Could the minister explain to us why order and good government would be threatened today, when this was not the case in 1980, nor in the last referendum in 1995? If the government is going before the Supreme Court today, is the real reason not that it has nothing to offer Quebec and is afraid of losing the next referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the questions being asked in the referral to the Supreme Court of Canada are entirely based on the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec himself in the Bertrand case.
Everyone believed that the primacy of the rule of law here in Canada was obvious, and the unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec was illegal and irresponsible, yet the attorney general of Quebec stated for the first time a few months ago that
the courts and the Constitution have nothing to do with the process by which Quebec is proceeding toward sovereignty.
(1420)
It is, therefore, the responsibility of this government to clarify and determine these basic questions. We have asked the questions in this referral in order to clarify and precisely determine the primacy of the rule of law in Canada and the fact that a unilateral declaration of independence is illegal and irresponsible in Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister also stated today, and again I quote: ``Any government that suggests it would throw Quebec and all of Canada into the confusion of a unilateral declaration of independence is being profoundly irresponsible. It is a formula for chaos''.
But who are the ones being irresponsible? The Government of Quebec for proposing, after obtaining a democratic mandate from the people of Quebec to negotiate on an equal basis for the first time in its life, or this government for wishing to impose the same legal framework as was in place for Meech Lake, where a single MP from Manitoba, or a province like Newfoundland, could decide Quebec's future? Which is the irresponsible one?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we want is the same thing the people of Quebec want, that is to say an orderly process to settle the challenge facing us. That orderly process is the primacy of the rule of law, the courts and the Constitution, and in the aftermath of a referendum we shall have the Constitution and an orderly process.
With the process the hon. member proposes, we will indeed have chaos, because a unilateral declaration of independence is irresponsible. On behalf of all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, we have chosen to refer these questions in order to clarify the underlying principle concerning the Canadian system.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some fine Constitution, one rejected by all Quebecers. There is no political party in Quebec-be it the federalist Liberal Party of Quebec or the Parti Quebecois-no government which has recognized the Constitution. It was imposed upon us in the dead of night by the Prime Minister.
The minister tells us that he is calling upon the Supreme Court because Quebec has no right to declare its sovereignty unilaterally. I wonder why Quebec could not make its decision to become sovereign on its own, while Canada could make a unilateral decision to keep Quebec in Canada against the will of Quebecers. How can it be that some are allowed to do what others are not? Is that what you call democracy?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, let me remind you that you must always address the Chair.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, much as the hon. member wants it to be, the issue here is not whether the population of Quebec can express itself freely. That has never been in doubt. We have had two referenda in the past and if the present Government of Quebec has its way, there will likely be a third I suppose. However, that is not the issue.
The real issue is that the present Government of Quebec states that right after the referendum, if the result is what it wants, the present legal order will come to an end and it will unilaterally walk away from Canada, from this country. That is simply out of the question.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The leading political figures of all the provinces and indeed the Canadian public have long agreed that this country will not be held together against the will of Quebecers clearly expressed.Could the minister explain exactly what ``the will of Quebecers clearly expressed'' means?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there were several ways in which I referred to the clearly expressed will of Canadians this morning.
For one thing, it is the clearly expressed will of Canadians that the interest of Canadians throughout the country be taken into account on this question which affects them all. For another thing, I emphasized that it is the clearly expressed will of all Canadians, including those in Quebec, that we conduct ourselves in accordance with the law.
I also emphasized that it is the clearly expressed will of Canadians that when their leaders, including the leaders of the Government of Quebec, address issues on the public agenda, they do so in keeping with the values of Canadians: tolerance, accommodation, discussion, dialogue. That is the way Canadians want us to approach our issues, not by unilateral action, not by standing up and walking away from the table unilaterally. That is not the way we do things in Canada. That is the commonly expressed will of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Justice did not understand my question. I referred to ``the will of Quebecers clearly expressed''. That was my question. He is talking about the will of Canadians. I think the minister missed the point completely.
I think it would be only fair and reasonable to give him a second chance. I will put my question to the minister again. Could he explain exactly what ``the will of Quebecers clearly expressed'' means?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can answer that question. In fact I can say that if the hon. member wants to know what the clearly expressed will of Quebecers is, then she ought to look at the results of the last two referendums.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I should begin by commending the government and the minister for finally taking this belated action in referring this matter to the Supreme Court. We also note the strong support the government has received from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Even as other governments in the world are becoming concerned about the rule of law in Canada, some in Quebec who call themselves federalists have made it clear that they reject any attempt to defend the rule of law in the courts and to defend Canada's right to self-determination.
Supporting a unilateral right of the PQ to self-determination is unacceptable to ordinary loyal Canadians across the country. What steps is the government taking to persuade these Quebecers of the importance of supporting this effort to assert Canadian sovereignty?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very much hope that our federalist allies in Quebec will see the value of clearly determining these questions that have now been put at issue.
(1430)
As to what we are doing about it, we are expressing our position as forcefully and in as straightforward a manner as we can. We have framed questions that I think captured clearly what is really at issue here. Indeed, I wrote to one Quebecer this morning, Paul Bégin, the attorney general of Quebec, to invite him to participate with me in the Supreme Court of Canada.
[Translation]
I think it is very important for the attorney general of Quebec to participate in this exercise before the court.
[English]
The fact of the matter is he and I have divergent views on these important legal questions. What Canadians do when they have divergent views on important questions is they put them before the court for resolution. I have invited him to join me in the court so that we can get his views there and get a judgment from the highest court in the land.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to explore whether this action represents the totality of the government's plan or whether it has further plans.
Yesterday at a congressional hearing in Washington, Christopher Sands of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies speculated that there has been talk that the federal government plans to put a secession clause in the Constitution after the next election and that it would raise once again the issue of a national referendum on this issue.
Is the federal government prepared to go further and to say that all Canadians must have a say in their constitutional future and the future of their country, and that such a policy would include a national referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we expressed our commitment clearly in the speech from the throne, indeed in language very close to that used by the hon. member.
We said that if there is to be another referendum, that the process must be democratic, that we would ensure that the question is clear, that all the facts are on the table, that the consequences are well understood and that all Canadians would have a say in the future of their country.
The step we took today is intended to address the most fundamental legal question, namely, do we operate within the rule of law or outside it? I am confident that the court will see that the Constitution and the rule of law must prevail.
As to the hon. member's question specifically, I can say that we shall take whatever steps are necessary in the months ahead to comply with the commitment we gave in the speech from the throne.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the nature of that commitment.
Gordon Robertson, the former clerk of the Privy Council, has said that the government needs contingency legislation to deal with the possibility of an attempt at secession. The minister will know that Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall has said the same thing.
Is the minister prepared to go further and to table a bill in the House providing a legislative framework for any attempt by a province at secession?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the present we are going to pursue the fundamental issues that will now be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. I do reiterate that we are going to fulfil our commitment expressed in the throne speech.
The hon. member has referred to two instances where responsible Canadians have spoken out to raise approaches to these difficult issues. That is going on all across the country. Canadians are looking at these issues, they are producing constructive responses and that is a very valuable process. We encourage and support it.
We are listening carefully. We shall cull from that process the best of the proposals. We shall bring them here for discussion. In the fullness of time we shall embark upon a course to enable us to fulfil the commitments we made in the speech from the throne.
My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Does he or does he not intend to call a national referendum to determine the future of Quebecers?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are focusing now on the fundamental legal issues raised by the attorney general of Quebec.
[Translation]
The questions referred to the Supreme Court of Canada today must be answered because the attorney general of Quebec has taken a position that is unacceptable under Canadian law. We intend to take this opportunity to deal with this very important matter. We will start with these questions and later, during the months to come, we will meet our other commitments.
(1435)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): In his reply, the Minister of Justice started by referring to a national referendum and now mentions he has other commitments, so could he put all his cards on the table and tell us whether he intends to have a national referendum with his ``rule of law'' in which everyone outside Quebec will be able to determine the future of Quebec? We had conscription, and we had Meech. Is this going to be another example of so-called democracy?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that it was the hon. member from the Reform Party who raised the cross-Canada referendum; it was not something which I mentioned.
The hon. member opposite likes to pretend that anyone who relies on the rule of law is speaking against the democratic expression by the population of Quebec of its will. That is simply not so. The people of Quebec have every right to express themselves democratically in a consultative referendum.
Where my hon. friend goes wrong and where the attorney general of Quebec goes wrong is to say that from that result they can proceed unilaterally to walk away from the contract, just leave the table. That is the crux of the issue.
Let us not confuse the issue. We respect the right of the population of Quebec to express itself democratically, but we must insist that there be no unilateral action, that we keep in mind that this issue affects the interests of all Canadians and it will only be resolved in accordance with principles that provide for its orderly disposition.
The Speaker: We are coming very close to unparliamentary language. I will permit the hon. member to rephrase the question without using the words ``sleazy pork barrelling''. Would the hon. member please proceed.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the Prime Minister of his conflict of interest code which states in black and white that a public office holder shall not accord preferential treatment in relation to any official matter to friends or to any organization in which they have an interest.
Thornley is a friend of the Liberal Party and he received preferential treatment.
Will the Prime Minister show some leadership, enforce his own code of conduct and put an end to this patronage contract?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say as I said yesterday that these are within the guidelines which apply to the spending of public money by a minister.
For example, I know of a certain Stephen Green who has worked for two years for the Reform Party. He is paid with public money. He is a friend of the leader of the party. There is a very nice lady,
Line Maheux, who ran and got clobbered in the election but she was rewarded by the Reform Party with a job which she still holds today.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is scandalous what is happening in the House today. The Prime Minister is willing to follow Mr. Mulroney's guidelines but refuses to follow his own guidelines. This Liberal government and ethics continue to have a long distance feeling.
The defence minister's pork barrelling clearly breaks the Prime Minister's conflict of interest guidelines and the Prime Minister refuses to do anything about it.
Will the Prime Minister show some leadership today and live up to his own ethical guidelines and cancel this contract?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. We are satisfied that the guidelines were followed, that the person is competent to do the job which the minister asked him to do and that it is within the budget approved by the House for the operation of the office of the minister. I just gave an example of people who have been rewarded. I think they must be competent. I hope they are competent because this party needs a bit of competence around. We are not complaining, because they are doing their jobs. But they were rewarded. They were not known until they ran for the Reform Party.
(1440)
I think that in this case the minister really has the option to do that. It is all within the guidelines, the rules for ministers and members of Parliament. Everything is above board.
How can the minister explain to taxpayers the fact that Revenue Canada's carelessness allows the big oil companies and the tobacco industry in particular to avoid paying up to $630 million in taxes?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcomed the report of the auditor general. As an officer of the House he provides me, as a minister, with information, advice and examples of where I can continuously improve the activities and the working of my department.
I note that in this report he has identified many areas where Revenue Canada has evolved and actually made improvements. He has also identified areas where we can continue to improve. I am glad to say that we have tabled action plans in all of those areas which he has accepted and endorsed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is incredible, this is a scandal. The minister is trying to downplay the preferential treatment given large corporations that make billions of dollars in profits. This is incredible.
Instead of boasting, could the minister tell us what concrete measures she will take to recover the amounts owed and stop these abuses?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Let us put the auditor general's report into context. I prefer to suggest that the glass is two-thirds full instead of one-third empty in the area of commodity taxes.
In his report, he says that in 1993-94 there was tax evasion in the area of commodity taxes, cigarette smuggling, to the tune of $1.5 billion. One year later that has been reduced to $500 million, a reduction of two-thirds.
When we are talking about commodity taxes we are talking about the criminal element, about people who do not have books that we can go in and audit. The department is working very effectively with the Solicitor General of Canada, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance to work out a comprehensive strategy.
The auditor general has indicated that within one year it has worked very effectively. I would like to say that we will continue the great effort and commitment to reduce that $500 million to zero.
By turning over the film of the atrocity Kyle Brown incriminated himself but he prevented a cover-up.
How is it that the lowest ranking member of the military, who prevented a cover-up, did not have military defence counsel while
the chief of the defence staff has the best counsel that money can buy to try to absolve him of his role in the cover-up?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the question from the hon. member. Because of the detail of that question, I will take it under advisement.
(1445 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would advise the parliamentary secretary that Private Kyle Brown is still paying off the bank loan that he had to take out to pay for his defence while he was in Somalia.
Sergeant Mark Boland was arrested, taken from his home by the military police, tried, convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and discharged from the military for his role in the Somalia affair.
Although he was off duty and asleep when the events took place, Sergeant Boland was held accountable because the atrocity took place during his watch. He should have known and he was held accountable.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What kind of leadership example is set for Canadians when the chief of the defence staff is able to pass off responsibility for events that occurred under his watch, yet he continues to enjoy the support of the Prime Minister, the minister of defence and of the government?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because of the nature and the detail required, had I been given advance notice of that question, I would have answered it. I will take it under advisement.
Furthermore, while wealthy taxpayers were able to receive services from Revenue Canada on December 23, 1991, the auditor general revealed today that, nine times out of ten, ordinary taxpayers cannot get telephone access to Revenue Canada's services.
How can the minister justify the preferential treatment given to the rich by her department when ordinary taxpayers cannot even reach Revenue Canada by phone?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to telephone access to my department. It is of concern for us. All members have either anecdotal evidence or personal experience about the difficulties of getting through on the phones.
I would like to point out that one week in July last, we received two million phone calls. It would have taken 4,000 agents to respond so hiring more people does not make sense in this case.
What we are doing, however, is looking at automation. We have had pilot projects in place using automated inquiry systems. They will now be spread nationally and our anticipated implementation date is over the course of 1996. With that program in place, it is my expectation that this issue of access to the department will be relieved.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see that, according to the Chief Electoral Officer's report, large corporations make generous contributions to the Liberal Party's coffers.
Can the minister tell us if there is a link between that fact and the fact that Revenue Canada has become a provider of favours and dispensations to the rich and to the big companies?
The Speaker: If I understood the question correctly, it concerns the Liberal Party. If the minister wants to answer, I will allow it. If not, it will be disallowed.
This week in a historic event, Canada and 79 other nations signed the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the United Nations.
Unfortunately, some of the nuclear threshold states, including India, have stated that they would not sign. Could the minister say what steps Canada is taking to bring India and these other countries on side and to ensure that this important treaty comes into force as soon as possible?
(1450)
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to recognize the excellent work done by
the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who has been an advocate of international disarmament for many years.
In fact, just this week, Canada became one of the first countries to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. With this treaty, a long-standing objective of our foreign policy has finally been achieved. Canada will continue to play a leading role in implementing the treaty as soon as possible. A binding international standard banning all tests is already in place under the treaty. This standard will provide strong political and moral leverage in the coming years, leverage that will also be brought to bear on non-treaty countries.
Further, I have a document on the minister's letterhead which specifically states that the members should vote no, government position, nay.
With this evidence in hand, how can the minister explain the discrepancy between what she was saying outside the House and the written evidence?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said last week, I said this week and I will say it again next week that the Liberal government opposes negative option billing. We opposed it last year. We oppose it this year and we will oppose it next year.
The chairman of the CRTC, in assigning the new specialty licences, has also gone on record as opposing negative option billing. Therefore, the issue has been dealt with.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not since the minister's broken GST promise has there ever been as loud a public outcry as there was against against negative option billing on the part of ordinary Canadians. It is clear, on the basis of this documentation, to anyone that the minister and her department are working hand in hand with the cable industry.
How can she deny that her government position was opposed to the negative option bill when I read here: ``Government position, no?''
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right, the government was opposed to the negative option billing.
More than three weeks ago, Restigouche Micmacs started fishing lobster illegally, out of season. On Monday, after tolerating the situation for more than three weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to issue the Micmacs a communal fishing licence they never asked for, aggrieving local fishermen.
In light of the fact that the Micmacs have the clearly stated their intention of developing a commercial lobster fishery and do not recognize the authority of Fisheries and Oceans in that area, how does the minister justify issuing this permit?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Listuguj First Nation, in claiming historic rights, as was amply vindicated in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada, asked for a permit. It was issued a communal licence by the department. The communal licence established very serious restrictions in the interest of conservation measures, limits as to the number of catch, limits to the type of gear to be employed. Those restrictions are enforceable under the Fisheries Act.
We are aware of complaints of violations and these are being investigated. If necessary the restrictions will be enforced. Obviously it is in the interest of all of us to achieve an amicable settlement. The hon. member will agree with that. The department is examining that with all parties. However, the regulations will be enforced if necessary.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada just authorized 2,000 members of the community to catch 300 pounds of lobster each. That is 600,000 pounds of lobster in Chaleur Bay. That is a lot of lobster.
How can the minister ensure the conservation of the resource, in concrete terms, in the subarea located between New Richmond and Pointe-à-la-Garde, where the Micmacs are currently fishing?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, we are aware of the conservation imperative. It is the prime obligation of the department. The issue is under investigation.
If violations occur they will be prosecuted under the Fisheries Act. I can assure the hon. member that we will still try to achieve, allowing for the political facts here, the amicable settlement which we all desire. But if necessary, the regulations will be enforced by prosecution.
I ask the minister, are we to understand that her position is that the Liberal national energy program was a huge mistake?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention this afternoon of dwelling on the past.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. McLellan: We should think about the future. I have in front of me a document from the Reform Party called ``Twenty Proposals for a New Confederation''. Let me read one small part which is under the heading ``Realigning The Powers''. It says: ``To make government more effective we propose eliminating federal interference in the following areas-''.
The first area enunciated is natural resources.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. McLellan: Say we allow exclusive provincial control over resources like energy.
We could ask ourselves why the third party, the Reform Party, has changed its mind on this fundamental point. Perhaps it is nothing more than political opportunism.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we want provinces to control their own resources, not have other provinces control them.
The minister cannot have it both ways. As I said yesterday, Liberals have no problem interfering with fair contracts. It is just unfair contracts they have a problem dealing with.
The Liberals defend selling Alberta down the river but they refuse to take action as the people of Newfoundland are forced to go over Churchill Falls in a barrel.
Can the minister explain this incredible contradiction to the people of Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it seems to me that the contradiction here is between the expressed position of the Reform Party and what it is now saying.
We respect the jurisdiction of the provinces over their natural resources. The provinces have the ability to enter into contracts in relation to the sale and disposition of those natural resources.
If the Minister of Health really believes that women's health is a priority, what has he actually done or what is he doing to make sure drugs are not allowed on the Canadian market before their effects on women are fully assessed?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well known for her interest and advocacy of women's rights. I believe the hon. member as well as other members of the House will be happy to learn that my department has now changed the policy.
(1500)
In the past it was not mandatory for women to be included for the purposes of drug trials. As of yesterday it is now mandatory that all drug companies will have to include women in their various test trials before they make submissions to have their drugs approved.
Can the minister tell us how many Quebec businesses from the aerospace and defence sectors have so far been helped by Technology Partnerships Canada?
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, the projects supported by Technology Partnerships Canada will soon be announced.
The hon. member is well aware that, through its programs, the federal government provided support to the development, particularly in the Montreal region, of companies such as Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, and CAE. We are currently witnessing Canada's success in Montreal.
Once again this government is focusing on the little taxpayer and squeezing him until he hurts, but we find that not one tobacco company has been audited in the last five years.
Revenue Canada knows that auditing large tobacco companies is an easy and efficient way to collect millions of dollars, yet it turns a blind eye to them while collecting every penny from ordinary Canadians.
My question for the Minister of National Revenue is why?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada performs its audits based on risk management. In the five years which the auditor general questions we redirected our initiative to the area of the underground economy and the anti-smuggling initiative. The auditor general applauded us for those initiatives and identified real returns to the fisk.
I would say that when we are talking about these companiesthey do represent about 85 per cent of the excise taxes and Ihave directed the department to include them in our large corporate audit. They will be reviewed every two years for the twoyears previous and everything will be managed effectively and efficiently.
Since Argentina has already abandoned its marketing system and New Zealand and Australia are changing theirs to take the state out of them, is he planning similar changes here or what is it exactly that holds this alliance together?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the Cairns group meeting in Cartagena earlier this summer, the 14 nations that make up that group had an extensive opportunity to discuss their various trade strategies heading toward the next round of GATT negotiations at the turn of the century.
The topic of state trading enterprises was one of the subjects under discussion. There was very significant support all around the table not just from Canada, not just from New Zealand, not just from Australia; the general consensus of the group was to take a position in defence of the rights of countries to have and to maintain state trading enterprises that suit their respective circumstances.
On this topic I would invite the hon. gentleman from his privileged position in the House to help explain to his neighbours over there in the Reform Party that when it comes to the policy of the Government of Canada that is set in Ottawa and not in Washington.
My private member's bill passed this House in November 1995 and called on the minister to improve access to government boards and agencies in the public interest so that better decisions will be made.
(1505 )
What action has the minister taken to ensure that Canadians have fair and equal access to hearings before the National Energy Board?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue and that is in relation to funding for intervenor landowners before the National Energy Board at pipeline facility hearings.
As the hon. member knows, I instructed the National Energy Board to look at non-legislative means by which financial assistance could be provided to landowner intervenors. The NEB undertook that report. It reported to me earlier this year. I asked it to make the report public and seek comments. It is in the process of doing that.
The interest has been so great in this issue that the NEB has had to extend the period for public comment twice. However, I hope to receive the report later this year.
In addition, I should tell the hon. member that I have been working with the pipeline association and I have asked it to consider a voluntary pilot project in which it might provide funding for intervenors.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the House will consider the legislation on marine transport, that is Bill C-44. If we have time, we will go back to the list of bills for the week and we will carry on our usual discussions with members from the opposition parties.
[English]
Monday shall be an allotted day. On Tuesday we shall return to our list: Bill C-45, Bill C-53, Bill C-49, Bill C-26 and Bill C-41. Bill C-60, the food inspection legislation, and Bill C-55, the high risk offender bill, will be added to the list for next week.
We shall discuss the precise order with our friends opposite with a view to moving this legislation along, which is something the House has not been accomplishing since its return from the summer adjournment.