Yesterday, the auditor general again pointed out that the federal government has still not identified all the contaminated federal sites, that it has no overall plan for doing so, and that the eventual costs to the public of decontaminating these sites are also not known. The auditor general is concerned because of the health, safety and environmental risks of such a situation, not to mention the potential impact on the public purse.
How can the government explain that it has still not found ways of listing, identifying and clarifying the degree of contamination of federal sites, given the health and environmental risks associated with such a situation?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the auditor general's concerns. In fact, we have already been working to deal with contaminated sites in Canada.
We have established an interdepartmental committee which is looking at contaminated sites and we are developing a template to deal with this issue in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): I was almost convinced, Mr. Speaker.
Given that certain contaminated federal sites are dangerous and even pose a threat to citizens living nearby, when is the federal government going to table a plan of appropriate action for eliminating these dangerous sites?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, a committee is looking into it. This has been a problem in Canada since World War II. Each federal department has responsibility for dealing with contaminated sites.
We recognize that there is a need for a comprehensive way of dealing with it, and it is being dealt with.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there has been a problem since World War II and now we hear that a committee has been established. That is just wonderful.
It is very expensive to clean up contaminated sites and the longer it is put off, the more expensive it gets. We had a very good example of this with part of the decontamination of the military base at Longue Pointe, in Montreal.
(1420)
Can the minister or the Deputy Prime Minister confirm the auditor general's observation that the government's estimate of $2 billion to decontaminate the sites is based on incomplete studies, and that in reality the costs may go much higher, skewing the government's financial report card?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member laughs about a very serious problem that affects all Canadians.
I would like to point out that it was the leader of his party who was the minister of the environment, Lucien Bouchard, who did nothing about this problem. We are acting on it.
[Translation]
Yesterday, among the horror stories revealed by the auditor general, we learned that, in order to save $71 on a repair contract for a ship moored in Nova Scotia, the government spent $30,000 to move it to Newfoundland, $30,000 in taxpayers' money wasted to save $71. Unbelievable!
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to explain to us how this could be, what twisted logic was used to justify the decision by someone, somewhere, that it was normal to spend $30,000 in order to save $71?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the auditor general will surely find, among a total of $120 billion in expenditures, a few projects that have not been very successful.
We agree, and we take the findings of the auditor general to heart. We wish to provide far more efficient government, and we are, moreover, the first government in 50 years to have really reduced government expenditures in absolute terms. We want to see Canadians drawing the full benefit of their tax dollars. This is why we always give the utmost attention to the auditor general's recommendations and correct our mistakes.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how the minister can pass off these little failed projects as trifles, when the auditor general has identified $2.5 billion in waste in his report for 1996.
The minister tells us that he wants to tighten up controls. He makes it sound very simple, but what about the senior public servant who has made an error in judgement? What will happen to him? What will happen to the person responsible for making such an irresponsible decision?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if someone had the authority to punish all of the errors committed by the opposition party, there would not be one of them left.
What is important is that we have markedly reduced expenditures that were not in the public interest. We have cut government expenditures by $15 billion. We have reformed the public service and the various departments.
I believe that, with the recommendations of the auditor general, we can continue to properly serve the Canadian public, including Quebecers, who want good value for their money.
The transport minister said last week that he was open to a lowering of the federal aviation fuel tax and that he had discussed it with the finance minister.
(1425 )
However, the parliamentary secretary was unclear yesterday as to what the result was.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Will this government follow Alberta's lead and reduce the federal aviation fuel tax?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member's position that Canadian Airlines is a very important company for this country.
The Minister of Transport wants it to survive and succeed and so does this government. He is meeting with all the people necessary to meet with in order to make that happen.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, taxes kill jobs and this particular tax is capable of killing many jobs. The aviation fuel tax is an excellent example. It puts our airlines at a competitive disadvantage.
The old way of dealing with economic sectors that are in trouble has been grants and handouts. The new way of dealing with that is tax relief. If Canadian employees are willing to make sacrifices to save their jobs, surely the federal tax collector would make some sacrifice as well.
Again, we are asking the parliamentary secretary for an answer to this, not a general comment. Will the federal government offer to reduce the federal aviation tax as a means of saving these 16,000 jobs at Canadian?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party is again right. There have been sacrifices, many of them made by the employees of Canadian Airlines. However, I remind the hon. member that there have been many sacrifices made by the Canadian taxpayer for Canadian Airlines as well. Therefore we have to act responsibly and act in their best interests.
The minister went out to British Columbia. He has been working hard at facilitating discussions. He has met with Mr. Kevin Benson, the president of Canadian Airlines. That meeting has been successful. He has met with six of the unions. Four of those unions have come on board, including the largest union, the machinists union, led by Mr. David Ritchie.
We can say that those discussions have been fruitful. There have been some serious proposals put on the table and they are now under active consideration.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we understand all that and have understood it for a long time. Our question is very simple. These workers are going to have to make a final decision this weekend as to whether to accept this restructuring package. It includes proposals for reducing the overhead and operating costs of the airlines. However, if they know there is going to be a reduction in the federal aviation tax that makes a difference with respect to the acceptability of the entire package.
I simply ask the parliamentary secretary, who seems to be moving in the right direction, can he go the whole way and just tell the House and tell those workers that the federal government is offering a reduction in the federal aviation fuel tax?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, sometimes the answer cannot be as simple as the question. We have to do the appropriate thing in the best interests of Canadians. We have to meet with the appropriate individuals, the president of the company and the union officials. Four of the six unions have all come on board. They have been very active.
Yes, Canadian Airline employees have made their sacrifices but so have Canadian taxpayers. We have to ensure that the Canadian taxpayer is also protected.
As I said before, all those serious proposals have been made to the Minister of Transport. He has been there since last Sunday facilitating these discussions. All those proposals are under active consideration at this very moment.
Most regrettably, the negotiations of recent days to send a multinational force to the great lakes region of Africa are still stalled. The indecision of the international community angers us and makes us wonder about its effects on possible future conflicts in that region of Africa. Despite continued opposition in Kigali, the Minister of Foreign Affairs suggested yesterday that one possible intervention might involve dropping food by parachute for subsequent distribution by humanitarian organizations.
(1430)
Has the minister obtained a consensus, and, if so, when would this operation begin and how would it work?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, following the meetings in Stuttgart, we looked very closely with our colleagues at actions we might take. We concluded it would be quite possible to establish headquarters in Uganda, to undertake certain reconnaissance operations in Zaire and especially to parachute in aid for the refugees.
We made this recommendation yesterday to the other partners, and I expect to receive a response tonight or tomorrow morning. Afterwards, things should go very quickly. We need the co-operation of the other partners to ensure all resources are mobilized for this vital operation in Zaire.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, nobody understands why the international community is becoming increasingly bogged down in this matter. Why is it so slow to react?
Would the minister explain to all Canadians why the international community seems totally incapable of acting? Is there any real political will here? If not, this should be made clear.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in case the hon. member did not notice, about 10 days ago over .5 million refugees returned to Rwanda, which was the original purpose of the mission. That part of it has been extraordinarily successful. The original mission was established to have the refugees return to Rwanda. Most of them have now returned.
It may stretch the imagination of the hon. member but frankly if that was the objective of the mission and most of it has now been achieved, the question is what do we do to ensure that it is completed. That has been the cause of some of the uncertainty by other members of the coalition.
There is no lack of political will. I will be glad to table my telephone bill in the House of Commons to show how much will we have been exercising in the last several days.
The reaction is, as I said, we must work in co-operation with the other potential partners so that we can have a full mobilization of this effort, so we can complete the task that was started by the initiative two weeks ago of Canada, where we have had enormous success with the refugees going back. But we want to make sure the job is fully and effectively completed.
That is true, but it did not stop the government from taking $32 million a year in fuel taxes from the financially troubled airline. Maybe that is because the government is in worse financial shape than the airline is.
The government's insensitivity to Canadian's employees is deplorable but perhaps it is understandable given that the average Liberal pension is higher than the average working wage of Canadian's employees.
The employees are not looking for handouts. They are looking for fairness. When is this government going to do the fair thing and end its unfair aviation fuel tax, a tax that is destroying Canadian jobs and Canadian companies?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little amazed at the question put by the hon. member only because we know that the hon. member is an active member of the transport committee who has always been very facilitating and very helpful in situations on bills and so on.
Today he chooses this very difficult time that is taking place between a company and its employees in trying to restructure an airline, the goodwill that is being demonstrated by three different levels of government in the facilitation, the team work being put forward by not only the federal government but the Government of Alberta, the Government of British Columbia. It is a team approach that will see this airline survive and be prosperous. The hon. member's intervention and political gainsmanship are not helping one bit.
(1435)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Alberta does not have any trouble figuring out what the right thing is. Why does this government?
Thus far the Canadian auto workers and CUPE have not agreed to the democratic process of allowing their members to vote on Canadian's restructuring process. The parliamentary secretary says four out of six. These were the other two.
Buzz Hargrove, the head of the CAW, is actually in a conflict position. He has members in Canadian facing a salary reduction while he is trying to negotiate a raise for those same members in Air Canada. Faced with this dilemma, there is no way he can act in the best interests of both parties simultaneously. Canadian's employees are rallying today, asking for the right to vote.
Parliament is the final court of appeal. Is it listening? Is it going to act?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government is in the process of doing its job and trying to help Canadian get back on its feet.
The hon. member speaks of the union between the leadership and its employees. It was three weeks ago that the Minister of Transport brought this issue to the floor of this House, on November 8, when he said that he completely agreed the employees of Canadian should have the right to vote on their future and on the restructuring program that has been proposed by Mr. Benson, CEO of Canadian Airlines.
We are on side with the company. We are trying to work with the company and its employees. We want to see Canadian Airlines survive.
The Canadian Coast Guard was to release last Thursday the impact study on its new fee structure for commercial traffic, but the tabling of this study was cancelled at the last minute. Yet everyone knows that the study has been completed. The consultants' contract ended two weeks ago.
Will the minister admit that he is refusing to release his bogus study at this time because most of the findings are being strongly disputed by all stakeholders in the St. Lawrence shipping community, including almost every business analyzed in the study?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member talks about is a report on the impact study of the marine service fees. I want to make sure the house understands the question.
The impact study, as I have promised time and time again to this member, uses seven initiatives to look at 1,400 traffic flows and 15 commodities. This is a very complex study that examines the impact of the $60 million marine service fees which represent a very small portion of what it costs this government to provide.
The hon. member knows it is user pay, user say. The report is in the final stages but despite what the hon. member may surmise and suggest, the truth is the report has not yet been completed. It is not put together. I have not seen the final report.
I am not in the habit of tabling in this House or to anybody else reports that have not been completed, and I will wait until the report is complete before I do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from what I hear the industry saying, I would be inclined to believe that perhaps the minister is not tabling his study because he is embarrassed.
Does the minister recognize that he cannot go ahead with his plans to raise an additional $20 million in fees in 1997, since such action could obviously have serious consequences on the businesses and jobs affected by this fee hike?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has missed the whole point of the impact study. The point of the study was to find out what the impact would be at $60 million. But it also examines what the impact is in a general sense.
The hon. member is suggesting that I should go ahead with the impact study, release it and then go ahead with increased fees. I do not think I want to do that.
(1440)
The purpose of the study is to find out what the future moves should be. Before I table any study, I have to look at what the impacts are, which is the purpose of the study, before we go ahead with the next move. And for the information of the hon. member, it is not another $20 million because in effect we are collecting $26 million now. We will move when we are ready and when we have studied the impacts on the overall industry to make sure that we are being fair, decent, balanced and reasonable.
My question for the justice minister is: Has that permission been sought?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no cabinet nor partisan consideration that would take precedence over the health and safety of Canadians.
Since Pierre Trudeau, John Turner and Brian Mulroney will want to get to the bottom of the tainted blood scandal, I ask very plainly, will the justice minister seek the permission of those prime ministers to release the documents? Will he table his letter in the House of Commons forthwith?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is the same answer that was given yesterday.
The government is about to expand, under the framework of a federal agency, current pest management regulatory services. It will take this opportunity to have the chemical product industry pay for part of the costs of this monitoring activity.
Will the minister confirm that, as regards its agency project, the Canadian government wants to recover 60 per cent of the costs from the chemical product industry, while the American government only imposes a 15 per cent recovery cost for the same services?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I presume the question refers to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency which is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health.
On the minister's behalf I want to assure the hon. gentleman that the government has been in very close dialogue with all of the stakeholders that may be potentially affected by the new Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Every effort is being made to incorporate their very helpful advice into the administration of the agency to make sure that it can be operated on the most economical basis possible. Provision is being made for an economic stakeholders advisory committee so that those stakeholders who will be affected by this regulatory system can have ongoing input into the future. The objective is to make this system efficient so that the cost savings can accrue back to the industry which would be subject to that regulation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there will be a problem. Given this gap of 45 per cent, will the minister agree that imposing such high recovery costs will make it more costly for companies to develop their products in Canada and that, consequently, these companies will pass on the bill to farmers, who will also become less competitive, unless they buy directly from the United States?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is touching upon an issue that he, this government and I regard to be very important.
That is the harmonization of our regulatory systems in relation to our trading partners around the world, and of course in the North American context most particularly with the United States and Mexico.
When I say harmonization, I want to make the point very clear that we are not in any way talking about lowering Canadian standards. Our standards are the best in the world. We will continue to ensure that Canada's food system is the safest and highest quality in the world.
(1445)
There are ways in which we can make savings through harmonization. I would advise that those discussions with our NAFTA partners are already under way and are already making progress. We are developing a pilot project for the joint review of applications for new products in the future.
In Canada today firms led by women are creating jobs at four times the rate of all other firms. In Atlantic Canada the number of women owned businesses employing five or more people has increased from 16 to 28 per cent in less than six years.
Can the minister explain why women are having this extraordinary success as entrepreneurs? What is the government doing to enhance this opportunity for job creation?
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, I do not know whether we can identify any inherent strengths in the female gender that make them successful as entrepreneurs but I can say that the statistics are correct.
Women have demonstrated extraordinary success as entrepreneurs. They are appearing as entrepreneurs and are starting businesses in record numbers. As recently as this past January, Statistics Canada reported that the percentage of women who are members of Canada's entrepreneurial class has increased significantly. At the same time 11 per cent of Canadian employed women are now self-employed as entrepreneurs.
We have tried to overcome some of the obstacles that continue to inhibit the ability of women to succeed as entrepreneurs largely through mentoring programs, assistance programs, ACOA, the Business Development Bank of Canada and western economic diversification. These are attempts to give women the tools they need to create jobs for themselves and others and they have proven they can succeed at it.
Former prime ministers can divulge information with their permission. This is an issue of Canadian health and safety. There is no one in this government who can hide from the fact that the information is important and necessary.
Once again, if the Deputy Prime Minister will not seek this permission, will she tell the House of Commons why not?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act makes it quite clear that it is the responsibility of every government to protect cabinet confidences. The only time that has ever been referred back is when a minister has been charged with a criminal offence.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is criminal. It is nonsense. Nonsense.
The health and safety of Canadians is paramount. No excuse will allow the government to escape from this issue. One of my campaign workers got hepatitis C from a tooth transfusion. She deserves the plain, straight answer from Krever. We want that answer and we will not rest until those documents are tabled.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think every Canadian is anxiously awaiting the results of the Krever commission.
I would hope that all Canadians, including the members of the opposition, understand that the government has absolutely no interest in protecting the government of Brian Mulroney. This government however does respect the fact that under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act previous cabinets do have the right to cabinet confidentiality. The only time that right under section 39 has been set aside has been in the specific case of a minister who is facing criminal charges.
[Translation]
Last week, during a meeting with government representatives, the group seeking the release of Tran Trieu Quan was informed by officials that the government no longer knew what to do in this case, and that the special adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
who had been given responsibility for Tran Trieu Quan's case no longer worked for the minister.
Will the minister tell us whether this information is correct and, if so, will he tell us whether the position will eventually be filled, and who in his department is in charge of the Tran Trieu Quan file in the meantime?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly share the member's concern about Mr. Tran's situation. But as the member knows, we have worked very hard at making representations to the Vietnamese government.
Just recently, for example, my colleague, the Minister for International Cooperation, attended a meeting in Vietnam. He had several meetings, in person, with ministers in that government, and asked that pressure be brought to bear on the government. At the same time, the consular service of the Department of Foreign Affairs are ensuring that all conditions are being respected by the government in Mr. Tran's case. And we will continue to do everything necessary to ensure that Mr. Tran's rights are respected.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to my original question.
Officials are telling us that the department no longer knows what to do. We have also been told that the special adviser no longer works for the department. Is anyone in the department still working on behalf of Tran Trieu Quan?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the ministers of this department are working directly in this case. The Minister for International Cooperation, this minister, the former Minister of International Cooperation, myself, the ambassador in Vietnam and members of our consular service are all directly engaged in ensuring that the rights of Mr. Tran are respected.
We are continuing to make all representations that we can, but we are dealing with a country that has its own rules, its own laws and is sovereign. All we can do is make every effort possible for them to change their position, which we will continue to do. We cannot force them to do it but we will continue to do everything in our power to make that happen.
I have one specific example. When I was in Ukraine a month ago, I made specific representations to that government to ensure that it would provide direct evidence dealing with the case of Mr. Morgan who is an alleged accomplice in this case. We are establishing a worldwide net to try to come to grips with ways in which we can assist Mr. Tran in his very serious circumstances.
The Deputy Prime Minister has said time and time again that she wants nothing to do with Mulroney. We are not asking her to get involved with Mulroney. He came in in September 1984.
What we are asking is not for the Deputy Prime Minister to divulge any secret cabinet information. All we are asking the Deputy Prime Minister and the government to do is to ask permission of former prime ministers. Will she ask for their permission to go ahead with this information?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the documents that were certified as cabinet confidences do not include any documents from the government of John Turner.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, something here is starting to smell of a cover-up and we will get to the bottom of this for the people who have lost their lives.
It is one thing to talk glibly, that there is no problem here whatsoever. However, if the Deputy Prime Minister and the government are serious about getting to the bottom of this issue and letting the Krever inquiry get to its work, will she commit to simply asking former prime ministers, which is within her right and her obligation, for their permission to allow these documents and information to be released? Yes or no?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act requires the Prime Minister to respect cabinet confidentiality. There is however nothing preventing the commission itself from inquiring upon anyone it would like to subpoena to have testify.
[Translation]
Would the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec tell us what economic benefits Quebec can expect from the signing of this major contract?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
We have indeed announced the sale of two Candu reactors to China. This is excellent news, because the contract is worth $4 billion. Canada's share in the financing, in other words, its financial contribution, is $1.5 billion. This means economic benefits worth $275 million for the Province of Quebec. In terms of job creation, it means 8,000 person years. The two reactors will take some six and a half years to build-a substantial contribution to the economy.
This announcement is proof of the Government of Canada's ability to help businesses export and develop new markets, an important consideration in this time of globalization. It also shows that the Canadian government is bringing jobs home, which is vital.
On October 24, Bradson Mercantile Inc. locked out its 365 security officers and immediately replaced them with scabs. The security officers employed by Bradson are assigned to supply protection at several sites in the Ottawa-Carleton region.
Does the minister think it is acceptable that approximately 273 scabs provide protection at 32 federal government buildings in the Ottawa-Carleton region, including 2 at Elections Canada, 20 at the Museum of Nature and no fewer than 50 at Statistics Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the company has a contractual obligation to provide continuous protection, and that is what it is doing.
The review of the immigration centre has clearly hurt the people of Vegreville by unfairly tarnishing their reputation. This $42,000 government commissioned study should never have been done. This issue should have been dealt with quickly and decisively by competent management.
Will the minister simply apologize for the damage done by her department and show some concern and consideration for the people of Vegreville?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stated previously in this House that the study conducted at the centre in Vegreville was on the operations of the centre, not on the community of Vegreville per se, particularly since the study showed problems at the centre. The people of Vegreville themselves are not being judged.
The mayor of Vegreville himself, who took the time to read the report, concluded it was an internal review of the operations at the centre.
Bank profits are soaring over last year's record profits while consumer credit card debt has soared to 20 per cent of personal debt. Some credit card holders are paying up to 25 per cent over the prime rate while interest on savings accounts is paid at 3 per cent below prime.
Last week when I asked the minister if he would consider bringing back the Usury Act to outlaw interest rate gouging by banks, oil companies and retail stores on credit card accounts, he said that he would look into it.
(1500 )
In view of these record bank profits and in view of record low interest rates will the government now take action to protect consumers from this outrageous interest rate rip-off and bring the credit card interest rates and interest paid on savings accounts more in line with the Canada prime rates?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to the hon. member that every one of the large Canadian banks has a low interest rate credit card which is available to consumers. Indeed, I might also mention that in the past few days two of the major banks have lowered their interest rates on their low interest rate cards and they are below 10 per cent.
As far as the other issue of bank profits is concerned, we make sure that the banks pay considerable taxes to the federal government. I might add that a conference board study a few years back indicated that the banks paid taxes to federal, provincial and municipal governments amounting to $6 billion annually. This year, with higher profits, they will pay more taxes to the federal government.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. Why is the department insisting on filling our Canadian landfill sites with frozen American turkeys while it steadfastly refuses to allow them to be donated immediately to community food banks and kitchens?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman raises a point which I will be happy to investigate further.
The critical issue that we must be very careful about is food safety. We had an issue arise a number of years ago with respect to surplus food being brought into Canada and used by certain British troops who were training at the Suffield station in Alberta. They brought their own rations with them. There were surplus rations. We were asked if we would allow those rations to be donated to a food bank. It seemed like a good idea. However, upon reflection we refused to give that permission because of the risk of contaminated food being transferred. As it turned out, that judgment in that case was absolutely correct because of the subsequent BST fiasco in the United Kingdom.
While I do not mean to link that case to the one referred to by the hon. gentleman, I use it as an example to illustrate the very high standards of food quality we maintain in Canada, not only in the commercial sector but also in the food bank sector.
-``While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances would ever exist for a prima facie case of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an Hon. Member-.I also refer you to citation 24:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are ``absolutely necessary for the execution of its powers''.I have a copy of a directive from the minister of fisheries that involves my personal privileges as a member of Parliament and the privileges of all members of Parliament from British Columbia. The directive states:
We have been instructed by the Minister's office to report to them all telephone calls from MPs and Senators. The report is to include the name of the individual, the office they are associated with, phone number and the issue along with a summary of what information was given to the caller.
The messages are to be e-mailed or faxed to me within 24 hours of the call having been received. Attached is a form which is to be used.
Please ensure all your staff are advised to report all such calls to you immediately.This directive went to all regional directors in the Pacific region of the department of fisheries. As the fisheries critic for the Reform Party in this House, there can be no doubt this directive was aimed to discourage public civil servants from talking to me as a member of Parliament.
As a member of Parliament I will have less access to public information than a member of the general public. How can I work on its behalf? How can I carry out my job of representing my constituents if public servants are discouraged from speaking with me?
This is an obvious attempt to stifle the work of a member of Parliament. If a general member of the public makes an inquiry to the department of fisheries, they are normally given a courteous reply. Public servants are paid with taxpayer money. They are public servants, not political servants of this government. It is not their job to spy on members of Parliament.
If public servants at the department of fisheries in the Pacific region, that is British Columbia, are required to record the nature of the conservation with a member of this House within 24 hours it will discourage public servants from speaking with members. If public servants at fisheries speak, they will have to explain to the minister what they said and be prepared to explain why they said it. Why would a public servant risk the wrath of the minister by even having a conversation with a member of Parliament?
This directive by the minister of fisheries will have a chilling effect on the normal flow of public information to members of Parliament. The public service is not the military or the police. I recognize that members of the military may not be able to respond to questions from members of the House. But is the minister of fisheries turning public servants into his own regiment that is required to snitch on conversations with members?
Should members of this House be named on such an enemy's list? Are public servants required to inform the minister of their conversations with representatives of foreign governments within
24 hours? Are members of this House being treated worse than possible foreign spies and possible enemies of the country?
The actions of the minister of fisheries have impaired my privileges as a member of this House. The minister's action prevents me from doing my job. Members of Parliament should never be treated as enemies.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you investigate this matter and give me your ruling.
The Speaker: Colleagues, any question of privilege is listened to with great attention by your Speaker. As the hon. member knows, I was given notice. I was given a newspaper report.
The hon. member refers to a communique of some kind that came directly from the minister.
(1510)
The minister is not in the House today. I wonder if the honourable member could wait until the minister is here. Perhaps there is a clarification but I would like to hear a little more information before I make a ruling on this.
I would prefer to hear directly from the minister before I hear additional evidence, keeping in mind that I will hear additional evidence after I hear from the minister.
Would that be acceptable to you, my colleague?
Mr. Cummins: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to make a copy of the directive which I quoted from available to you.
The Speaker: I would appreciate a copy of the directive but I hold everything in abeyance until the hon. minister of fisheries is here so that I can get something to go by. Perhaps there is an explanation to this. We will return to this when the hon. minister returns to the House.