My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Will the Prime Minister admit that the federal government's withdrawal from areas of provincial jurisdiction in which it is now involved can only be done by transferring at the same time the funds now spent by the federal government in these areas? Otherwise, this will be nothing but a dumping operation likely to place the provinces in a difficult financial situation.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting is to enable the two orders of government to work together, even better than they do now, to provide Canadians with better services at a lower cost. And we will succeed.
In some areas, it is important to better clarify the respective roles played by the two levels of government, as in the case of mining and forestry. In other cases, the federal government will transfer substantial amounts to the provinces. For example, $2 billion will be transferred for active employment measures over the life of this program. The federal government will also transfer $1.9 billion to the provinces for the management of some 660,000 social housing units.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this regard, given the extremely high cost of renovating our social housing stock, the Prime Minister said he wanted to give this area back to the provinces.
Given, then, the substantial amount of renovation work needed, is the government committed-it is important to set the record straight on this-to withdrawing from this area, but only if it helps pay for the work needed to repair all these social housing units?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are committed to transferring the money we now spend on social housing.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what I want to find out from the minister-It is important to set the record straight. The minister talks about the money now spent by the federal government, but we know that the government is not spending anything on repairs to our social housing stock, which has been deteriorating for several years.
My question to the minister is this: Is the federal government preparing to transfer to the provinces apartments in need of major renovation work, thus forcing them to pay exorbitant repair bills? Is this not an example of the kind of federal withdrawal that is tantamount to dumping on the provinces?
(1420)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our commitment is clear. The Leader of the Opposition, however, should make up his mind. Does he want us to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction, yes or no? We said we would continue to contribute the same amounts as at present, to be administered by the provinces. Any savings will benefit the provinces, which will be able to do more with the same amount, as there will now be a single level of management.
The provinces should make up their minds. If they do not want us to withdraw, we will not.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave as an excuse for putting the securities issue on the agenda of the first ministers' conference the fact that it was requested by a number of provinces. Six provinces also asked the Prime Minister to put the GST on the agenda.
My question is for the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How does he explain his refusal to put the GST on the agenda of the first ministers' conference, as requested by six provinces representing 90 per cent of the Canadian population?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the GST issue will be discussed very soon at a finance ministers' conference.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when a number of provinces ask that the Canadian social policy be on the agenda, the Prime Minister puts it on the agenda. When other provinces ask that securities be on the agenda, the Prime Minister agrees to put this topic on the agenda. But when six Canadian provinces ask that the GST be on the agenda, the Prime Minister says: ``No, we will not discuss the GST''.
My question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is this: Why does the Prime Minister not want to talk about the GST, an issue of interest to the four western provinces as well as to Ontario and Quebec? Is he afraid?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the comments made was that the agenda was quite heavy and that there might not be enough time to deal with everything on it. This is a very good point, but I think that, if we keep a tight schedule, we should be able to go through the whole agenda.
The opposition would like to add yet another item. A number of provinces would like to discuss several other issues. But we have had to make a selection to put the agenda together. If it is too heavy, it will require a great deal of discipline on the part of the ministers to deal with all the issues constructively.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, in his luncheon speech today the Prime Minister outlined the subject matter of the first ministers conference that will be held later this week.
In particular he said job creation will be one of the main themes of the discussion. The key to job creation in this country, particularly private sector job creation, can be summed up in two words: tax relief. It is taxes, taxes taxes that kill jobs, jobs, jobs.
If job creation really is an objective of the first ministers conference, why is tax relief not front and centre on the agenda?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's record on job creation is already excellent. There have been 600,000 new jobs already created since our mandate began, some 150,000 created in the last six months alone. The job creation record of the government is top notch.
(1425)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, its record on job creation is 1.3 million unemployed, 2 million to 3 million under employed and 1 out of 4 Canadians worried about their jobs.
When the Prime Minister goes into that conference at the end of the week, of the ten premiers there, eight will have either balanced their budgets or run surpluses. All those premiers are in a position to actually deliver tax relief to their people, whereas the federal government will be taking $25 billion more out of the pockets of Canadians next year than in its first year in office.
Is it not true the federal government is at the back of the pack when it comes to tax relief and that is why it is unable to provide leadership on this subject at the first ministers conference?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of people who are at the back of the pack, despite being at the back of the pack, the Reform Party has suggested in its budget that it would not reduce taxes until the budget was balanced.
Do Reform members want us to reduce taxes before our budget is balanced? Is that what they are suggesting as they change their policy once again? They flip-flopped on the GST time and time again. Are they flip-flopping on their policy on deficit reduction or do they really mean it?
We put deficit reduction first. We have achieved our goals on deficit reduction and we have done a first rate job. We have the strength of the financial markets behind us now.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is supposed to be some sort of economist. He would know that under Reform's taxpayers budget the federal budget would have been balanced this year and tax relief would have been accomplished.
The Government of Ontario has responsibility for the biggest regional economy in the country. The federal job strategy has to be co-ordinated with the job strategy in that province for maximum effect. The Ontario government has taken the position that tax relief is the key to job creation in that economy and has acted on that position in the recent budget.
If the federal government truly believes in co-ordinated federal-provincial approaches to job creation, why does it not follow Ontario's lead and put tax relief squarely on the agenda of the first ministers conference?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have put harmonization first. We have put co-ordination first. Why does the hon. member not ask the premier of Ontario why he flip-flopped on the GST, where there are real savings in government, real savings in collection of taxes and real savings to the Canadian people?
The minister said on a number of occasions that he had informed the RCMP about allegations concerning the Airbus issue a few days after being appointed Minister of Justice.
Can the minister tell us if the allegations made by journalists and to which he is referring are the ones he was informed about at the beginning of 1993, when he met with two journalists, as the Toronto Sun was told by one of his political advisors, Cyrus Reporter?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is convoluted. I have no idea of the Toronto Sun article the hon. member is referring to. The chronology of the facts is clear from what I have already put on the record.
In November 1993 I was given information by two journalists. I consulted with the deputy minister and with the solicitor general. After that consultation I communicated the information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
In doing that I was acting responsibly as the chief law officer of the crown. As I have observed in the House already, I was also conducting myself in exactly the same way as predecessors in office have done, including the Right Hon. John Turner.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice repeated in this House that he was not aware of the negotiations between the lawyers representing the government and those representing former Prime Minister Mulroney.
How then does the minister explain that, yesterday, he indicated negotiations had stopped when he said that it is difficult to negotiate with someone when, 24 hours after an informal meeting takes place between lawyers, all the details are on the national news?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said exactly that. I saw, along with everybody else, the report on the nightly news.
It became immediately obvious to me there is no point trying to discuss anything with anybody when that information gets directly on to the national news. It is no way to conduct any such discussions.
The finance ministers across the country are trying to meet to discuss true pension reform this week. Instead they have to talk about how the Liberals are pitting provinces against each other with a billion dollar GST harmonization pay-off.
My question is for the minister of the GST. If the harmonized GST is such a great and fair deal, why are 63 per cent of the people of Nova Scotia dead against it?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance ministers will be discussing a number of issues at their meeting today, including CPP, which is an important part of the meeting and an important issue. They may also be discussing the GST.
We have support from business groups and consumer groups across the country for a harmonized GST. Every major business and consumer group supports the harmonization project.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems fairly clear that 63 per cent of Nova Scotians, the very people the Liberals are trying to butter up to buy into this harmonization program, are not supporting it. How can the minister say every major group across the country is?
The GST still puts the financial screws to Canadians every single time they go to the cash register. Now it is causing bitterness and division instead of progress at the finance ministers meeting.
Remember how we got into this mess in the first place, Mr. Speaker, you were here: a Tory tax, a public outcry, a Liberal promise; and now crass manoeuvring by the finance minister to distract attention from his own broken promise.
Why does the minister continue to divide Canadians with this harmonization scheme? Why will he not unite Canadians by living up to the election promise to scrap, kill and abolish it? When will he do that?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to listen to the Reform Party.
We especially listened to it when it came out with its minority report from the finance committee on the GST. It said harmonizing was the way to go. That is what we did, but here we have the Reform Party squabbling again.
On Saturday, Le Journal de Montréal released the content of a coast guard internal document entitled ``Fleet Merger'' and dealing with the cuts affecting the coast guard. Once again, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is displaying a blatant lack of judgment by cutting everywhere, except in his province of Newfoundland.
After favouring his province with the fee structure for commercial traffic, how can the minister justify that he is about to make drastic cuts of $25 million in all regions of Canada, except in his own province, where the cuts will only total $140,000?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my response to the hon. member in this instance in essence is the same as it was in the previous instance.
What is happening to the coast guard is the result of a number of studies that went back to 1962, 1975, 1990 and which ended in the mix of DFO and the coast guard. As part of this we are rationalizing this fleet of 162 ships, reducing it by over 30. The decisions have not been made. The discussions are still continuing.
(1435)
I am not familiar with the document to which the hon. member refers, but I can assure him that in this instance, as in any other
instance with the government, there will be no favouritism. The decisions will be made with fairness and equity for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister did not comment on the figures mentioned in Le Journal de Montréal. I am asking him the same question again.
How can the minister so blatantly favour his province of origin, considering the coast guard budget for Newfoundland is the same as for Quebec and British Columbia, even though traffic in Newfoundland ports is lighter, and in spite of the fact that the coast guard is less busy in that province?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to compare different aspects of a very complex program. Whatever the figures are, I am not sure where they came from, because a decision has not yet been made.
My advice to the hon. member is to read the reports with a certain amount of circumspection and a certain amount of understanding because the decisions have not been made.
I will tell him one more time that when the decisions are made they will be made with fairness, equity and just treatment for all.
Dave Quest from Kallal Pontiac Buick in Tofield, Alberta had a customer come in to sell a truck. As a direct result of the new GST changes, this dealership's profit has shrunk from about $1,000 to $80 on the truck; a $920 tax grab for the government.
I want the government to explain to Dave and all the thousands of other small businessmen out there why it is continuing to pursue taxation policies which gut business and kill jobs.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the Reform Party was playing for political points when its members asked this question every day for the last week or so, but it seems they really do not understand it. Let me give them an example for Dave or for whomever out west.
A used car under the old system was subject to the same GST tax as it is under the new system. A new car under the old system was subject to twice as much GST as-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peters: We put an input tax credit on it and the net is exactly the same. The new system and the old system have exactly the same GST.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): He really straightened me out, Mr. Speaker.
Let us look at the RV business. Don Sneyd at Ruston RV Centre in Burlington said the GST change has directly cost his business $13,000 since April 23. Dave McKee from the Hitch House in Barrie says his losses have been closer to $25,000 in the last seven weeks.
They laugh at that. They think that is funny, but I know there are Liberal members who are lobbying the finance minister and the revenue minister over these very changes.
Why does the government continue to deny these GST changes are anything but a tax grab? When will the minister admit and recognize that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs? When will the government get rid of this boondoggle?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has demonstrated its ability not only to come last but to misunderstand government policy.
The taxes raised under the new and old system of the GST are identical. They are exactly the same.
How these dealers can lose money when they are paying exactly the same tax is beyond me. I will be glad to explain it to the hon. member when he has time.
When a Canadian citizen inquired of the head office of American Express why he had not been able to use its travellers' cheques in Cuba, he was told that it was the policy of that company and of all of its affiliates throughout the world to follow to the letter the American embargo on Cuba.
(1440)
Since American Express is clearly violating the current Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, does the minister intend to prosecute the Canadian subsidiary of this American company as promptly as possible?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we expect companies incorporated in Canada to follow Canadian law. That is what the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act which was brought in in 1984 is all about. The
amendments we announced yesterday that would be subsequently presented to this House deal with strengthening that act in terms of the provisions of the Helms-Burton law.
I would be pleased to look into the particular case the hon. member raises because we expect that company and all other companies to abide by Canadian law.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the minister that his officials have known for two years that American Express is breaking the law, yet they have done nothing.
As he prepares to propose to beef up the present legislation on foreign extraterritorial measures, can the minister tell us that it is his intention in future to apply that act more stringently than he has to date?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our intent in the amendments is to neutralize the effects of the Helms-Burton law. It is a last resort measure. It is one I hope we never have to engage in. It is a framework law which allows that if a company is sued in the United States courts, we could either block them from getting any of the assets of the Canadian company here in Canada or a court action could be instituted here in Canada to recover any funds. It is to neutralize the effect.
I hope that it acts as an effective deterrent and that companies think twice before they proceed in the U.S. courts under Helms-Burton.
The United States government's quarrel is with the Cubans. It should not be drawing the Canadians or any other country into that quarrel.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell this House what he intends to do in response to this unanimous request for action on the part of the Canadian government?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment the hon. member on the resolution. It was a very important statement by members of this House that, if followed through on, could provide a very important contribution to the reduction of the conflict and the resolution of the differences in Cyprus. We can certainly endorse the position taken by the hon. member and other members who spoke in the House in support of that resolution.
In his letter Olson brags about his prospect for early release this August using section 745 of the Criminal Code. He claims it is his democratic right within the charter of rights and freedoms and common law.
Why will the justice minister not immediately repeal section 745 to wipe the smirk off of Clifford Olson's face and send the message that early release is not a democratic right or even an option for cold blooded killers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to Clifford Olson who is serving a life sentence for crimes that are absolutely heinous. He is locked away in a prison cell in an obscurity that he richly deserves.
I would like to know why the hon. member provides this platform and allows himself to be used as the instrument of that man to bring attention to Clifford Olson in this House and in the public.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1445 )
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let this House remember it is this government and a previous government that have set the platform for Clifford Olson and other killers and that will never be shut down.
The justice minister refers to section 745 of the Criminal Code as the faint hope clause. He tells Canadians that section 745 is necessary because killers need a glimmer of hope. What the justice minister is reluctant to say is that 80 per cent of the killers who apply for release under section 745 receive some type of early parole. So much for faint hope. Section 745 is a sure bet clause.
Each time a killer makes an application under section 745, the families of the victims are forced to relive their tragedy. I ask the minister, will he or will he not give the families of murder victims a glimmer of hope called closure? Will the justice minister scrap, abolish, repeal section 745?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any legitimate concern for the families of victims he will stop allowing himself to be used as a dupe for Clifford Olson in raising his name in this House.
How, under these circumstances, can the minister say she will save money by moving the offices of Atomic Energy Canada from Montreal to Toronto? What information is she using to make this decision?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the potential decision to which the hon. member refers is not one made by the Minister of Natural Resources. It is one made by AECL, a crown corporation in an arm's length relationship with the Government of Canada. We do not micromanage AECL.
I presume that AECL will make the best decisions it can within its budgetary constraints based on the best information it has. I am sure that information will be made public.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the government has no input, no say and nothing to do with investments like those of Atomic Energy of Canada when the consequences will be disastrous for the Montreal area? I would like to know how she would react if the problem were in Calgary, for example?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that this government is always concerned with the implications of necessary budget cuts. It is always concerned about the implications of those cuts for individuals and their jobs.
Let me reiterate that AECL has had its budget cut, its direct subsidy from the taxpayer of Canada, from $172 million to $100 million. It has to go through the same process of program review, of restructuring and downsizing, as the government and other crown corporations.
I acknowledge to the hon. member that the decisions which ultimately will be made by AECL will be difficult ones but as I say, AECL will make public the information on which those decisions are based. I have no doubt that the business case will be made.
Last week, to obtain that critical data, a search warrant was executed on Oak Bay Marine's offices. Why, after almost a year of non-compliance, have charges not been laid against Mr. Wright and the Oak Bay Marine Group?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this matter is before the courts and he also knows that it would be very inappropriate for me to comment in any detail on this subject.
(1450 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue is not before the courts and charges have not been laid. The question is why?
Bob Wright has said that he refused to provide accurate catch information to the department because if he had, the department would have shut him down.
When is the government going to show that it is putting the conservation of fish before corporate profits and remove Bob Wright from both the Pacific Salmon Commission and the steering committee of the minister's Pacific round table?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, acting under the authority of a search warrant, fisheries officers visited the Oak Bay Marina on June 10. The officers requested that they be provided with certain documents relating to an investigation which is currently being conducted.
The marina staff co-operated fully and voluntarily handed over the documents in question. I will say one more time that because of the status of this issue, it would be inappropriate for me to comment irrespective of what the hon. member would like us to do.
An international report states that the average foreign aid budget spends less than 3 per cent on basic human needs such as health and education. When eight million children die each year before they are one year old, what is Canada's foreign aid record on funding basic human needs? What are we doing to help the poorest of the poor in this world?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech we addressed very clearly as a priority the need to tackle the issue of poverty and deprivation of children around the world.
I can report to the House that in terms of our own international assistance package, 21 per cent of the budget goes directly to human needs. This compares to the 7 per cent of most other countries. We are substantially ahead of most countries in this area.
We are providing a number of important projects in Africa. We are providing education for girls and we have a number of water projects in 15 African countries. Perhaps most important, in the field of health, we have been a major contributor to the almost total reduction of iron and iodine deficiencies in children around the world and to the prevention of the diseases.
My colleague, the Minister for International Co-operation, is now working effectively to take the percentage of the budget up to 25 per cent which will be directed to basic human needs.
For some time now, the minister has been trying to convince us that research and industry in Quebec are going to benefit greatly from her government's efforts to sell CANDU reactors abroad. But the first thing we hear is that Atomic Energy of Canada is planning to transfer its activities from Montreal to Toronto.
Will the minister admit that if AECL leaves Montreal, she will have deceived Quebecers, since the spinoffs she promised us from the sale of CANDU reactors will no longer go to Montreal, but to Toronto?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not at all. The hon. member should know about her own private sector high tech community in Quebec and in particular in the Montreal region.
There are companies that have and will continue to benefit on the sale of more CANDU reactors. I can assure the hon. member we estimate that for the sale of every CANDU 6 reactor a minimum of $100 million worth of benefits go to the Montreal economy and over 4,000 person years of jobs are created. In fact, I have much more confidence in the private sector in Quebec than you do apparently.
The Speaker: The hon. minister would be referring to me and I have a great deal of confidence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is particularly surprising is that it is the private sector that is complaining about the possible move of AECL from Montreal to Toronto.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, and I quote: ``The new priority given to the CANDU reactors should result in great benefits for Quebec''.
(1455)
How can the minister stick by such a statement, when we know that CANATOM, AECL's primary sub-contractor in Montreal, might move to Toronto if AECL's offices are transferred there?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again let me assure the hon. member that a thriving, vibrant private sector as it supports the CANDU reactor sales will continue in the province of Quebec and in Montreal.
Let me share with the hon. member some of the companies that benefit: Canatom; Dominion Bridge-Sulzer; GEC Alsthom; Velan Engineering; CAE Electronics; Lefebvre Frères-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
The SEO proposal has failed. The producer coalition is crumbling. Will either the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or the Minister of Transport please make it crystal clear to any groups interested in buying the hopper cars that the railways clearly have the final say as to who purchases these cars?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not the policy of the government. It may be the policy of the Reform Party but it is not the policy of this government.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister was supposed to answer the question and he said absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing.
The minister of agriculture has been encouraging producers to put forward an offer, but putting forward an offer costs money. The producers are not interested in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a bid on these cars if the railways can match any bid and then take ownership of the cars.
They deserve an answer. Does the government have a signed commitment from the railways to relinquish the right of first refusal or is this whole bidding process for ownership of the cars an illusion which gives the producer group false hope?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply in error in his facts. We have not put forward any invitation to bid to any producer group, railway, insurance company, finance company or any other company.
We are at the present time, with the assistance of CIBC-Wood Gundy in Calgary, working out possible ways of approaching the issue of disposal of the hopper cars. We have made no requests for tenders to the public. His assumption upon which his question is based that we have done so is simply a false one.
Earlier this day members of Parliament from three different parties held a press conference to express their concern that NOVA Corporation of Canada, the majority shareholder in GasAndes which is building the pipeline from Argentina through to Santiago, is associated with a police action against a blockade in the San Alfonso Valley that in our opinion is dragging the good name of Canada through the mud and is bringing Canada's reputation into disrepute.
Is it the minister's intention to express concern on behalf of the Canadian government at the way the Chilean police are behaving and the way in which NOVA Corporation is associated with that police action?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that people were injured in the clash between demonstrators and riot police on June 13. Although we do not have the details of the incident, we understand that the police intervened to remove demonstrators who were blocking a national highway. According to some reports, some individuals threw rocks at police, injuring some people.
NOVA corporation is a lead partner in the GasAndes consortium. This consortium has gone through every single required approval by Chilean authorities including an environmental impact study. Amendments were made. It has completely abided by the law and I am told that many of the standards are very similar to the standards that exist in this country. They are following the law completely.
The incidents that occurred in the demonstration were most unfortunate although we have very little information at this point in time.
In June 1995 the Bureau of Competition Policy outlined a review of the Competition Act. At that time a discussion paper was circulated to obtain feedback on several proposed changes to this act.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers produced a paper which outlines strong arguments against the bureau's recommendation to repeal the price discrimination and promotional allowance provisions of the act.
Would the minister assure the House and the independent grocers across Canada that their concerns will be explored before any other changes to the act are adopted?
[Translation]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by stating that, when the bill is introduced this fall, my colleague, the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, will be responsible for it, being a Canadian expert on the Competition Act.
[English]
Second, I take very seriously the arguments that have been made by a number of representatives from the small business community, including the independent grocers, that the existence of provisions relating to price discrimination and promotional allowances gives them some protection from actions of large suppliers, although those provisions have never been used.
Having taken heed of those arguments we will not be recommending that those provisions be eliminated from the act.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have two questions of privilege but I will hear first a point of order. You will see the reason why.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505)
The Speaker: I have received notice of a point of privilege which takes the form of a personal statement. I would like to explain to you before the statement is made that it will be made simply as a solemn declaration. It is not meant to in any way incite debate.
I recognize the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament. I believe the charges are so grave against one of our own members that the House should deal with this accusation forthwith.I hereby declare that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, through his overzealous accusations of call to arms and sedition, has deliberately led the House and yourself astray, thus bringing doubt and suspicion to be cast upon a member of the House of Commons, without any proof, since his charges were based solely upon false interpretations of my press release dated October 26, 1995.
The report by the Liberal majority and the dissenting report by the Bloc Quebecois issued by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conclude that this entire question is a matter of political debate and ought never to have been raised before the House on a question of privilege, particularly one supported by unfounded accusations.
What is of the most concern to me, apart from the attack on the rights and privileges of a parliamentarian, is that it is also an attack on the freedom of expression of all Quebecers and all Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleague, solemn declarations are generally free of what I might call any additional accusation. At this point, although the Chair has a decision to make, I find, with all due respect, dear colleague, that the words being used today tend more toward a debate than a solemn declaration. I would like to put an end to the statement at this point.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Oder, please. My colleagues, I would prefer this matter to remain closed at this time. I have made my ruling on behalf of all of the hon. members and I would ask you to respect it.
(1510 )
[English]
This point of privilege, this statement, is terminated. I would ask members to respect my decision as your Speaker. I ask you that with the full authority of the House and of my position.
I will now hear a second point of privilege from the hon. member for Lethbridge.
On March 22, 1983, at page 24027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled:
A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among-
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would withhold this point of privilege. I am prepared to rule on the point of order to which the hon. member has referred. I would propose to do that after I have heard any other points of privilege that come up, if the hon. member permits.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with that procedure.
The hon. member for Lethbridge argued that the motion is procedurally unacceptable because it contains allegations of contempt by one member against another and yet had not been designated as votable by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In other words, the House must be capable of taking a decision on any motion which contains a charge against a member. In addition, he questioned the current rules governing Private Members' Business which have allowed this situation to occur.
[Translation]
The rules governing private members' business are indeed complex. Members may put bills or motions on notice, and then those members whose names have been chosen in a draw decide which item they wish to put forward for debate in the House during private members' business hour.
Once the chosen items are placed on an order of precedence, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs selects which ones will come to a vote of the House. In the case of Motion M-1, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs chose not to designate this item as votable.
(1515)
Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), the report of the committee concerning votable items is automatically deemed adopted, and therefore stands as a decision of the House. This is how the House has decided, through its Standing Orders, to deal with private members' business.
The hon. member is quite correct in his assertion that the conduct of a member can be brought before the House only by way of a specific charge contained in a substantive motion. Often, in such cases, members will choose to raise the matter on the floor of the House without giving the required 48-hour or two-week notice and ask the Speaker to give it priority or right of way for immediate consideration by the House, thus putting all other regular House business aside.
[English]
What is at stake here is whether or not your Speaker can override the rules governing the transaction of Private Members' Business in order that such motions come to a vote even when the sponsoring member has selected to bring it before the House under that procedure. I humbly must admit that unless the House changes its rules I do not have that power.
For the benefit of the House, please allow me to point out that this is not the first time this type of motion has come before the House without the possibility of a vote.
On a number of occasions on supply days the opposition has moved non-votable motions to condemn or challenge ministers for their actions.
In one case a motion condemning a minister for ``failing to provide full and satisfactory information on the blatant conflict of interest situation involving the minister'' was moved as a non-votable motion on a supply day.
I refer members to the Journals of the House of Commons of May 12, 1986, page 2160: ``In at least one other instance, a non-votable supply motion contained a specific charge of contempt of Parliament against the minister''. The text of this motion can also be found in the Journals of June 17, 1982, page 5025.
The content of the motion and the fact that it has not been designated as a votable item under Private Members' Business does cause the Chair some difficulty.
I understand the concerns of the hon. member for Lethbridge. As your Speaker I suggest this situation could be corrected either by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member for Lethbridge or, for that matter, the House itself. There are procedures at the disposal of the House to ensure that a sense of fair play prevails in all of its proceedings so that members are not placed in this type of position.
In the current circumstances I find that the rules for Private Members' Business have been followed and that there is therefore no point of order.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this point and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his contribution to the discussion.
[English]
The hon. member for Lethbridge on a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, based on your ruling, I would like to rise on a question of privilege.
The Speaker: I understand the hon. member wants to rise on a question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to do so today, I will listen to his question of privilege.
If he, however, would like to take some 24 hours and return to the House, I would be willing to hear him tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to proceed today with my question of privilege under the circumstances.
Motion No. 1 is still on the floor of the assembly. Because of that-
The Speaker: The hon. member now has the floor on his question of privilege.
In a sense that charge is one that is criminal in nature and reflects upon my reputation. This has and will continue to affect my ability to function effectively as a member of Parliament while the matter remains unresolved.
On March 22, 1983 on page 24,027 of Hansard the Speaker ruled:
A reflection upon the reputation of an hon. member is a matter of great concern to all members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit there. An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.The Speaker was concerned with the matter remaining unresolved. I raised a point of order with regard to private member's Motion No. 1 in the name of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I thank you today for considering that and I appreciate the ruling you have placed before this assembly. This type of motion and the affect of this motion is considered an anomaly of the rules. Although the motion is in order, I would like to demonstrate that its presence infringes upon my and other members' privileges in the Chamber.
The motion accuses me of intimidation and coercing others to intimidate. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell's charge against me is in the form of a motion and so he is allowed on a technicality to get away with what I believe is unparliamentary language.
For the purpose of my question of privilege, the fact that the charge against me is in the form of a motion is immaterial. What is important is that the motion is non-votable. It is non-votable by the virtue of our standing orders. It is unresolvable and therefore prima facie.
I would also like to address at this time the issue of raising this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. Before raising my point of order regarding Motion No. 1, I felt it necessary that the motion be at least scheduled for debate, and I believe we are at that course of events here today.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell agreed with me because despite the impression I was under at the time, the motion was not before the House that day and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell argued that he ought not bring the matter up until it was before the House. For once I agreed with him. Fortunately I was allowed to present my argument on that day in May.
The fact that the motion of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a product of our rules led me to originally pursue the matter as a point of order.
At this point my only hope for a remedy to resolve this charge against me a question of privilege because the matter remains unresolved, as you have said so eloquently, Mr. Speaker.
In the ruling I referred to earlier from 1983, the Speaker considered:
The question for the Chair to determine, therefore, is whether the hon. member for Lincoln should seek his remedy through the courts, or whether, in order to bring the matter to a swifter resolution, the Chair should accord this question of privilege precedence over other business.As you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, I do not have the luxury of bringing this matter before any court. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is protected by parliamentary privilege.
The Speaker in 1983 had another concern:
Given the precedence I have studied, it is clear to me that while the hon. member could seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a member while this slur upon his reputation remains. The process of litigation would probably be very lengthy and there is no knowing how long it would take before the issue is finally resolved.Once again there is the emphasis on resolving the matter.
The Speaker was also concerned here with the length of time the matter was to be unresolved. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell could, through a series of trades, avoid debating the motion. If we do finally get a debate on the motion it will disappear from the Order Paper after one hour of debate.
(1525 )
Regardless of those two scenarios, the matter will never be resolved by this motion. My reputation will be hanging out to dry forever. As Speaker Sauvé was concerned with, the entire institution of Parliament will be left under a cloud without ever being resolved.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, page 210, states that the practice relating to taking up the conduct of members is a matter of privilege.
If the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell raised this as a question of privilege the matter would have been dealt with, but it was not.
To protect my reputation and the reputation of the House I must raise this matter as a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege I will be moving the following motion:
That the member for Lethbridge and the Reform Party of Canada be exonerated of the allegations levied by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell of attempting to coerce, intimidate or incite others to coerce the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines which are contained in his non-votable private member's Motion No. 1; and that the matter of the use of non-votable motions to charge members with contempt of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.Mr. Speaker, if you do not consider this a prima facie question of privilege I would appreciate your guidance and maybe that of the law clerk on how I can resolve this allegation against me of criminal intent. I cannot allow this motion to stay on the Order Paper all summer. This charge has been hanging over my head long enough. It must be resolved now.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to take but a moment to respond to what has been stated by the hon. member for Lethbridge.
The hon. member for Lethbridge essentially says today that his reputation is somehow tarnished by this motion's being on the Order Paper. He says it is further damaged because the issue is non-votable and therefore whenever the issue is dealt with in the House no conclusion will have been arrived at and therefore his name will not have been cleared, if I understand the allegation properly.
The member also says the accusation in question, which appears in my Motion No. 1, ballot item No. 3 on the Order Paper, is criminal in nature.
I will begin by dealing with the last issue. It has been suggested on at least two occasions in the remarks of the hon. member that the allegation listed in Motion No. 1 is criminal in nature.
Mr. Speaker, I remind you of a report tabled in the House earlier today which clearly indicates to the House that those things that are criminal in nature are not to be dealt with in the House on matters of privilege and that a motion should not contain that, and I believe it does not, and that those issues would be dealt with elsewhere even if they were in the motion.
To refresh the House's memory, the motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the attempt by the hon. member for Lethbridge and the Reform Party of Canada to coerce, intimidate or incite others to coerce the hon. member for Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold (the Hon. Gilbert Parent), in his capacity as Speaker, to make certain decisions in regards to the status of the Official Opposition in Parliament, constitute a contempt of this House and consequently that the hon. member for Lethbridge be ordered to the bar of the House to be admonished by the Chair.I do not believe that someone's being admonished by the Chair in Parliament constitutes criminal behaviour. If criminal behaviour was there I suggest the punishment would be rendered by someone else and it would probably not be an admonishing by a Chair that would be the proper sentencing if that kind of criminal behaviour had been what was done. We are not talking about that at all.
The issue that was brought before the House had nothing to do with what the hon. member has just suggested. What was brought before the House is what was believed to have been and still believed to be a case of someone's doing things to the most senior officer of Parliament. That is what is contended as being the case of contempt listed in the motion.
(1530)
I have in hand a memorandum dated January 11, 1996 entitled ``To all Reform constituency presidents, regional organizers and executive councillors''. This letter says in part: ``What I am asking you to do is to help launch a high pressure phone, fax and letter writing campaign to'', and it lists your name, Mr. Speaker. ``The objective is simple: to make it clear to him that as he contemplates his decision'', this is the decision to choose who the official opposition is in this House, ``that Canadians will no longer tolerate a separatist official opposition''.
It goes on to say that time is running short and that this high pressure campaign against the occupants of the Chair of this House should be commenced immediately by fax, letter writing, telephone calls, and so on so that Mr. Speaker, can and I conclude ``do the right thing''. Presumably Mr. Speaker would rule based on pressure put on to intimidate him to give a favourable ruling to those who had asked for the ruling.
That is what is in the motion that was brought by your humble servant. What was put in that motion is not an allegation of criminal behaviour. It is an allegation that something wrong was occurring against the occupant of the Chair of this House, this House being the institution that all of us cherish.
That is what occurred and nothing else. I am sure that deep down in his heart the hon. member knows this.
Mr. Speaker, there is even a draft letter to be sent to the occupant of the Chair with his fax number preprinted on the form. This draft letter, prepared by the Reform Party and attached and sent by the hon. member for Lethbridge, is an instruction to the occupant of the Chair of this House to rule not according to what is right, but to rule according to the pressure applied to him as organized by a member of this House.
Mr. Speaker, that is what was asked of you as the occupant of the Chair of this Chamber. You were asked to rule that way for the reasons I have enunciated.
I do not pretend that it is criminal and I never will. I never suggested so, either in my press releases or in the motion that is today before the House.
[Translation]
What I did say, however, is that this sort of behaviour should not be how we approach things in this House and should stop. The events occurring a few days after this motion dealt with matters, and we hear no more of the issue today. What I have heard in the House today explains why we have heard no further mention.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we listened to the whip for the government side put forward his case. In fact he presented an entire debate on the subject.
The question of privilege that has been presented to you today by the member for Lethbridge is that some method be found to resolve this issue. The issue is not whether the government whip is allowed to bring this motion forward. The issue is the dilemma that my hon. colleague from Lethbridge finds himself in. It cannot be resolved. It cannot be voted on. It cannot be debated. It is just hanging over his head like a sword.
That is the issue of privilege, not the motion itself.
The Speaker: With regard to this point of privilege I will take the information I have under advisement. If the House will permit me I will reflect on it and I will come back to the House, if it is necessary, to rule on the point of privilege that the member for Lethbridge has brought to the House.
[Translation]
I therefore demand a public apology from the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for having misled this House by making false accusations that called into question the honesty and integrity of the member for Charlesbourg. I demand an apology from the member, otherwise there is nothing to prevent gratuitous accusations of all sorts from being made against anybody at all.
[English]
The Speaker: Your Speaker is fully aware of the importance of the statement that the hon. member for Charlesbourg began today.
It was explained before the hon. member began his statement it was a solemn declaration. It was not a declaration which would incite debate. I was dealing solely with the statement itself.
There is, of course, an avenue for the hon. member or for the Leader of the Opposition if they so wish to make a further statement, a broader statement. The particular avenue that was chosen today, in my respectful view, is evidently not the one that is going to fulfil what the hon. member wants to do.
If the hon. member for Charlesbourg wishes to pursue the matter, then either the hon. member or the Leader of the Opposition or any member of this House can file a notice of concurrence in the committee report. That can be done by giving a notice to the Clerk of the House. At that point there is an avenue for hon. members to express themselves.
But in the case of this particular statement, my decision is that this is not the vehicle to be used for making such a statement. That is why I have asked hon. members to respect the decision of the Chair, knowing full well that if members want to pursue it, it can be done by the method which I have suggested.
(1540)
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I understand your ruling on the solemn declaration. We may disagree on how we see things, but I accept your ruling.
However, I raised a point of order, and, unless I have misunderstood, I have had no response to my point of order. I did, however, very clearly insist on apologies from the member concerned for having misled the House by intentionally spreading falsehoods about the member for Charlesbourg. This is a point of order and not a solemn declaration. I therefore await your ruling on this.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member has asked me to rule on the point of order. I will take his request under advisement. I will think about it and if it is necessary I will come back to this House.
>