Are we to assume from the remarks of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that the federal government is keeping the leading role for itself in a whole series of sectors, so it can set broad standards and objectives, and giving the provinces a supporting role, that is, the role of administrator?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that this is the most pithy answer we have had from this minister. May he always be so concise.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said the following with respect to the federal proposal on unemployment insurance:
This offer was acclaimed everywhere in Quebec as a great step forward, if not the finishing line for a concrete solution.Are we to understand from what the minister said that the federal proposal in the area of manpower is not a starting point for negotiations, but, rather the finishing line?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a framework where each province will be able to
exercise the responsibilities it wishes and where the Government of Canada will have its own responsibilities on this Canada-wide issue. Whether it involves ensuring a movement of workers within the country or whether it involves ensuring the various governments help each other in situations of exceptional crisis, the Government of Canada has its own particular responsibilities.
This is why Quebecers who believe in Canada have said that the minister set a very good policy, and only those who do not believe in it are continuing to fight it.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will note that the level of obscurity increases with the number of words: the more he talks, the less we understand.
Can the minister deny that the attempt to set up a model where the federal government would establish standards and keep control and have the provinces carry out the programs is not a sort of back door revival of the spirit of the Charlottetown accord, which Quebec rejected for one reason and the rest of Canada for the very opposite reason?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite the Leader of the Opposition to make a bit of an effort. What we are saying is quite simple. We can keep on repeating it.
We have the most decentralized federation there is. The Government of Quebec has certain responsibilities. It has a hard time assuming them all the time, and we are offering government assistance to ensure that this responsibility is carried out as well as possible. We have responsibilities as the Government of Canada and we are assuming them together with the provinces.
(1420)
We are going to improve things in various sectors, be it manpower training, mining, forestry, recreation, public housing, tourism, the environment, freshwater habitats, etc.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated:
If it is only a matter of transferring funds with no strings attached, then they will have to speak to someone other than me, because I am not in the habit of sending money anywhere without making sure the interests of Canadian taxpayers are protected.My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Are we to understand from what his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, says that the government does not trust the provinces to administer the taxpayers' money in areas which are exclusively a provincial jurisdiction, and furthermore has no intention of withdrawing from any areas except those in which it does not have even a cent of financial involvement?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume that my hon. colleague, the hon. member, is aware that the unemployment insurance fund, as it used to be known, is financed by all Canadians. Money is transferred from certain provinces to others. The Government of Canada has the responsibility of ensuring that these moneys are administered responsibly.
Moreover, the provinces are responsible for education, which is rather closely related to occupational training. It is, therefore, all these constitutional responsibilities which the Government of Canada, in conjunction with the provinces, will be better assuming, thank to the reform proposed by the minister.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Minister of Human Resources Development will educate his colleague, for he is barking up the wrong tree, absolutely.
With the statements made by the minister yesterday, is the government telling us that, when it is announced that the federal government is pulling out of some area of exclusively provincial jurisdiction, this will be only under its conditions, with the provinces having no say in the matter whatsoever?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member trying to say that unemployment insurance is not a federal responsibility? If so, he had better take a refresher course on the Constitution.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on being confirmed in his position.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It was a very good weekend for the Reform Party and a very good weekend for the Liberal Party too.
I did not change my mind. If the hon. member would listen to the whole meeting with the press, Mr. Bouchard said himself:
[Translation]
``I am downplaying it a bit, because the Prime Minister says he will perhaps want to touch very briefly on the question of constitutional review, section 49 of the Constitution, but I understood that the Prime Minister would not spend a lot of time on it in any event''.
I did not change my mind.
(1425)
[English]
I said that we were to discuss section 49. As to how long we will take to discuss section 49, I say an hour.
The premier of Quebec told me that he does not want to talk about it and he does not want me to help with a veto for Quebec. Since we need unanimity, if one of the participants says no, the meeting will be very short.
Miss Grey: They said no in Charlottetown.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes. But I am for a veto for Quebec. I hope the Reform Party will be too. If the premier of Quebec is not interested in that, the meeting will be short because of Mr. Bouchard's desire not to get Quebec a veto from the rest of Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if we could follow the logic in that answer, the Prime Minister appears to be arguing that section 49 of the Constitution requires this first ministers conference to discuss the amending formula. But there have been at least three major first ministers conferences at which the constitutional amending formula was discussed: the two Meech Lake discussions and the full-blown first ministers conference with respect to the Charlottetown accord in 1992.
Why does the Prime Minister insist that another meeting is required to discuss the constitutional amending formula when these three previous meetings satisfy that requirement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a debate about whether or not it was done in the proper framework.
If in reality we have talked two or three times about it, I do not think it will hurt to talk a fourth time. It will mean that we have met the requirements of the Constitution four times. Nobody will be in a position to say that we did not want to meet the obligations of section 49 if, according to the Reform Party leader, we will have talked about it four times while the Constitution requires only one time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Charlottetown accord discussions of the amending formula went on for several days. They were preceded by consultations by officials. They resulted in formal proposals to amend the amending formula which were agreed to by 10 provinces and the federal government.
If that did not satisfy the section 49 requirement, what is it that makes the Prime Minister think a half hour discussion at this conference in June will satisfy that requirement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just explained that a lot of people including some lawyers have said there is a very specific need to have a meeting on it and we have called a meeting. In the agenda we stated clearly section 49 of the Constitution passed in 1982. We are officially meeting this requirement.
Some would argue that we do not need to do it. I want to be on the safe side. I am respecting the Constitution and I am being extremely prudent. That is why people vote for my party.
Last April 9, PACCAR announced that it was closing the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse, and this was confirmed in a letter that day to plant employees and the Quebec Minister of Labour. But yesterday the Department of Human Resources Development was still refusing to pay unemployment insurance benefits to laid off employees.
Does the minister find it acceptable that his department is depriving over 700 people of unemployment insurance benefits, when it is clear that PACCAR announced the closure of the Kenworth plant on April 9, 1996?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the PACCAR issue is obviously a very difficult situation for workers and their families. I think we shared the hope of the hon. member and of many colleagues in this House that, perhaps, with the help of the Government of Quebec and the participation of the Government of Canada, together with employees and company directors, we could find a solution.
(1430)
It is true that the closure was announced, but there was also a strike. In addition, there was also this hope that the industry could be started up again.
I can tell the hon. member today that it is with great regret that we see that it is finally true that PACCAR, as we knew it, is closed. As I said, it is a source of great regret, because we had always hoped that the industry could be started up again. Just today, in
fact, we have finally decided to accept the fact that the industry has closed its doors and that these people will be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 700 people without resources for two months. It is my understanding that the minister recognizes that these people are now entitled to unemplyment insurance benefits.
Can he guarantee us that he will do everything in his power to speed up the payment process, now that they are entitled to these benefits?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of course of the needs of these individuals and of their families. We have been following the situation closely. If we had accepted the fact that the plant had closed and that there was no possibility of starting it up again, I think that would not have been well received by most stakeholders.
Today, however, as I said in my reply to the hon. member's question, we are accepting our responsibilities in this situation, because we recognize, as does the union, the company, and especially the workers, that the end has now come. We are going to do everything we can to try to help these employees, who have been going through some very rough times for quite a while now. We will do everything we can to try to help them as quickly as possible.
I would like to ask the minister what he thinks about this and what he has to say. Is there a deal in the works with Brian Mulroney? Yes or no? Has the federal government ever offered to settle this matter out of court? Yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question of whether there is a deal in the offing is no.
I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I explain why it reported what it did. However, I can tell the House in response to the hon. member's question that so far as I am aware there is no settlement imminent. Indeed, there is no concrete proposal on the table to settle it.
I remind the House that this litigation was commenced by the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff, if he chooses to do so, to instruct his solicitors to bring a proposal forward. That is well within his authority and he may choose to do so.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, regarding ministerial accountability, it may be that the minister does not know of any concrete proposal on the table, but regarding what we hear on the news, there certainly are some questions about it.
I understand the minister is busy with the Young Offenders Act, section 745 and the Airbus deal, but I am going to ask him again.
Contrary to what he is saying, that he knows there is no concrete proposal on the table, the Canadian taxpayer is going to have to pay the bill on this regardless of what the price is. I ask the minister one more time: Where is the cash going to come from when any settlement is ever arranged? Who is going to pay for the incompetence if there are federal bureaucrats involved and the justice minister's poor judgment on this? When is he going to accept ministerial responsibility?
The Speaker: Colleagues, this is dealing with a matter which I believe is before the courts right now. Therefore, I do not know that the question is in order.
The minister has not indicated whether or not he wants to answer. If the minister wishes to address himself to this problem, I will give him permission to do so.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the courts, but the hon. member raises the question of whether discussions are under way for the payment of any money. I can tell the hon. member that no matter what may have been reported last night, there is no proposal, there is no settlement imminent and there is no discussion of payment of money.
In the course of litigation-and I practised litigation law for 20 years-the parties are always exchanging feelers and that is appropriate. However, as I said, the plaintiff started this lawsuit. If the plaintiff wants to instruct his lawyers to come to us with a proposal, it is within his authority to do so.
(1435)
I can tell the hon. member that there is no settlement imminent. That report to that extent was incorrect. There is no discussion at present of a settlement on those terms.
CN employees responsible for repairing railroad track maintenance equipment at the Joffre station in Charny were told on Monday that their shop will be shut down. This means 100 or so jobs will be lost in Charny while the same number will be created in a shop in Winnipeg. By closing the only track maintenance equipment repair and overhaul facility in eastern Canada, CN could compromise the safety of rail transportation in the region.
How can the minister give the people of Quebec the assurance that railroad tracks will remain safe when these tracks will now be maintained by a shop located in Winnipeg?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was questioned last week about the changes made by VIA Rail, involving the transfer of 63 or 65 employees to Montreal, the hon. member did not raise concerns about the safety of the people in other parts of the country.
The fact is that changes result from business decisions made by the major railway companies. We have a case here where my department is keeping a close eye on the safety issue. CN has an excellent safety reputation and record, and we at the department will continue to see to it that safety is not compromised by the way CN manages its operations.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Transport realizes that what is at stake is rail safety in all of eastern Canada.
Given that the minister has the duty, under the existing legislation, to ensure the safety of rail transportation, does he intend to impose a moratorium on the closure of the shop in Charny, pending an impact study by the National Transportation Agency?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We have reviewed the situation from a safety point of view and our review has shown no increased risk. There is therefore no reason to try to reverse CN's decision.
I should point out that CN is now a private company. It can make any business decision that fiscal reality dictates in order to streamline its activities. We do not have to review every business decision made by private companies.
What is the difference between a good killer and a bad killer, one that is deserving of special rights and privileges over one that is not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place we do not propose to repeal the section, as my hon. friend and his party would do, because we believe along with the vast majority of moderate Canadians that there is room for this in the law. We are not prepared to say that of the hundreds of people serving life for murder none of them should ever get the opportunity to come before a jury of peers from the community to ask for a shortening of the period.
We have proposed a significant tightening of the section. We said for all those in prison now serving time for murder there will be a tight screening mechanism before they ever get to a jury. That screening mechanism means that only those cases where a judge says there is a reasonable prospect of success under the test in section 745 will ever get to a jury. We have also said that any such jury would have to be unanimous in shortening the period of parole and eligibility, whereas now it is only two-thirds.
(1440 )
I suggest these measures will strengthen section 745, will improve it and will ensure that it is those exceptional cases of deserving applicants who get the remedy provided for.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the real penalty for multiple killers should be consecutive sentences. Clifford Olson should be serving 11 consecutive life sentences, not looking for early parole.
This serial killer, Clifford Olson, and those who are in jail today will still have the right to apply to a superior court judge for a hearing under Bill C-45, and a jury hearing may be granted.
Why has the justice minister not simply scrapped section 745 instead of introducing a bill that still allows Clifford Olson and hundreds of other first degree murderers to apply for early release?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes reference to some of the present prison population.
There are victims reported today in the press calling for the passage of the bill we introduced yesterday, victims' families calling for the passage of the bill.
If this bill is passed the present prison population will face a much tighter and significantly strengthened process under section 745. People who are now in prison will have to get past a judge in the screening process.
If the hon. member and his party are prepared to support us in getting this bill through, we can get it through by the summer break. If they do not, let us face it, they have a choice to make: will they support this bill and see it passed or will they stand in its way so that people now in prison will not have to face that screening mechanism before they get to a jury?
Tomorrow, some 700 French-speaking employees of the CBC will have to vote on collective agreements written in English only. As we know, these agreements are extremely important, as they drastically change the nature of labour relations at that corporation as a result of the Liberal cuts.
Since the employer stated that francophones will have to read and vote in English, what does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to do to ensure that the CBC's francophone employees have access to a collective agreement in French before voting tomorrow?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the CBC operates at arm's length from the government. Furthermore, I am well aware that the Commissioner of Official Languages has apprised the president of the CBC of the problem and that the president has given assurances he would take all necessary measures to comply with the law.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that people will vote on the agreement tomorrow.
Given her answer and the fact that the CBC's francophone employees do not have access to their collective agreement in French, that they must sign a petition and appeal to the Commissioner of Official Languages to get one, will the minister admit, without trying to dodge the issue, that this situation provides a concrete example of how Canada's francophones are indeed treated like second-class citizens?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that, as usual, Bloc members are exaggerating the facts.
As I said very clearly, Canada has an Official Languages Act that all crown corporations, including the CBC, must comply with. As I just said, the president of the CBC has assured us he would take all necessary measures.
[English]
Can the Minister of Finance explain how harmonizing sales taxes will eliminate duplication for small business and also save money for the consumers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I can handle that.
(1445)
At present small business has to maintain two sets of books, meet two sets of reporting dates and file two sets of forms. Most small businesses will say they are constantly tripping over tax auditors from either the federal government or provincial governments, which is why the Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports harmonization. The Canadian Association of Chartered Accountants has said it will save business over $500 million a year, which is in fact a modest assessment.
As far as consumers are concerned, with harmonization we will eliminate the cascading of taxes on each set, each stage of the production process. Provincial taxes are imposed; tax on tax on tax. This represents a disguised tax grab that is a penalty on jobs.
Consumers will benefit from lower prices, Canadians will benefit from lower prices and the economy will benefit from harmonization.
Sheila Copps had the power to hold full panel environmental reviews but never did. Is the new minister prepared to use his statutory powers or will he hide his head in the sand like his predecessor?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Sydney tar ponds, the minister has given his commitment before the committee that before the end of the term of the government something will be done with that situation.
The proposed Taro dump is under provincial jurisdiction. I suggest he speak to the provincial minister of the environment on that.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked Environment Canada's silver anniversary, but it is safe to say the clouds hanging over the minister's head have no silver lining.
These last few years of pathetic federal-provincial relations concerning the environment and poor legislation, all courtesy of Sheila Copps, have only hurt Environment Canada.
When will the minister stop behaving like Sheila Copps and start putting the environment ahead of personal political gains?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government welcomes the scrutiny of the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations.
We have made advances on the environmental agenda. We have reintroduced a bill to ban MMT, something the Sierra Club supports. We have introduced tough regulations on new car emissions and we have created an environmental commissioner.
We have important legislation that represents throne speech commitments that will address many of the concerns outlined in this report.
From July 7 to 12, people from all over the world will meet in Vancouver to discuss AIDS. In Canada alone, it is estimated that 15,000 people have AIDS, while about 50,000 more are HIV positive. Canada has had a national AIDS strategy since 1990. It has now reached phase II. However, the health minister has repeatedly refused to extend the strategy when it expires, in March 1997.
Given the imminence of the conference in Vancouver, will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to tell AIDS victims, community groups and members of the scientific community that there will be a phase III to the National AIDS Strategy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue has to do with next year's budget. The health and finance ministers will discuss it. I am not in a position to report on it at this point.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): No respect for the conference in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Prime Minister confirm, as he is being asked by his five major national partners on the AIDS issue, that the current funding for the strategy will be maintained beyond 1997? This is important for AIDS victims.
(1450)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies for now. The issue is being reviewed. The Minister of Finance, along with each minister representing his or her respective interests, have discussions with the Department of Finance regarding the content of next year's budget.
The budget is usually tabled in February. If an announcement is to be made before then, the concerned ministers will do so. I cannot answer the question right now, because it would be premature to do so.
The governments of the world, including Canada, have made strong representations to the Government of Nigeria about its alleged human rights abuses. The desire for peaceful, democratic changes has been widely promoted around the world. Can the minister tell the House the progress made in this area?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the concern of the hon. member about the tragic and unacceptable developments taking place in Nigeria.
The matter was first brought forward by the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth meetings over a year ago when he asked that Nigeria be suspended from the Commonwealth. Since then we have held a meeting of CMAG, the Commonwealth ministers advisory group, at which a decision was taken on a number of sanctions that could be applied. Those are now being presented to various Commonwealth members. We are also undertaking to talk to the Europeans and the Americans to see if they would share in applying a series of economic sanctions.
I am hoping we will be able to get the full concurrence of the Commonwealth and these other partners so that we can make a very strong international statement that we will not accept the violations going on in Nigeria.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether he thinks it is time to stop threatening, talking and discussing sanctions and to start taking some real action by proposing that Nigeria be expelled from the Commonwealth until it is in a position to deal with this matter.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is presently suspended. I think it is the clear intention of
the Commonwealth ministers to see if this first round of actions and initiatives will have the necessary impact.
There will be a meeting with Chief Ikimi, the foreign affairs minister of Nigeria, in London next week, at which he will be presented with these alternatives. If the alternatives are not accepted and if we cannot get the kind of response and change we need, the kind of proposition put forward by the hon. member should be considered.
Recent American research shows that dioxins, which are cancer causing substances, are more dangerous to health than originally believed. In Canada safe dioxin exposure levels for humans have been under review for over a year.
Can the minister tell the House when he will inform the public of Health Canada's revised dioxin safety levels?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know exposure of Canadians to dioxins has declined over the last 20 years. This in part is the result of the effectiveness of controls that have been put in place to prohibit the creation of these unwanted substances.
Health Canada, as all members in the House will acknowledge, has been reviewing all available information on dioxins, as have other countries such as Sweden, Germany and the United States. Canada's current guidelines are similar to all other countries with the possible exception of the United States.
While we have no plans at this time to revise the guidelines, Health Canada will not hesitate to pursue any necessary additional measures if the dioxin data indicate we need to do so.
Last Monday, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether the insurance coverage for the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale had been revised since last year, and whether it now covered PCBs? Taken unawares by my question, the minister did not make any reference to insurance coverage in his response.
(1455)
I am therefore asking again whether he can give us a guarantee that the new insurance contracts have been revised and do contain coverage for PCBs?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has undergone a number of consultations and assessments on the Irving Whale. We are going ahead with the lift this summer.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to date, the refloating of the Irving Whale has cost the Canadian taxpayer no less than $18 million. What is more, it has not been successful, so several millions more will have to be spent.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make a commitment before this House to claim the entire costs of this operation from those who are in reality the only ones responsible, that is to say the Irving Company?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to the polluter pay principle. Once we bring the Irving Whale up, we will be able to assess the real reason for its sinking. At that time we will take appropriate action.
Car dealers, auctioneers, people who sell used furniture and used clothing, virtually anybody employed in the used goods sector, will be under pressure. They tell us that bankruptcies and lay-offs are imminent.
Can the finance minister tell the House if it is his intention to use this silent tax windfall financed from the pockets of ordinary Canadians to pay for his billion dollar pay-off to Atlantic premiers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a used question. Because it is a used question, let me simply deal with the last part of the question, this constant reference to a bribe, this constant insult to Atlantic Canada.
It is really important to understand this is one country. It is not incumbent upon a member of any political party to stand up and insult one region of the country.
This is fundamental change that will benefit small business in Atlantic Canada. It is fundamental change that will benefit the consumers of Atlantic Canada. It will give Atlantic Canada a chance to basically get its business costs in line.
I do not think it is incumbent upon any member of the House to stand up and constantly insult a region of the country.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the member would please answer the question. Page 22 of the red book said any changes to the GST would be revenue neutral. This clearly is not, since it will cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Will the finance minister admit today that not only is he incapable of keeping his promise to abolish the GST, but that he has reneged on his page 22 promise of revenue neutrality. Is he not just like Sheila Copps?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, let the hon. member understand that on June 17 Sheila Copps will win an overwhelming majority.
Second, let the hon. member understand that his own party talked about ripping the heck out of the GST and scrapping it. Then, when the finance committee came to me, his own party recommended harmonization. His own party recommended broadening the base. His own party has flip-flopped back and forth on this issue more times than anybody can count.
The fundamental issue is why does this hon. member, after his convention at which they said they would adopt a more enlightened view, continue to expostulate the voices of extremism?
(1500)
Will the Prime Minister listen to the Minister of Health, listen to Canadians who are fighting desperately against HIV and AIDS? Will the Prime Minister now agree to attend the conference and make a commitment to renew the national strategy on AIDS at the conference?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I considered the possibility of attending the conference. If I cannot go, I hope the head of state for Canada, the Governor General, will be there.
The commitment I have expressed in support of this cause is well known. I was one of the leaders who went to the conference in Paris which was convened two years ago. It is possible that I will not be able to be there. If I cannot be there, I hope the Governor General as the head of state for Canada will be there.
One of the commitments in the throne speech was legislation on endangered species. In light of the Sierra Club report, can the parliamentary secretary tell this House what action we can expect on endangered species in Canada?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister remains committed to introducing federal legislation relating to endangered species in the House. As the member has pointed out, it is a throne speech commitment. If we are to have effective endangered species legislation, then we have to factor in habitat as well.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I would also like to bring to your attention the presence in the gallery of some of what I would call our unsung heroes who represent us as Canadians. I am referring specifically to the physicians who in our name travel to third world countries at their own expense to treat people, thereby doing a great service for them and for Canada.
Would these physicians please stand and be recognized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
That, in the opinion of this House, a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with Their Honours to consider the issue of the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament with respect to the accountability process for the main estimates.(1505 )
My point of order will address the issue of where the motion stands on the Order Paper. I do not feel it should be the subject of a private member's motion but a matter that can be moved under Routine Proceedings under Motions. I will also address the issue of the necessity of a procedure that has fallen into disuse.
I understand that historically conferences with the Senate are to work out disagreements with respect to legislation. In fact it is part of the legislative process. However this is the first time that the Senate has been asked to account to this House for its spending. Consequently it is the first time there has been a disagreement or misunderstanding on how to proceed in this matter. There is no mechanism nor are there any references to meetings with the Senate on this issue. That is why a free conference may serve the purpose.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, messages sent to the Senate are usually made under Motions. In addition there is the definition of section (p) of Standing Order 67 which describes motions that can be made under Routine Proceedings. These motions are for the maintenance of the House's authority and ``the management of its business''. My motion is such a motion.
The estimates of the Senate are not an issue of ministerial responsibility, which I will explain further, but are a matter of the Senate as a whole and consequently a matter of this House as a whole. If this House needs to take action on such issues, then there should be a quick mechanism through which it can take that action.
We need this conference to manage our business of supply and maintain the authority of the elected House. The deadline to deal with the estimates is June 21 or possibly earlier. We are under a deadline and we need to get together with the Senate soon.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 745 which states:
Either House may demand a conference-to communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired-Citation 746(3) states: ``The free conference is a meeting of managers attempting, by discussion, to effect an agreement between the two Houses''.
Although citation 748 of Beauchesne's says that conferences between the two Houses are now obsolete, a motion for a free conference with the Senate is still on our books. It can be found in Standing Order 67(1)(h).
Citation 750 of Beauchesne's makes a qualifying point:
While still theoretically possible under the Standing Orders, both the conference and the free conference have been effectively replaced by the exchange of Messages between the two Houses and the attendance of Ministers at the committees of both Houses.Citation 751 goes even further:
What may be described as less open and ostensible means of communication arise from the fact that representatives of the government sit in both Houses, so that every public question is presented by the executive to both Houses-As I mentioned earlier, the matter of the estimates of the Senate is not a matter of the government. It is not the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is responsible. The responsibility lies with the Senate as a whole. It does not matter if ministers from this House attend Senate committees or that a minister sits in the other place.
This is a unique situation. The arguments set out in citations 750 and 751 do not apply because ministerial accountability does not apply in this case. The use of a free conference is therefore justified and suitable to this particular issue.
Since it is a matter respecting the authority of the House or lack thereof to consider the management of its business, it is therefore a matter to be considered under Motions. I understand that it has been a long time since such a conference has been sought. However with respect to the relationship of the two Houses regarding the main estimates in modern times, it is fitting that an archaic rule will be necessary to attempt to bring the accountability practices of the Senate from the 1880s to the 1990s.
In conclusion, I view this situation as a very serious one. Outside of voting down the funds of the Senate, we in this House are virtually powerless to do anything about the issue of the main estimates of the Senate.
I would like to give this process another chance. We need to come to some agreement with the Senate so that the public can have confidence in this institution and the way it accounts for the spending of their money.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few issues raised by the hon. member.
I disagree with his interpretation of the rules whereby Standing Order 67(1)(h) could be used for such a purpose. I also believe that
his reading of Beauchesne is inaccurate, or at least the interpretation thereof is inaccurate. Let me deal with both issues.
(1510)
Standing Order 67(1) refers to debatable motions. Standing Order 67(1)(h) refers to a conference with the Senate. That may be quite true. However, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, as my colleague across the way has just indicated, under the general rubric of conferences, it is referred to under the heading ``Intercourse Between the Two Houses''. Citation 743 reads in part:
When the House of Commons does not agree to the Senate amendments, it adopts a motion which states reasons for its disagreement. This is communicated to the Senate by written Message.It then lists the steps that are to be followed following that kind of a disagreement on Senate amendments to a bill or a motion coming from the House. This of course has never occurred. Therefore, the prerequisite for invoking Standing Order 67(1)(h) that the hon. member brings to our attention has not, in my opinion, been satisfied.
With respect to the calling of such a conference, citation 745 states:
Either House may demand a conference upon the following matters: to communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired; concerning the privileges of Parliament; to acquire or to communicate statements of facts on which bills have been passed by either House; to offer reasons for disagreeing to, or insisting on, amendments-The House has not made that kind of determination to make the request to the other House. Therefore, that has not been satisfied either. That is citation 745 which follows citation 743 under the general rubric to which I referred.
For all of these reasons the criteria have not been satisfied. There is absolutely no provision under which the standing order in question should be allowed, that is to say, a motion under Standing Order 67(1)(h), nor is the interpretation of citation 745(1) of Beauchesne accurate as presented to the House by our colleague across the way.
It is quite true of course that this House can invite another House or a committee of another House for a review of whatever, presumably estimates and other things. If the House wants to do that-and I understand that such an invitation has been sent-that is one thing. However, the fact that such an invitation has been sent does not at all satisfy the prerequisite which I have just outlined. Therefore, I believe the hon. member's point of order should be rejected by the Chair.
The Speaker: Colleagues, although we are dealing here with procedure, I wonder if the House would give its Speaker the time to get more information on the matter. In the first place, the point is well taken. I also accept the other side of the argument which has been put forth by the government whip. I will look at this particular procedure and I will return to the House as soon as I can with a decision on this matter.
Joe Flynn died Monday morning in Kitchener. He served in the House between 1974 and 1979. He retired in 1979. After that, he took up a position on the Canadian Pension Commission where he served with distinction until 1984.
(1515 )
Joe Flynn is remembered best as a son of Ireland. Joe talked endlessly about Irish tales, the Irish past and his own Irish heritage.
He was born in Ireland in County Cork in 1921 and came to Canada in 1925. He came, like nearly all Irish immigrants, as a poor boy from a poor family. But as the greatest Irish poet of this century once wrote, ``but being poor I have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet''. Those dreams for the Flynn family led very far.
The dreams that his parents spread out beneath the Flynn feet led one son to the House of Commons as the member for Kitchener and another son to the office of the chair of Metro Toronto and unfortunately to the Conservative Party. But Joe was the Liberal member for Kitchener with great pride between 1974 and 1979.
In 1939 when war broke out, Joe Flynn joined His Majesty's Canadian Navy, with more emphasis on the Canadian than on His Majesty. He served with great courage during the second world war.
In 1948 he came to Kitchener and raised his family in that city. His role in the community was notable. I list a few of his accomplishments, probably the major one being that he raised seven children in the city of Kitchener. Today several of his children occupy posts of considerable distinction.
He was active in the Knights of Columbus, the Sales and Ad Club. He was the past president of the K-W Blue Line Club and the founding director of the Kitchener Rangers Hockey Club. Many of us who attended Rangers games remember Joe's booming voice when he sang with great pride O Canada. He was a founding member of St. Teresa's Catholic Church and at the House of Commons chaired the committee on veterans affairs.
He was a model immigrant. He was a model resident of Kitchener. He was a wonderful member of this House.
Today, I would like to recall Joe Flynn and the many memories he has given us and to express on behalf of all of us our sympathy to Betty and the family. Kitchener will miss Joe Flynn very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would also like to express the sincere condolences of all the members of the Bloc Quebecois to his family and friends.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to express our sympathies, our understanding and certainly condolences to the Joe Flynn family and all of his friends.
We recognize the contribution Mr. Flynn made to the House of Commons and to his constituents during his hard work and the contribution in his own community. He worked with the school board, the Chamber of Commerce and a number of other organizations.
I am sure he will be missed and truly recognized for the contributions he made. We extend our condolences and our understanding.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.