantamount to lobbying on the floor of the House via pamphlets is unacceptable.
Earlier today I discovered a document which was unsigned and was in only one language. I removed it from the desks of Liberal MPs, as it is my job as the government whip to do so. I had no such authority to remove it from the desks of other members. As to the second document, I did not authorize it in any way and only saw it after question period started.
The two documents were not authorized by me. In the case of the first one, I personally removed it from the desks of hon. members because no such authority had been sought from nor given by me.
(1505 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the issues in reverse order.
As to the second point of order, it is possibly a matter of debate and not a point of order. The chair occupants are conscious of members rising and to the best of our ability we see that members are recognized accordingly.
On the first point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona who is a long time serving member of this House, he raises a very important issue. I am pleased to hear the participation and the contribution of the chief government whip.
I want to assure the House upon verification with the Clerk and his staff that no member of the House staff distributed those materials, so that in fact it would appear they were circulated and deposited by a member or members of this House.
As your Speaker I would discourage that practice and join the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. chief government whip in their position on this matter.