My question is for the Minister of Finance, since he is responsible for the government's tax policies. Does the Minister of Finance agree with the comments of the auditor general to the effect that, in addition to the capital gains in family trusts, all capital gains on publicly held shares may now be exported without Revenue Canada collecting a single cent of tax on them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly said clearly when we came to office that there were weaknesses in the taxation system that needed to be corrected. We have supported the actions of the auditor general in this area and will continue to do so. This is in fact one reason why we asked the Standing Committee on Finance to look at all that, because it is vital it be done transparently.
That said, the moment we took office, we established specific measures to prevent the use of tax havens or foreign companies to get around the law.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly clear, in addition to family trusts, all shares of public companies may now be transferred out of the country without Revenue Canada being able to collect a single cent. The minister has not mentioned this.
Since Revenue Canada's decision was published on March 21 and since a tax evasion rush is probably underway, why has the minister not suspended the decision of Revenue Canada to put an end to this huge risk of billions of dollars being lost abroad?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth reading what we have done to set the record straight. At the start, we launched a three-pronged offensive to reduce the use of tax havens by Canadian firms and the outflow of money, what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to.
First, in the 1995 budget, we proposed substantial requirements with respect to statements on interests in foreign companies. Second, in the 1994 budget, changes were made to the Income Tax Act to prevent the transfer of profits realized in Canada to companies abroad located in tax havens.
(1420)
Third, the government strengthened exclusionary efforts regarding foreign companies and specifically involving inter-segment sales by individuals.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I respectfully remind the Minister of Finance and all his colleagues that nothing he has just said in any way alters the situation criticized by the auditor general.
Since finance department officials, as the auditor general revealed, acted very quickly one December 23, after a series of meetings on December 23, to permit this tax loophole to be used, could the Minister of Finance not tell people watching us that his officials will get to work and act equally quickly to prevent the flight of capital out of Canada at great cost to the Government of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just listed the measures we put in place on our arrival in office. It is very clear. One of the reasons we put this issue to the finance committee was our concern and our keen interest in seeing the whole matter examined.
Now the Leader of the Opposition is talking about officials. I remind him that we are talking about something that happened in 1991 under the previous government. In most cases, the officials who made the decisions are no longer in the same position today.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have suspected as much for two and a half years, and we kept asking, to no avail, the Minister of Finance to take action. Now, the truth has come out.
In this morning's issue of the Financial Post, we learned that, based on a confidential report prepared by Revenue Canada, no less than $60 billion worth of capital secretly left the country in 1991. This blatant case of tax evasion was made possible thanks to permissive and lax federal legislation.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister confirm these facts? Will he confirm that very rich Canadians secretly transferred $60 billion worth of capital outside the country without paying tax?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because the questions tend to repeat themselves, I will switch languages.
The fact is that we are dealing with a situation on which this government began to act immediately on taking office. If there is a problem, we basically recognized it. We referred it to the finance committee. A series of measures were taken to ensure that taxes were paid and that they were paid when due. At the same time, we supported the auditor general on this and on everything else.
Let us be very clear. The Minister of National Revenue has referred this matter to the public accounts committee. We in the Department of Finance have referred it to the finance committee. If there is a problem here arising out of events which took place in 1991 under the previous government, then let the facts be made clear in front of the finance committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The public must know that the Minister of Finance is responsible for tax reform, that we have been asking him for two and a half years to carry out such a reform, and that he is laughing in our faces.
Now that the whole thing has become front page news, will he take action or will he continue to condone and even help this capital outflow?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, when we came to office, we took action. We eliminated more loopholes and flaws than the finance committee recommended. We went a lot further than asked by the Bloc Quebecois finance critic.
(1425)
The Minister of National Revenue just hired more auditors, at a cost of $50 million. We allocated more money to her department precisely to eliminate these loopholes. The question is: Why is the Bloc Quebecois finance critic opposed to a public review in that sector? Is he afraid of transparency? Is he afraid of discussing these issues?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: In this democratic age it is no longer acceptable for Canadians to have unelected, unaccountable senators having anything to do with the passage of public laws and the spending of public money.
Alberta has a law on its books for the election of senators and Premier Klein wants to hold an election to fill the latest Senate vacancy. Will the Prime Minister agree to appoint to the Senate the individual elected under the Alberta Senate Selection Act?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few years ago we had a vote in this House and in the nation regarding an elected Senate. The leader of the third party voted against the opportunity to have an elected Senate. Obliged by the Canadian Constitution, I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the view of Albertans and the Prime Minister on representation in the Senate is fundamentally different. Albertans' view is that the senators should represent the people of Alberta, not the Prime Minister's party.
The Prime Minister knows as well as I do that the Senate reform proposals contained in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were not the triple E Senate proposal that this party represents. The Prime Minister knows he can democratize the Senate without a constitutional amendment.
When Premier Klein holds an election to fill Alberta's vacancy in the Senate and hundreds of thousands of Albertans participate in that election, as they did the last time, will the Prime Minister recognize the right of those people to choose their own representative in the Senate of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 1867 we have had a system where senators are appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. For example, some senators have served this nation very well, such as Senator Hastings who was a first quality public servant for many years. I also had some very pleasant discussions with a senator by the name of Manning who had been appointed by Pierre Trudeau.
I think the member was for an elected Senate and now he is trying to cover his bad judgment when he voted against Charlottetown. When someone destroys something because there is an element he does not like, he kills everything. If the member had used his judgment, today we would have elected senators. However, he did not do that.
The same man has also been asking for free votes since the beginning of the session and he is now forcing his members to vote according to the party line or they are out. At least in this party we let some members vote with freedom.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the 19th century concept of the Senate but we are talking about the Senate in the 21st century.
I also appreciate the tribute to my late father but we ought to remember his famous comment on the Senate, that its three priorities are alcohol, protocol and Geritol. That is why it ought to be reformed.
It took Brian Mulroney nine months but at least he eventually recognized the democratic will of Albertans and appointed Stan Waters to the Senate.
The Prime Minister does not need a constitutional amendment to do the right thing. Why has the Prime Minister changed his tune on Senate elections? Is he prepared to break the promise made by him and his party in 1992 to provide an elected Senate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fought to have an elected Senate but the leader of the third party campaigned across the nation to defeat the Charlottetown accord. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Because he did not have the judgment to look at the whole package, he decided to kill it and he has to live with the decision.
At a time when a lot of the senators are Tories and the House of Commons is building legislation to be passed, I will use my privilege and exercise my duty to name a senator who will respect the will of the House of Commons.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If the hon. member would put his question.
Mr. Guimond: When the time comes to tax individuals, Revenue Canada does not beat around the bush. However, when it deals with family trusts, capital gains or tax avoidance-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question, please.
Mr. Guimond: Does the Minister of Finance realize that, because he is not taking immediate action regarding tax evasion, billions of dollars are being transferred to the United States, free of tax?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a very calm way I will remind the House what we are doing on this very important file.
The Minister of Finance has changed the law with regard to family trusts. We have passed legislation which demands that not only corporations but individual trusts and partnerships have to record and report their offshore earnings and offshore assets.
We have very, very capable auditors on this file who have returned to the government coffers over $500 million in revenues in the last year. And I thank the Minister of Finance for another $50 million so that we can augment our work in that regard.
We are dealing with other countries to develop tax treaties so that we can exchange information on this very important file.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Minister of Finance.
How does the minister explain the fact that his government is so quick to hit low income taxpayers, but so slow to deal with major corporations and large fortunes? This is a disgrace.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate our commitment to ensure fairness and equity in the tax system.
(1435 )
I will add another point now that I have time. I am very proud of the people in my department who are working not only here at home but with their counterparts around the world to ensure that we move toward international standards and the exchange of information in different banks.
This is very important. We take this file extremely seriously. I commend the Minister of Finance for all that he has done in the last two years, and that is just the beginning.
Yesterday the auditor general said that the tax ruling which provided hundreds of millions of dollars of tax relief for one family was kept confidential while the exact opposite opinion was issued by the Department of Revenue denying the same tax relief to all other Canadians. That one was made public.
Will the Minister of Finance please explain why this government continued the duplicity for two and one-half years? Will he tell Canadians whether the Income Tax Act applies to all Canadians or are the friends of government exempt?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us remember again that the decision we are speaking about was a decision back in 1985 and 1991, a time when neither the hon. member opposite nor I was here. It was some time ago.
The auditor general drew it to our attention in his most recent report and we have acted expeditiously. The Minister of Finance has directed the finance committee to look at those aspects of the Income Tax Act and report back as to the integrity of those portions of the act.
For our side, we knew that the auditor general's report would go to the public accounts committee. I encouraged its members to pose some questions.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the innuendo of corruption affecting this government. The minister is here. I am here.
This morning the Commissioner of Official Languages said that the Clerk of the Privy Council approved for him and he is still receiving today a $15,000 tax free apartment in Ottawa and a tax free chauffeur driven limo ride from Montreal to Ottawa every week.
Every other Canadian has to pay tax-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question please.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, my question is that every other Canadian has to pay taxes on this kind of benefit. Will the minister please explain why this government ignores the requirement of the Income Tax Act for patronage appointments?
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the official languages commissioner is a responsible official of the House of Commons, and the matter may be debated in committee, but it is not the responsibility of the government to debate it at this time. This issue is well known. I think that when he was hired, this situation was foreseen, and I, for one, have no other comment to add.
[English]
``We never said we were to get out of forestry and mining if you read the speech from the throne''.
[Translation]
We read the throne speech, and the governor general said, and I quote:
The government is prepared to withdraw from its functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining, and recreation, that are more appropriately the responsibility of others, including provincial governments, local authorities or the private sector.Can the minister tell us today whether the government intends to honour the promises made in the throne speech or whether the government is once again getting ready to break its own promises?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that this government has every intention of delivering on its promise in the speech from the throne.
Mr. Penson: What about elected senators?
Ms. McLellan: Let me say to the hon. member that-
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Elected senators?
Ms. McLellan: Would you be quiet?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1440)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not think we have moved the Chair yet. The hon. minister.
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I think the hon. member raises a very important question which deserves an answer. That is the point I was trying to make.
Let me reassure the hon. member we intend to deliver on our promise in the speech from the throne. What this promise is about is sorting out appropriate responsibilities between the federal government and provincial governments. It talks about determining who can most appropriately do what functions in the area of forestry and mining.
My department for the past two and half years has been hard at work on this and we will continue to work on it.
I ask the member to consider that my department by 1997-98 will be reduced by some 60 per cent and 1,500 employees. It seems pretty clear to me-
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister was quite right to call the Reform Party to order, but she could have taken the time to reply to the question, and especially to read the throne speech, which clearly says ``withdraw from its functions''. But yesterday the minister said the opposite, a bit like the former Deputy Prime Minister. I quote her again:
[English]
``Let there be no mistake that there are key federal areas where we will continue to be involved in both forestry and mining''.
[Translation]
This contradicts point by point what was said in the throne speech.
So that no mistake is made, could the minister and this government be clear on this issue? Will she admit that the promise made in the throne speech means no more than the red book promise with respect to the GST? Will she realize that she has no more credibility than Sheila Copps?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate to the hon. member that we intend to keep this promise and we are keeping this promise.
This promise is about sorting out responsibilities. I assure the hon. member those areas that we continue to be involved with in forestry are within federal jurisdiction, for example the 25 per cent of forests on federal crown lands, the First Nations and their lands. Forestry is an important aspect of their economic self-sufficiency. National issues in relation to science and technology-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Canadians deserve honesty and open debate on these issues. Instead, policy agendas are hidden in the minister's drawer, away from Canadians and even members of his own caucus.
Here is a straightforward question for the minister. Will he table all discussion papers and policy initiatives related to same sex benefits or will he admit today he has no intention of pursuing these divisive policies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister replied very clearly yesterday. We are voting on Bill C-33 at this moment to make sure there is no discrimination against any part of society.
On the rest he gave an explanation that there are and will be cases in front of the courts. Citizens can appear before courts. Of course the Minister of Justice has to defend the Canadian position, and the Canadian position is the human rights act. The courts
decide according to the laws of Parliament. The minister said he is ready to defend the position of the government before any court.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are talking about the justice minister and the Liberal Party's long term agenda.
Same sex couples and marital and family status were not in the red book or in the throne speech. The justice minister denied intentions to move ahead on these initiatives. The House voted down marital benefits for same sex couples. This is a matter of integrity and democracy. He has demonstrated a profound lack of respect for both.
(1445)
Will the minister commit today to challenge any future court decision which extends marital or family benefits to same sex couples based on the court's interpretation of amendments to the human rights act, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada will always perform in court the duties of the Attorney General of Canada. He is very capable and we are very privileged to have a man of his knowledge and stature as the Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice.
This afternoon, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will disclose his new fee schedule for the coast guard. Along with a near majority of Canadian stakeholders, the Great Lakes Commission, a U.S. organization representing the eight states bordering the Great Lakes, sent Raymond Chrétien, the Canadian ambassador in Washington, a letter asking the Canadian government to delay the implementation of its new fee schedule for coast guard services.
Since the unilateral imposition of a coast guard fee schedule could have serious repercussions on trade with the U.S., will the Prime Minister act on this request by the U.S. and ask his minister to delay his decision?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows these fees are not unilateral. They were voted on in the House of Commons. They were put forward in a study done last year. They were put forward by the Marine Advisory Board, which involves members of the industry from across Canada. They were studied. There were consultations with 850 organizations and individuals right across the country. They were tried four different ways. They were rearranged. The were reiterated. They were refined.
Everything possible that could be done with these fees to make them fair and equitable has been done. After the fees are implemented there will be studies to ensure they are fairly done and fairly put together with respect to marine services.
We are looking at 11 per cent of the overall fees for the coast guard marine services and the aids to navigation at less than an average of 3 per cent of the overall port charges.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has just said once again that he would first implement the new fee schedule and then conduct a review. This makes no sense.
I wish to remind the Prime Minister that, according to the stakeholders who appeared before the fisheries and oceans committee, and according to the Great Lakes Commission, the new fee schedule will have serious consequences.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by letting his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans blindly go ahead with his new fee schedule, he is endangering thousands of jobs as well as the economies of the regions along the St. Lawrence and around the Great Lakes?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before the announcement of the basic fee structure in January, there was an IBI study carried out by consultants essentially to show the impact on the industry could be absorbed.
The results were positive and showed the impact could easily be absorbed at the level of $20 million spread in accordance with the prorated use of marine services.
I must tell the hon. member I am not proceeding in the blind. I am proceeding with the consultation of 850 other organizations and people, and the fees will proceed as planned.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's question on behalf of our Minister for International
Co-operation who takes major responsibility in the government for international poverty issues.
Canada is very committed to the issues of international poverty and works together with the multilateral community to effect progress. We have seen some progress but we hope that by the year 2015 we with the international community will be able to reach some further significant targets.
Canada works by providing up to 25 per cent of its official development assistance for programs of health and education, clean water, sanitation, micro enterprise works, programs that will have a benefit for women. We will continue to work with the international community to do more in this field.
Max Yalden, the former head of the human rights commission, testified before a parliamentary committee in 1994: ``We believe that if sexual orientation is included by the courts in the act and even if it is more obviously included by Parliament, it would be discriminatory on the ground of sexual orientation to give benefits of one sort or another to a common law couple and yet deny them to a same sex couple''.
Why do the Prime Minister and the government insist exactly the opposite is true when the commission charged with administering the act disagrees with their opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are voting on a bill in the House of Commons that will ensure there is no discrimination against anybody based on sexual orientation. The completion of this human rights act makes Canada a country in which people with a different language, different colour, different religion and some with different sexual orientation can live. It is a society of tolerance that we have in Canada and we will be voting for that this afternoon.
What the judges decide, they will decide. If Parliament has to legislate, Parliament will legislate. There will be non-discrimination enshrined for the people who happen to be homosexual in Canadian society.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer does not address the question.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission disagrees with his interpretation. The justice minister in past statements disagrees with that position. Justice Lamer in the Mossop decision disagreed with that position. Even members of his own party disagree with that position. The MP for Ontario said-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question, please.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is committed to the idea that it is not discrimination to refuse to provide same sex benefits, will he amend the human rights act to make that absolutely clear?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is out of order. The hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.
On May 7, 1996, the coast guard informed its St. Lawrence region employees of the upcoming transfer of the Wilfrid-Laurier, an icebreaker, to the west coast region, before the coast guard advisory committee has completed its study on icebreaking operations in the St. Lawrence.
How can the Minister of Fisheries justify that, before the committee even got a chance to complete its study of icebreaking operations, one of the five icebreakers making up the St. Lawrence fleet based in Quebec is taken away, from Quebec again, while there are still nine icebreakers based in Nova Scotia, where they do not even have ice in winter?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is talking about is the reduction in marine services.
The Bloc wants it both ways. It wants to not have marine service fees and have the taxpayers pay for that, the small taxpayers. It wants to reduce the fees but it does not want to reduce the services.
Which way does he want it? The hon. member cannot have it both ways.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following this cut carried out without consultation, in which 50 employees may lose their jobs, will the Minister of Fisheries undertake not to transfer the icebreaker before the advisory committee has completed its study?
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the comments and one of the observations made as we went forward with the marine service fees was that the
coast guard, aids to navigation and marine services cost too much. We take people seriously. We looked at the requirement to reduce and we are reducing.
Last year we reduced $27 million. This year we will be reducing $30 million. By the turn of the century we will be saving the taxpayer and the Government of Canada $200 million a year, which is good news to all taxpayers.
I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to inform Canadians precisely what cabinet has decided with respect to future benefits for gays and lesbians.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only discussion we have had is the bill which is in front the House at this moment. That is the only legislation. What goes on in cabinet is part of the cabinet. The result of the work of cabinet is bills that we introduce in the House of Commons. That is it.
Right now we have a bill that will be passed and it will be progress for Canadian society.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is completely inconsistent with the document the minister has acknowledged has been distributed around, certainly in the Liberal backbenches, and which has found its way into the media now.
If that is part of the Liberal government's priorities, and it is certainly on a list of initiatives, and it is on the document that this was a memorandum to cabinet, why in the world is the Prime Minister not acknowledging this has been discussed? Why is he not coming clean with Canadians and acknowledging this is something the government is looking at?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a piece of legislation in front of the House and there is a lot of discussion in cabinet and in caucus. In our party we consult with caucus members and, contrary to the Reform Party, we listen to them.
In this case it was a result of the work of the party, as it was voted in many party resolutions for more than 15 years, and it will be voted on this afternoon. I am very proud of it. In order to achieve this I have been able to get this bill passed even by giving freedom to members of my party.
I heard yesterday on the news that members of the Bloc Quebecois were complaining they could not vote freely on it. Since this issue has come before the House, everyday we have read silly statements by members of the Reform Party.
In recent weeks, the federal government has been criticized repeatedly in the press for taking funds out of the national infrastructure program budget to finance the space camp in Laval. In non equivocal terms, is the federal government contemplating dipping directly into the national infrastructure program budget to finance the space camp, yes or no?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): The answer is no,Mr. Speaker. The City of Laval did, of course, contemplate the possibility of submitting an application for the space camp under the infrastructure program. But its application would not have met program requirements, since it would have been essentially an application for refinancing.
However, the City of Laval made changes to the proposed multipurpose complex before the infrastructure program's March 31 deadline-
(1500)
My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Could he tell this House whether he intends to introduce legislation providing for retaliatory measures designed to counter the effects of the Helms-Burton bill?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are watching the situation very carefully. We are into a consultation process with the United States at this point in time, and depending on how that consultation process goes we will proceed with this matter further within the NAFTA framework.
We want to protect Canadian law, we want to protect Canadian interests and Canadian businesses that are legally doing business in Cuba.
We will continue to oppose the measures of the Helms-Burton law and will look at different options and ways to protect Canadian interests.
In the face of mounting opposition why the rush? Why not implement those portions of the plan where there is widespread support and delay the rest in order to address the broad based concerns being expressed in British Columbia?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not doubting the word of the hon. member, although I am very surprised to hear it. Dr. Pearse was in my office at eight o'clock this morning. He told me he was very supportive of the plan, so I have difficulty with what the member said.
The plan is one of choices. There are three choices. The fishermen can choose to exit the fishery, they can continue to fish with their present investment, or they can increase their investment by buying a licence from a fisherman who exits the fishery and increase the number of licences. These are choices for fishermen that will relieve the pressure on the fish stocks and will result in a better economy and a more viable industry.
[English]
These men and women from across Canada have made outstanding contributions to our country. I would ask you to please hold your applause until I have called each of their names: Donald Baxter, André Bérard, the Hon. Sidney Buckwold, Mr. Jean Davignon, Norman Inkster, Mrs. Jean Pigott, John Roberts, Verna Huffman Splane, Richard Splane, Denis St-Onge, Dr. Bryce Weir, Abel Diamond, Nabil N. Antaki, Luc Beauregard, Jack Bell, Gordon Brown, Eugène Bussière, Louis Collins, Walter Curlook, Mr. Omer Deslauriers, Soeur Lorette Gallant, Calvin Gotlieb, Roy Lindseth, Bob Lowery, Hon. Jack Marshall, Judith Maxwell, John McKellar, David Smith, Donald Smith, Armand Viau.
Please join me in welcoming them and saluting their achievements.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we will conclude consideration of Bill C-33. Tomorrow, we will resume the debate, at report stage, on Bill C-12, the employment insurance act.
[English]
On Monday we will complete report stage and second reading stage of that bill. If there is time we will proceed to Bill C-19, the internal trade bill, followed by Bill C-20, the air navigation bill. On Tuesday we will continue third reading of Bill C-12. On Wednesday, depending on what was accomplished on Monday, we will call Bill C-19, Bill C-20, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Thursday will be an allotted day. Friday we will take up business from where we left off on Wednesday. If we are making better progress, then I expect we will add to the list.
(1505 )
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate whether there will be a free vote on Bill C-33, thus row by row?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest respect, I do not believe that is a matter of business relative to the original question.
The facts are as follows: yesterday, a House of Commons envelope bearing the mention ``for the member's eyes only'' was put in my postal box. It contained the position of the Ligue catholique des droits de l'homme on Bill C-33.
There was no mention of the source of the documents and no covering letter. In other words, the documents were sent anonymously.
It seems to me that such use of the House's postal services is not compatible with the rules.
Members certainly have the right to send mail to their peers, so as to make their ideas known regarding the issues reviewed by the House. However, they should use their post-free privilege or, at least, identify themselves when they send documents.
But to send mail anonymously, through the House's postal services, for the benefit of the Ligue catholique des droits de l'homme is to lobby for this organization. This clearly violates the rules governing the House's postal services, since these services are being used for purposes other than those for which they are intended.
How do we explain the fact that the House staff deemed appropriate to put an anonymous envelope in a postal box?
I ask the Chair to refer the issue to the Board of internal economy, so that it can investigate the matter and shed light on this rather serious incident.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will recognize the chief government whip. I will come back to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona.
I regret I had no way of knowing whether it was on a general point of order or House business. I should have given him the floor. I would like to complete this matter and I will come back to him on that matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the chief opposition whip for having pointed this matter out to me this morning. I, too, was aware of the problem, first, because I received a similar document, and second, because my colleagues also told me about it.
As the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, I have referred the matter to the table officers of the House of Commons for investigation. I intend to raise the matter with the Board of Internal Economy when that investigation has been carried out.
I will conclude by saying that I, too, regret the fact that twice in two days this House appears to have been used for the purposes of lobbying, or at least its services appear to have been used for these purposes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since there are no other comments, the matter will be referred to the Board of Internal Economy.
[English]
The House will recall that immediately after the Supreme Court decision with respect to tobacco advertising, the government made a commitment to bring in legislation that would reinstate the ability of the government to regulate that industry.
Given that we are getting near summer, could the deputy government House leader indicate whether any legislation will be forthcoming before the summer break?
(1510 )
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I will take it under advisement. I will get back to him to see whether we are on this important subject. In the next few hours or in a few days I will get back to the member and inform him where we stand and what the House business agenda is.
Mr. Speaker, you ruled the question out of order. He was not referring to the question of the day. Could you explain why that would be out of order?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will make a brief clarification. I concur with the hon. member with regard to the initial question. In my judgment, the supplementary went directly to the question of business that is before the House today. That is why I ruled that question out of order. I consider the matter closed on this point of order.
I may wish to rise on a question of privilege tomorrow morning on the statement made by the member for Winnipeg South after I have reviewed Hansard.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Chair will take that under notice.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have a very difficult job, but perhaps on both sides of the House if members would conduct themselves in a more professional manner there would be more time for you to recognize our questions without everybody applauding, screaming and hollering like a bunch of school children.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member for Saint John raises a question that is of interest to all members of the House. Respectfully, I join each and every member in the House in asking the co-operation of all members, whether asking a question or giving a reply. If we can shorten them up on both sides we will get to more questions and more answers. That is something we endeavour to do each and every day. It is not a point of order but a point of information.
As I understand it, under the standing orders a free vote such as a vote on Private Members' Business is taken row by row, whereas a government order and a non-free vote is taken party by party. That is what we would like clarified. We have received conflicting reports about whether it will be a free vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The rules of the House provide only for votes row by row on business originating from private members' motions unless there is unanimous consent. I suppose the House can do most anything through unanimous consent.
In terms of the standing orders, row by row votes are used only on private members' business.
Such an appointment is to be given by the successful candidate in a senatorial election in accordance with the Senate Elections Act, 1989.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I believe the hon. member for Kootenay East has made his point. It would not be required to put that to unanimous consent.
(1515 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The member and other members who are in possession of petitions regarding the matter which is before the House today have asked if they could present their petitions. Is there unanimous consent to revert to petitions in order that those petitions could be tabled?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
An hon. member: It is certified.
An hon. member: The government whip said no.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. There seems to be some discussion going on across the floor on the matter of whether a petition or petitions are certified. Let me put the proposition this way to the House. If in fact members have in their possession petitions that are certified, would we revert to presenting petitions? The hon. chief government whip.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish that whips would negotiate these things ahead of time in the usual manner.
If the hon. member has a duly certified petition, for the benefit of his constituents, yes, we will give consent for one petition. I understand there is also another member who has a similar petition which is also certified. We will agree to table those petitions, given the importance of the issue, providing they are certified.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, this is a place of honour. I understand that members can also table their petitions by sending them directly to the table. However, in this case a request has been made.
This House is on the honour system. If the petitions are certified, is there unanimous consent that we revert to petitions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.