My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the federal government will be deciding on the agenda and on what will or will not be discussed with the provinces? Will he confirm that he alone will be setting the table?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the dinner will be held at 24 Sussex, it will be hard for me to have people from every province come and get the table ready. The
provinces were in fact consulted. I myself have been speaking to the various premiers over the past few weeks, to discuss subjects that might be raised.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has travelled around the country. He has talked with governments and made his report. We have prepared an agenda, and it will be the job of the meeting chair to prepare discussion. In general, the premiers were aware of the direction of discussions, and I think we will have more on the table than we can deal with in a day and a half.
My relations with the premiers are generally fairly cordial, and if there is something urgent to discuss, we are prepared to do so, but there is more than enough on the agenda for a one day meeting and a dinner.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, regardless of the subject chosen for discussion and the potential focus of decentralization, his approach and that of his government are always the same: the central government will always have the power to dictate national standards, to set broad guidelines, and the provincial governments will always be seen as playing a supporting role as administrator?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the Canadian Constitution, the jurisdictions are clear. In many areas, the provinces decide and do things that we do not approve of and we do not make a great song and dance of it every day.
Under certain circumstances, when it is in the interest of all Canadians, as in the area of health, for example, we have five conditions that the provinces have accepted. A few weeks ago, the Government of Alberta was not prepared to go along with the notion that there should be no user fees. The Minister of Health persuaded the Government of Alberta, following discussions, to agree to the five conditions.
These conditions are acceptable to both the provinces and the federal government, because they are in the interest of Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the Constitution sets out the areas of jurisdiction. The problem with Canadian federalism, however, is that the Prime Minister has this incredible propensity for getting into areas of jurisdiction that do not belong to him. That is the problem.
The throne speech indicated that the government will not use its spending power without the approval of a majority of the provinces in a given sector.
Would the Prime Minister confirm that, if the majority of the provinces joined forces to ask the federal government to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction such as education, Quebec could opt out with full compensation only if it complied with the national standards set by the majority of the provinces asking the federal government to intervene in this area?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the question is purely hypothetical. There is no question of any intervention in the field of education at the moment. However, I think the federal government's statement is very clear.
We have said we have no intention of interfering in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Moreover, the provinces have the right to withdraw if they wish. Obviously the matter of compensation would be negotiated if we ever got to that point.
At the moment, it is out of the question. We have said we do not want to do it any more. We will focus on our own programs and manage them well so we can ask the provinces to do the same in their jurisdictions.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that this is an unprecedented centralizing offensive, with the federal government attempting to disguise under noble intentions a desire to grab control of all social problems, which are administered by the provinces and come under their exclusive jurisdiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through tax incentives, the federal government assists in this area, and this was announced in the budget.
I think the Minister of Finance has improved the system so as to use the taxation system to help the children of disadvantaged families who are at risk. This we have been doing for some time. The provincial governments have a similar system. They are asking if there might not be a possibility of our working together. This request originated with the provinces and I am prepared to sit down with provincial representatives.
As you know, Bloc Quebecois members love to rant and rave in front of an audience, but they ought to know that it was the provinces which asked the federal government for this. If they do not want us to talk about it, I think the losers will be the disadvantaged children of Canada.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given the way the federal government wishes to exercise its spending powers, and given the Prime Minister's response, are we to understand that Quebec, which never agreed to take part in this consensus with the other nine provinces, will have to conform to the standards set by Ottawa and the nine other provinces, if it wishes to obtain full and total compensation in pulling out of this program?
(1425)
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will discuss that. We are in the field. We already have some tax incentives to help poor families provide for their children. Some provinces have similar programs and they would like to talk with us.
I know that the people of Quebec, not the Bloc Quebecois, would like all governments to work together to have a better society in Canada and in Quebec at the same time.
Yesterday in the House when government ministers were asked why tax relief was not front and centre on the agenda of the first ministers' conference, they had no explanation.
If job creation is one of the Prime Minister's top priorities, why is tax relief not high on the agenda of the first ministers' conference?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this time the priority is to eliminate the deficit both at provincial and federal levels.
I would like to read to the leader of the third party what was said by the member for Capilano-Howe Sound who argued recently at the Reform convention in Vancouver that there should not be tax cuts until the deficit is eliminated. At the same meeting the member for Calgary Centre said that a proposal for cutting taxes at this time was ``voodoo economics''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I have a problem. I do not know who is on the side of voodoo in that party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had read a little further he would know that if the Reform taxpayers' budget had been implemented in 1993 his government would have a surplus next year and be in a position to offer tax relief.
Four months ago in this House the Prime Minister admitted that governments do not create jobs. Yesterday he revisited the idea of an infrastructure program run by government as the principal instrument of job creation.
The government seems unable to grasp the 1990s principle of job creation that a dollar left in the pocket of a taxpayer creates better and more jobs than that dollar in the pocket of the finance minister.
Instead of committing billions of dollars to another temporary infrastructure program, has the government ever seriously considered how many real jobs would be created by a multibillion dollar federal tax cut?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I was in the beautiful city of Calgary. The mayor of Calgary and the mayors of all the cities of Canada were congratulating this government for the initiative two years ago to have a good infrastructure program. In doing that a lot of things have been repaired, restored and ameliorated in Calgary and in all the cities of Canada.
The mayors would like us to be there. We will discuss that with the premiers later this week. It has been a great success. We have managed to reduce the deficit and we have managed to reduce interest rates. With the good management of the financial affairs of the nation, the Canadian economy has managed to create 600,000 jobs since the day we became the government.
(1430)
I think that is why the people in Hamilton two days ago made sure that the Reform Party and its policies finished fourth.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer is straight out of the 1960s. We have 1.3 million people unemployed. We have two to three million people under employed. We have one out of four Canadians worried about their jobs.
The Prime Minister does not have to talk to the House about creating jobs in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. He has to talk about creating jobs in the millions if he is going to address this question.
I ask him again, and I will put it very simply. Has the federal government analysed-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: Don't use big words, Preston. Remember who you are dealing with.
Mr. Manning: Has the federal government analysed how many real jobs could be created by a federal tax cut? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the leader of the third party that-
Mr. Speller: The fourth party.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): The fourth party, yes, that is so. It is very confusing these days. The fourth party, I mean.
I remember that the sixties were not that bad. I was a member of Parliament and the premier of Alberta was Mr. Manning. In those days Albertans were bragging about what a good government we had in Alberta and in Canada.
We can do things the right way when we are making sure that we can reduce the deficit but at the same time we can improve the infrastructure of the country which will be an improvement for generations to come. I think that is good economic policy and it is why the people of Canada prefer our policies to their voodoo policies.
The Prime Minister wants us to think that his first ministers' conference will make it possible to decentralize the federation. How could that be when, on the one hand, he is withdrawing partially from manpower training, and on the other, he is announcing his wish to be fully involved in the whole issue of social programs.
Is that the Prime Minister's decentralization model, to withdraw partially from one jurisdiction in order to more easily take over another?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will be examining with the provinces a report presented by the provincial governments to the federal government. We think it is possible to improve the state of social programs and to ensure that they are available to all Canadians in the years to come.
I think it is incumbent on all governments to speak to one another in order to ensure that the social safety net is there for the poorest members of our society today, tomorrow and for many years to come in Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Prime Minister another chance to answer my question. At the conference, he is getting ready to pull out of certain provincial areas of jurisdiction, provided he is allowed to take over securities.
How can the Prime Minister say that that is not his decentralization model-give with one hand and take with the other?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the national securities measure, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, is voluntary, and the provinces that wish to participate can participate, and those that do not, will not. I think this is a good way to ensure that we eliminate duplication, but those who like duplication can keep it.
[English]
The doubling of Canada pension plan premiums will result in a very significant pool of Canadian taxpayer retirement cash accumulating in the hands of government.
What Canadian in his or her right mind would trust a government that has our country $600 billion in debt with the income for his or her retirement? Why should Canadians trust the government to manage their retirement income?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question was discussed at considerable length during the very valuable consultation process that was undertaken by the federal chairman of the consultation process, David Walker, as he went across the country.
It was discussed quite extensively yesterday with the finance ministers. There was general agreement that if such a fund were to be created, it would be managed best by a group of investment advisers on market principles at arm's length from the government.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is good news. I am sure Canadians would feel much more secure if the fund were made politician proof so that this huge fund of resources could not then become a slush fund for political parties or politicians.
Following up on the response, will the 20 per cent investment rule be waived? Second, Canadians need to be assured that the retirement income of today's retirees and those who will retire in the immediate future will be protected. Those of us who are grandparents understand that our grandchildren should not pay a disproportionate share of both the national debt and retirement income.
Has the government done any studies or background work on the impact of this fund on job creation and growth, particularly to those in the 20 to 45-year age group?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a series of question and it is somewhat hard
to decipher exactly what he is driving at. I believe he is trying to address a very important problem.
There was discussion of the 20 per cent rule at the meeting. There were those who felt it should be waived, and others felt it should be maintained. Obviously this will be part of the ongoing discussion. The issue is whether there should be one set of rules for this fund and another set of rules for other pension funds. On the other side, of course, is the tremendous investment weight that this fund might have.
That is the only one of the many questions the member asked. I am sure he will ask the others subsequently and I will answer them at that time.
The Prime Minister put the securities commission on the agenda because, he said, the provinces asked him to. He also put social programs on the agenda, again because the provinces asked him to. Will the Prime Minister put the GST on the agenda because, once again, the provinces have asked him to do so?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we discussed the GST issue yesterday. We also discussed other tax issues. It was a good discussion. There were differences of opinion, not only between the federal government and some of the provinces but also among the provinces themselves. That is quite normal.
The issue was put on the agenda of the finance ministers' meeting at the provinces' request, and it is there that it should be discussed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just decided where the issue should be discussed, even though the provinces have asked that it be considered at the first ministers' conference. The minister has decided that it would not be discussed there.
An hon. member: Perhaps he is the boss.
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, perhaps he is the boss.
(1440)
How can the Prime Minister state that economic issues are at the top of the agenda when he refuses to discuss the GST, which is nothing if not an economic issue, as it enriched federal coffers by close to $17 billion in 1995? How can they set aside such an important question and try to convince people that economic issues are at the top of the agenda?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the GST was put on the agenda of the finance ministers' meeting, not because I asked for it, but at the provinces' explicit request. The finance ministers from Alberta and Quebec asked that it be discussed at the finance ministers' meeting, and that is what we did.
Will the Minister of Finance explain to those people who cannot find a job why he intends to destroy their careers in order for him to achieve his Canada pension plan objectives?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate but it is a reality that in order to ensure the Canada pension plan will be there for succeeding generations, premiums will have to be increased. That is the view of not only the federal government but of the chief actuary, the vast majority of knowledgeable commentators and the view of each and every one of the provincial governments at the meeting yesterday.
There is something else. The Reform Party has put forth its alternative plan. It ought to be very clearly understood that not only would that alternative plan of the Reform Party destroy the Canada pension plan as it is now, it would increase the premiums substantially above that which the ministers are talking about.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it may be a reality that Canada pension plan premiums have to go up but it is also a reality that the government taxes every Canadian at every opportunity it can. The GST has been harmonized and it is costing us billions. We have seen gasoline taxes go up and so on.
When will the Minister of Finance get off the backs of the job creators, the small business people, cut spending, lower taxes and allow some tax room for the higher CPP premiums he is talking about?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the real question is when will the Reform Party stop talking out of both sides of its mouth?
The Reform Party has proposed the decimation of all those initiatives which help small business. It has brought forth a budget which would make it impossible for small business to develop new technologies. It has brought forth a budget which would make it impossible for small business to export. It has come up with a retirement savings plans which would impose a burden on small
business that would be absolutely crippling. That is what the Reform Party's policies are. Why will its members not admit it?
Speaking before an audience of business people yesterday, the Prime Minister announced his firm intention to invade the area of securities, an exclusive provincial jurisdiction, in spite of the fact that Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia object to such an invasion.
Did the Prime Minister mean to tell us yesterday that he intends to pursue promoting the creation of a Canadian securities commission, even if, according to Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia, this will have the effect of concentrating Canada's financial community on Bay Street, in Toronto, at the expense of other parts of the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken. First of all, we are acting at the provinces' request. This was discussed yesterday and what the federal government said is that, if this is the wish of a significant number of provinces, we would be prepared to accommodate such an approach, but this is at the request of the provinces.
(1445)
In fact, I have to tell the hon. member that the Government of Alberta supports the project. There is a difference of opinion with Ontario, but Alberta is on board. He is mistaken.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this debate on the federal government's encroachment on the area of securities started, the Minister of Finance has told us one thing and another. He said there is very strong support for his project across the country. I would like him to name a few associations that support his project, because I have a whole list here of people who are opposed to it.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he not realize that, no matter who is making the request or why, creating a national securities commission would constitute a glaring and unacceptable violation of the Canadian Constitution that he so fiercely defends?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, it does not violate the Constitution. Second, there is no invasion of provincial jurisdiction, as it will only be a delegation of provincial responsibilities to a national institution. Third, in our discussions yesterday, it was very clear that we are acting at the provinces' request.
I cannot understand why the hon. member wants to deny the other provinces the chance to compete with foreign countries. If the hon. member has a list of brokerage firms, I would appreciate it if he would give it to me. I would like the hon. member to give me his list of Montreal brokerage firms that are refusing to participate. Let him give it to me.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Further to his recent statements on the issue, can he tell the House now what action the government will take to provide greater public scrutiny of the CSE and its operations?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River for his tireless work on this subject and the motion that was passed unanimously in the House a year ago.
The government today has appointed Mr. Claude Bisson, former chief justice of Quebec, under part II of the Inquiries Act, as the first commissioner for the Communications Security Establishment. He will have full access to all materials, records and documentation. He will make an annual report to me as minister which I in turn will make to Parliament.
At that meeting the finance department's taxation tsar informed them that if they wanted to save their own hides from these changes ``all you really have to do is get your provinces to harmonize with the GST''.
Can the minister say extortion? Why is the finance minister now resorting to strong arm tactics and job killing taxation policies to coerce the provinces into this bogus harmonization plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. I am glad to see the hon. member finally admits that tax harmonization would lead to far greater job creation, and there is no doubt that it would.
What the Department of Finance is saying is that if the provinces harmonize consumer prices will go down and the cost to small and medium size businesses will go down, which means our exports go up and more jobs are created.
I am delighted to see the hon. member for Medicine Hat has finally seen the light of day. Harmonization creates jobs. Good for him, he finally recognizes it.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by forcing these people to go along with his plan to get him off the hook for the GST promise he and his government broke, all he is doing is delivering the tax equivalent of a horse head into their collective beds.
Is the finance minister so desperate now to force a harmonization agreement that he is prepared to make these small businesses an offer they cannot refuse if they want to save their industries from job killing taxation measures? Is that real Liberal leadership?
(1450)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not the horse's head that the Reform Party has to worry about.
The Department of Finance is certainly prepared to sit down and work with small and medium size business on this. There would be no attempt to coerce anybody. We want to work out problems. There are problems and members on this side of the House have raised a number. The department is working on the problems. It would be very helpful if the hon. member would try to be as constructive as Liberal members.
Last week, the minister wanted details about certain flaws in the national blood supply system. Well, here are some. Luc Simon, from Montreal, and other hemophiliacs recently had to send back blood products to the manufacturer, Bayer. These products could not be used, because factor VIII was turbid for reasons which remain obscure, since no report was published to explain this incident, which the minister claimed to ignore.
Considering that Health Canada has a responsibility to do its utmost to ensure that blood products are perfectly safe, from the time blood is collected from a donor until it is administered to a patient, why did hemophiliacs have to use their own initiative to force Bayer to withdraw faulty products?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, any responsible company that receives complaints from consumers with regard to its products must do investigations. Bayer is investigating those complaints. Health Canada is working with the company and the consumers to examine the nature of the complaints and the extent of them. When the investigations are complete the information will be readily available.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In order to prevent such incidents from occurring again and reduce the risks for users, will the minister pledge to define a set of rules to be followed in such cases, and will he delegate all safety issues to a single agency to which hemophiliacs could report any problem related to the safety of supplies?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the question from the hon. member is a serious one, but I wish to inform her there is already in place a regulatory agency, Health Canada, which monitors these kinds of concerns. There are from time to time complaints which consumers will make, and those complaints have to be investigated thoroughly.
If the hon. member is suggesting there are some real substantive shortfalls relating to this product, if she has that evidence I would be happy to receive it and to make certain the investigation is underway and is very thorough.
Since Mr. Sawatzky was found innocent, it would seem the government no longer has any authority to hold the trucks seized before the government quickly closed the loophole.
My question is for the minister of agriculture. When will these farmers have their private property returned to them?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue we are talking about here is a very important one. It is about farmers who, quite frankly, did not obey the law.
The customs officers at the border points have had a difficult time but are handling it in a very professional manner.
(1455 )
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the revenue minister is covering the ag minister's behind here. I think the revenue minister knows the courts found these people innocent. The revenue minister has publicly stated she has no sympathy for farmers who have had their trucks seized. Now she has no respect for court decisions or property rights.
These farmers are being denied the use of their property and the right to due process of law.
When will the minister show some respect for property rights guaranteed these farmers under the Canadian Bill of Rights when it guarantees every Canadian the right to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am gad the hon. gentleman made reference to due process of law.
He will know that in the case of the litigation underway in western Canada there have been two conflicting court decisions, one earlier this spring in a case called McMechan and Cairns that went in one direction, and another decision in the Sawatzky case that went in the other direction; both decisions by the same provincial court level. That obviously creates a conundrum in terms of future interpretation. Some of those matters are at this moment under appeal.
I remind the hon. gentleman the appeal process is a part of the due process of law.
On page 70 of the red book there is a commitment to Canada's role in the global reduction of greenhouse gases which cause climate change. Our commitment is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 20 per cent by the year 2005.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources inform the House whether she is on target in delivering on this important promise?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do is clarify the exact commitment made by the Government of Canada. We made a commitment at Rio to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
The hon. member is right, but in the red book we talk about working with other stakeholders. We talk about working with the provinces, the municipal governments and other important stakeholders to attempt to go beyond stabilization and to reduce greenhouse gases further.
Let me assure the hon. member we are doing just that and NRCan takes its leadership role very seriously in this regard. We run-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, climate change is one of the world's most pressing environmental challenges and the hon. members of the Reform Party do not want to listen.
Are we to understand that the government has not given up the idea of wasting hundreds of millions to buy these submarines, and what guarantee can it give that it will not take advantage of the summer recess to secretly earmark hundreds of millions, as it did last year with the armoured vehicles?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been discussed on and off for some time now.
The hon. member would know if he had paid attention to various press reports that I have stated that the government does not intend to proceed at this time.
(1500 )
Why does the minister not put an end to their nightmare? Why does the minister not stand up for the victims of crime instead of their killers and repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely out of sensitivity for the plight of the victims and it is precisely to achieve the underlying objectives of the criminal justice system that the government has put before the House legislation to improve section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The changes will screen out applications to ensure that only those that are meritorious will get before a jury. There are changes to ensure that once the case is before the jury, the shortening of the period of parole ineligibility will occur only when the jury is unanimous. There are changes that will ensure that in the future those convicted of multiple and serial murders will not have the right to apply under any circumstances.
I am glad to know that the hon. member is clearing the way so we can deal with that legislation this week. I urge him and his colleagues to support that legislation so we can improve the criminal law of this country.
Today a federal study was released showing that tobacco and alcohol use costs Canadians more than $17 billion every year. In light of these devastating costs and concerns about huge donations from the alcohol and tobacco lobby to the Liberal Party: $50,000 from Labatt's; $46,000 from Imasco, will the minister now commit to bringing in a long overdue bill on tobacco advertising? Will he finally take on the alcohol lobby and support the bill passed in principle earlier in this House on alcohol labelling directed at pregnant mothers?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that a blueprint was issued many months ago and consultations have taken place across the country.
We are now in the process of putting pen to paper for the purposes of writing a document whereby we would take in comprehensive measures to address this very, very important subject matter.
I want to say to the hon. member that we have to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which has many charter implications. We are attempting to resolve with the Minister of Justice and others some of the difficulties we have now recognized in order that our comprehensive package will be effective, and also that it will not be challenged in the courts either by tobacco manufacturing companies or by other individuals.
[English]
It is fitting that we have them as guests this week because Friday marks Canada's first National Aboriginal Day, a day for us to celebrate aboriginal culture and native peoples' contributions to this country.
These are men and women of exceptional talent and dedication. They are leaders, pioneers, and symbols of excellence for Canada. I am going to name them and I would like them to stand. I would like members to hold their applause until I have named the recipients of our first National Aboriginal Achievement Awards: Albert Charles Rock; Ambassador Mary May Simon; Robert E. Johnson Jr.; Alwyn Morris; Grand Chief Phil Fontaine; Dr. Marlene Brant Castellano; Rose Auger; Dr. Frank Calder; John Kim Bell; and our colleague, Elijah Harper is also the recipient of this award.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505 )
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have a question of privilege, a notice of a question of privilege and a point of order that I would like to deal with. I will deal first with the notice of question of privilege.
As you know, Bill C-234 was passed at second reading in this House on December 13, 1994. At yesterday's meeting of the justice and legal affairs committee, the committee voted not to report that bill back to the House.
I wish to give notice to the House, to the government and to any other interested members that I intend to prepare submissions and raise that question of privilege presumably sometime in September when the House reconvenes.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on a question of privilege.
Ms. Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be in order after the report is tabled.
Mr. Speaker, as you are aware I first introduced this question in the House on December 1, 1994. On June 21, 1995 I raised a first point of order in the House. The then parliamentary secretary to the House leader said: ``We will get him the answer. It is nearing completion''. The hon. member even added: ``I hope he has a long holiday coming up from Parliament so he can sit down and read it when he gets it'', but I did not get it.
On October 26, 1995 I again raised a point of order on the delayed response and the same member responded: ``Eighty per cent of the questions that have been placed on the Order Paper during this session have been answered''. He said the government had been ``assiduous in attending to its duties'', but I still had no response to my question.
When Parliament returned after prorogation I reintroduced the question, confident that a reply was imminent since the government had led me to believe it was days away from a reply at the end of the session. However, a spokesman for the government House leader's office was quoted in the newspaper as saying that the government would not divert personnel to answer my question since my request was outrageous.
This apparent obstruction of my parliamentary duty prompted me to raise a question of privilege on April 24 in this House. The response of the deputy leader of the government was to assure me, this House and the Chair that the government wanted to answer every question. The chief government whip echoed the sentiment and promised that when the information was available it would be responded to. You, Mr. Speaker, recommended that an attempt should be made by the government to answer these questions as quickly as possible.
(1510)
Because of these promises, Mr. Speaker, your ruling on May 6, 1996 found that it is very difficult to accept the veracity of the remarks allegedly made by an unidentified person in the government House leader's office. However, after having reviewed all of the papers you did emphasize that the government must in all respects endeavour to respond to questions, adhering to the spirit of the rule. You also added that written questions posed by members are an important tool at the disposal of members of the House and are used to solicit information as well as to help hold the government accountable for its actions. It is precisely for this reason that members of the ministry are responsible to the House for the actions taken regarding the preparation of responses to these questions.
Despite this clear and forceful recognition of the importance of questions on the Order Paper and the responsibility of ministries, despite the assurances to myself, to the Chair and to the House from the deputy government House leader's office that an answer was forthcoming, despite waiting almost one year since I was told that the answer was nearing completion, I have again waited the requisite 45 days for a response and have yet to receive a reply to my question.
I see a pattern here, Mr. Speaker. On May 6 your ruling was based on assurances that an answer would be made available, and that has not happened. Not only have I been repeatedly misled by indications that my question was to be answered, so has the Chair. Promises, patience and due process have amounted to nothing.
Should I go directly to the Minister of National Revenue and ask that the Income Tax Act be applied to all order in council appointments? Short of this, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(a), and in the spirit of your ruling of May 6, 1996, I ask you again to look into the matter to find out why, after a year and one-half, three points of order and a question of privilege I do not have a response from the government to Questions Nos. 25 and 26 on the Order Paper.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the concerns of the hon. member. As one who is a staunch defender of access to information, I regret this.
May I just say that the parliamentary secretary to the House leader is unavoidably absent from the House. I ask that we continue this point of order in tomorrow's Routine Proceedings so that there may be a proper response from the people who are informed on the issue.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I have raised a similar question. I wonder, if the government is offering to do this, if it would do the same thing for-
The Speaker: I will deal with one point of order at a time.
What we have is a request that we postpone this until tomorrow, until the parliamentary secretary can give us a full answer. I believe the House would be willing to wait until tomorrow and would agree to that particular request.
>