My question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether the jet fuel tax rebate the Minister of Transport refers to is just for companies in financial difficulty, as we first learned?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to announce that the government has remained consistent with its message that there will be no bailout of Canadian Airlines. The government has come forward with a tax rebate program on fuel for the aviation industry. It will allow carriers which have significant losses over a number of years to claim rebates against aviation fuel taxes.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the process is a rather odd one. Usually, the Minister of Finance announces reductions or increases in taxes. Things seem, shall I say, a bit in disarray in the government. It was much the same thing in the case of cigarettes and the Minister of Health, until the Minister of Finance set him straight. Perhaps he will have to set his colleague in transport straight. I nevertheless have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Given how easy it is for a company to post a deficit using certain accounting practices, would the Minister of Finance not agree that a program like this, intended solely for companies that show an operating deficit, might encourage all Canadian airlines to show a deficit through the use of certain accounting tricks in order to benefit from a substantial reduction in fuel tax too? Does this measure make any sense?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will first address the subject of procedure that the hon. member raised. When the Minister of Transport is busy doing his job across the country, and in this case in British Columbia facilitating discussions on all sides in the Canadian Airlines dilemma, then it falls to the duty of the parliamentary secretary to answer the questions in the House of Commons and I have the privilege to do that.
On the issue of substance in the hon. member's question, it is important to understand that there are still some details to be worked out on the aviation fuel tax rebate. Quite frankly that rebate will only apply if certain conditions are met.
As we have stressed day after day for the last month, there will be no bailout from the federal government for Canadian Airlines. The conditions are that the British Columbia government and the Alberta government come on board. Just yesterday the Minister of Transport congratulated Premier Ralph Klein for coming on board on that restructuring plan. Of course the Canadian Airlines family, that is the company and the union membership have to come on board. That entails all six unions. Finally, American Airlines and the creditors to the airline also have to be part of the restructuring package.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that companies showing a deficit will enjoy a partial reduction in taxes. Is this not encouraging companies to show a year end deficit, to show they are in the red, so they can enjoy the government's generosity?
(1420)
Would the Minister of Finance not agree that this makes no sense and that the solution for the airlines has to be much more thought out, much more credible-one that could resolve the problem and not create perhaps another ten more?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government believes that our two national airlines are of major national significance and importance. Quite frankly, they are equal.
Maybe I could put it into a better perspective for the leader of the Bloc. Most of us in the House have children. I have two daughters and I consider both of them to be equal, but they have individual and different needs.
In this situation, I find the questions from the opposition member rather hypocritical because quite frankly they have distinct needs.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to please stay away from terms like hypocritical. They sort of stir up our emotions in here, and we do not need that.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we learned that the premier of British Columbia was in Dallas for a meeting with American Airlines officials to explore the possibility of American buying a larger share of Canadian Airlines International.
Did the BC premier receive the assurance of the federal government that increasing the foreign ownership of Canadian would not be a problem?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge we are unaware of the discussion that took place between the Premier Clark and the president of American Airlines. No foreign investment discussion has been initiated or requested by Canadian Airlines to the Minister of Transport.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Industry regard a merger between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines as an insult to western Canada when his own government does not see any problem with American Airlines taking over Canadian Airlines?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to get into a dialogue that the hon. member wants to draw us into because we believe that Canadian is going to become a viable, strong airline in this country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that the federal government has indirectly lowered the aviation fuel tax for Canadian Airlines. We disagree with the way that it has been done, but we do think it is a step in the right direction. And if it is done, it should save Canadian about $20 million a year in the short term.
The other stumbling block, as members know, to the restructuring of Canadian Airlines is that the leadership of the CAW and CUPE will not let their members vote on the company's restructuring proposal.
Every Canadian employee should have the basic democratic right to vote on their own future and the futures of their families.
My question is to the parliamentary secretary. Does the government agree that Canadian's employees, in particular the members
of the CAW and CUPE, should be permitted to vote directly on the company's restructuring proposal?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes we do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are glad to hear that. Flight attendants and ticketing agents at Canadian are demanding a vote on the company's restructuring proposals but their own union bosses are refusing to let them exercise their democratic right.
Buzz Hargrove does not work at Canadian. He does not have a personal stake in whether the airline succeeds or fails and he does not appear to care. Canadian employees must have the final say on their own jobs and the future of their airline.
Since the parliamentary secretary said he agrees the employees have this right, what specific action is the government taking to ensure that Canadian's employees will be able to vote directly on the company's restructuring proposals?
(1425 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. leader of the third party was listening to the same interview as I was listening to this morning on ``Newsworld''. We probably heard the same thing, that some of the employees were talking about how they have been trying to contact their leadership at the Canadian auto workers.
First, the CUPE employees have been told apparently that they will be able to have their vote on December 7. They believe that is too late and they would like to get on with the opportunity of voting tomorrow if possible.
Mr. Hargrove's job is not on the line, according to the employee on ``Newsworld'' this morning, that he is ignoring the facts, he has not done the due diligence search on the books of Canadian that the pilots union and the largest union, the machinists union, have done. They say that the threat is real. Mr. Hargrove is doing what he is doing despite the fact that quite apparently his membership wants the opportunity to have that vote on this restructuring package.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether this position is the position of the employees. My question was what is the government going to do about it to ensure that their rights are exercised.
There is a section in the Canadian Labour Code, section 108.1, that authorizes the Minister of Labour to direct that a vote of the employees be held on a collective bargaining agreement offer by an employer if it is deemed to be in the public interest.
Surely it is in the public interest that Canadian Airlines employees be permitted to vote directly on a restructuring proposal, but that it does not appear to be covered by the code.
We and the employees of Canadian would appreciate a direct answer to this question. Would the government be willing to introduce forthwith an amendment authorizing the Minister of Labour to direct an employee vote on restructuring offers such as that being put forward by Canadian Airlines to its own employees?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not regular collective bargaining. Therefore the section the member refers to in the Labour Code does not apply in this case.
This is a negotiation between the two parties. Therefore the Minister of Labour has no authority to intervene. It is up to management and the unions to decide and find the necessary procedure to have a vote on this matter.
However, if both parties would like me to intervene, on their request I would be glad to and I am ready to appoint a mediator so they can facilitate their negotiations.
We have just learned that the space agency chairman, Mr. Evans, is claiming monthly rental fees of $1,300 for a luxurious apartment in Montreal. In addition, Mr. Evans has the use of an official car to travel between Saint-Hubert and Montreal on a regular basis.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, while all employees of the space agency are required to live in Montreal, the agency chairman does not, although he is provided with a $1,300 a month apartment at taxpayers' expense?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that relocated employees usually have the option of changing their place of residence. But the Treasury Board manual does provide for some exceptions on the basis of a number of objective factors that I would like to outline.
Under section 5.9.1 of the personnel management manual, there are cases in which employees are required to live outside their metropolitan or headquarters area for a number of months or years. The Deputy Minister must consider all aspects of the employee's situation, including the length of stay, family considerations, whether the employee rents or owns, to determine if it is practical,
more economical and less disruptive for the family to help the employee maintain a second residence or to authorize relocation.
In this case, relocation costs would have been much higher than the rental subsidy.
(1430)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is it then that all other employees are required to live in Montreal, save one, a former advisor to the Minister of Industry, namely Mr. Evans, who receives special compensation? This is outrageous, especially since Mr. Evans earns between $117,000 and $142,000 a year.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, this is not a special situation. There is a Treasury Board regulation authorizing the Deputy Minister to make a choice and determine the employee's conditions of employment.
In this case, not only must the employee work in Ottawa two days a week, but his spouse works in Ottawa and they have young children. There is no doubt in my mind that the Treasury Board policy was properly interpreted and applied.
The Reform Party has offered to facilitate the government's passing amendments immediately and as quickly as possible to extend the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that allow a democratic vote of the workers of Canadian on the offer of the management on the basis of public interest.
There are provisions in the code right now that are too narrow for that but we would certainly be willing to extend them to these circumstances. Would the Minister of Labour be prepared to do that forthwith?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, right now there is a labour code that has been in the county for over 20 years. I would like to remind the member that we are in the process of amending the existing legislation which is before the committee. Therefore we are following the regular process.
Let me remind this House that what we are arguing about is not a collective bargaining system that we know and that we are trying to improve. Restructuring a company is a business transaction and both parties should find a way to reach an agreement without the government's having to intervene all of the time.
I am surprised that the Reform Party would ask such a question when not long ago the critic of labour for the Reform Party said that we should get rid of the Minister of Labour and any labour department. Now it is asking the Minister of Labour to intervene right away. Those members should make up their minds.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for is for the employees of Canadian Airlines themselves to be able to intervene in their own future rather than take the 100 per cent pay cut that some of their union leaders seem to want them to take.
Does the minister not realize that we have a public and pressing interest here? We do not have time for the games. The future of the company and jobs are at stake. We do not have time for a lengthy mediation. Will he introduce in this House legislation that will allow the workers to speak on their own economic future?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in case the Reform members did not understand, I will repeat this is not a collective agreement negotiation. This is a restructuring business plan. I do not think it is the business of the government to interfere in the relationship between the membership of the unions and its leadership. Let the membership take care of its own leadership problems.
Monday, in the House, I asked the Minister to tell us when the new employment insurance regulations would be ready and available. He replied, and I quote: ``I looked, among other things, at some interpretation documents concerning the act that will ensure everyone can properly inform beneficiaries in the coming weeks''.
(1435)
In light of the serious consequences that the new employment insurance provisions taking effect January 5 can have for unemployed workers, can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us when the regulations will be ready, and whether they will include transitional measures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will shortly be making some very minor administrative changes to the regulations. Now, I would like to reassure the opposition that these changes will in no way affect service to our clients and that the regulations will be
communicated to our offices promptly. But the changes are extremely minor and will not affect service to clients.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the interpretation document the minister has referred to, the following appears, and I quote: ``For claims effective January 5, 1997 or later, a minimum of 910 hours of work is required'' to qualify, in other words, an increase from 26 15-hour weeks to 26 35-hour weeks. For the average person, this is a huge difference.
On January 5, will the minister enforce the legislation as it stands, or will there be transitional measures softening the blow for the average person?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already explained on a number of occasions in the House that the system was of course going to come into effect at the beginning of January, as scheduled. Certain workers will, of course, receive less coverage, but those working under 15 hours will now be covered.
There are people who, until now, were caught in a cycle-
Mrs. Lalonde: That is not what we are talking about.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Be serious for once.
Mr. Pettigrew: But I am perfectly serious. I do not understand why the opposition does not want to hear the answer. They are asking me questions-
Mr. Bellehumeur: That is not what we are asking.
Mr. Pettigrew: The system will take effect at the beginning of January. Interpretation measures have already been communicated to our main offices, and I can assure you that things will go very well.
Since the finance minister is now on side, where is the health minister's anti-smoking bill?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say very soon. Later this day I will be able to provide details in terms of the tobacco strategy of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are making progress. Last week we had a promised announcement; today we will hear about the strategy.
However, Reform is really interested in legislation. When will the government bring this legislation in? Is the minister ready to fast track this legislation so we can get it into law as fast as possible?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and Reform members for giving their support to the government to fast track legislation as it relates to tobacco.
As I said in my first answer, later today I will be able to provide details of the contents of our strategy.
Although the government promised in its red book to attack poverty, never in the entire history of Canada have we had so many children living below the poverty level. The government's action in this area is a miserable failure.
How can the government answer to the citizens of Canada today for its inaction toward child poverty, when even the Minister of Health stated the day before yesterday that this government's actions had not kept pace with its fine words?
(1440)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would most certainly like to thank the opposition for its question, since it will give me the chance to reassure Canadians and to tell them that the first meeting of federal and provincial social affairs ministers, which was touted this morning as the most harmonious federal-provincial meeting in years, specifically addressed the priority we wished to give to children.
That is what we discussed all day yesterday, and we reached a certain consensus on solutions. In fact, yesterday the council of ministers asked some of our officials to prepare options on a system which would specifically benefit children over the next few years.
More than ever before, this federation will be making a very great effort for children in a spirit of co-operation between the provinces and the Government of Canada.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Yet, Mr. Speaker, the premier of Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, said yesterday that the problem would be far less crucial if the federal government had made fewer cuts in transfer payments to the provinces.
Will the minister admit that the cuts in social transfers have only increased child poverty, despite what he says?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate this somewhat offensive rhetoric, considering the great importance of child poverty, but this is no laughing matter.
What took place yesterday was a remarkable consensus between the provinces and the federal government. What we have done today is serious work, not petty rhetoric. The Government of Canada has doubled the income supplement for low income families. We have introduced an employment insurance program which includes measures to put Canadians back to work faster and to protect low income recipients with children.
Our government spends $5 billion a year on Canada's children. That is what we are doing.
Last year the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the Tobacco Products Control Act. With 40,000 Canadians dying prematurely every year and $3.5 billion in direct health care costs to Canadians, the toll of tobacco on society is clear.
Can the Minister of Health tell the House when he will bring forward new legislation to deal with this issue, the health of Canadians and the tobacco industry?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has long been an advocate of new tobacco legislation.
As I said earlier in question period, later this day we will be providing the details of our tobacco strategy with the provision of notice for the purpose of tabling the bill. We hope to be able to table the bill early next week.
We were told when Canada signed the softwood lumber deal with the United States that it was because the industry wanted it. However, there is growing evidence that lumber companies are unhappy with this deal. Many companies are facing bankruptcy because of inadequate or no quota. Others are facing shutdown and job losses, all at the same time that the government is realizing increased taxes through penalties charged on softwood lumber companies.
When will the government admit it was wrong to accept the export caps and scrap the softwood lumber deal?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that a better rendering of the history of the agreement on softwood lumber would demonstrate that it was arrived at through a full, deep and engaging consultation with all the softwood lumber firms that closed. The proposals that were put on the table were really a product of the companies themselves.
(1445 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the trade minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were consulting, but it certainly was not the hundreds of companies that are feeding information to us that they are in serious trouble because of this deal.
A recent survey we conducted shows the industry is ready to fight this case instead of living with the quota system. They want the government to scrap this deal and if the United States countervails us, to fight this at the World Trade Organization. Will the minister commit to that?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the establishment of a quota system put limits on the amount that could be exported to the United States; limits that were at historically high levels.
Many of the companies went ahead and used up their full quota before the year was out. The minister has already put in place a reserve bank which companies can draw on to increase their production.
The reality is that the provincial governments that were involved representing the lumber interests, the companies and the industry affiliations were all deeply involved in coming up with a plan. They cannot change their mind half way through the course. They have to live with the consequences because it was their decision to make.
The Program for Older Worker Adjustment, funded jointly by the provinces and the federal government, helps older workers who are victims of mass layoffs. The federal government has informed the provinces that POWA will end on March 31, 1977. Ottawa will accept no new applications, but has agreed to honour its financial obligations in cases currently being processed.
Knowing that the workers of the Peerless company, considered eligible for the POWA program by the Canada-Quebec joint analysis committee, are still awaiting their benefits because Ottawa is refusing to release the funds, would the minister confirm that applications made by older workers between the announcement of
the government's withdrawal from this program and March 31, 1997 will be honoured?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to first reject the totally inappropriate introduction by the opposition member on my lack of compassion for children. I can tell you that yesterday was a great day for children in Canada and I am delighted to have been part of it, despite the rhetoric the other side takes such pleasure in.
The federal-provincial program you mention was so successful that its budget was used up much more quickly than planned. It is also a fact that not all provinces participated and that certain provinces do not want us to continue.
I too am concerned about the future of POWA. It is however a program that will have to be terminated. In the coming years, the less populous provinces-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that although the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the SQDM, has already set money aside, more than 500 workers currently eligible for the program will be deprived of benefits because he is not honouring his financial commitment to POWA? That is the reality.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would the Government of Quebec like to continue the program? It would be interesting to find out. What I can say is that up to now only the more populous provinces have agreed to take part and that the less populous regions have been put at a disadvantage by the system.
The Government of Canada is trying to find another way to help older workers, which will be fairer to all regions, because too many of them are not participating in the system at the moment.
[English]
American consumers want this bad deal cancelled because according to the American National Association of Home Builders, the deal is costing Americans $3,000 more to build a house. Canadians want the deal cancelled because mills are forced to shut down, costing Canadian jobs.
The only group benefiting from this softwood lumber deal is the American lumber lobby, the same group the government caved in to during negotiations.
Will the minister take steps to immediately cancel the softwood lumber deal with the United States?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the prescription offered by the hon. member would create total chaos and disruption in one of the most important dollar earning export markets in Canada. It is simply a recommendation of lunacy.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister should listen to my colleagues on this side: 600 jobs in one riding, 400 jobs in another riding. If chaos is being introduced, he has introduced it. Cancel the lumber deal. Cancel it now.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to see any germ of a question in the hon. member's outburst.
However, I remind him that this is a multi-billion dollar industry which provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. To provide an orderly arrangement with our largest customer requires us to play by the rules. We know that the Reform Party is not used to playing by the rules. They do not even know there are rules.
If we are going to protect the industry and protect the jobs, we must make sure that the rules are honoured. Those rules were arrived at in full consultation with the provinces and the industry involved. That is why we intend to keep the rules in place.
In his discussions with the provinces regarding the transfer of labour market training to the provinces, has the minister taken steps to ensure that the principles of the Official Languages Act will continue to apply? Does he have an assurance that francophones outside of Quebec will continue to be able to get their training in French and anglophones in Quebec to get their training in English?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the concerns about official languages generated by the Government of Canada's proposal for an expanded role for the provinces in the design and delivery of labour market programs.
I am very confident that the necessary safeguards have been put in place to ensure the linguistic needs of Canadians will be met
under the new arrangement. Actually, the Employment Insurance Act provides for: ``the availability of assistance under the benefit and measures in either official language, where there is significant demand for that assistance in that language, no matter who delivers the program''.
[Translation]
So I am fully confident that the current round of negotiations with the provinces will be a unique opportunity to improve employment services for Canadians and to deliver labour market development programs targeted to the needs of Canadians in this new economy.
Last Wednesday, in response to a question about the Singer company, the minister claimed that lawyers from the department were engaged in talks and would be reporting to him by the end of the week. The minister also promised to report to this House. Clearly the minister spends too much time talking and not enough time on his files.
Considering that so far, counsel for the retired employees has not been approached, could the minister now tell us what the government's position will be in the dispute between the government and the retired Singer employees?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was given a report on the Singer company which I have not had time to read yet. In fact, what I spent too much time doing was discussing child poverty with the provinces all day yesterday in the council of federal and provincial ministers, all of which took place in a great spirit of co-operation.
(1455)
I can assure you that was the situation I talked about all day. Our department is very active, since the recommendation is on my desk, and I will look at it within the next few hours.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister confirmed what I just said. He spends his time talking and does not spend enough time on his files. That is what he does.
This case has been dragging on for years. Three ministers have succeeded each other in this position in three years, and none of them bothered to pay any real attention to this case, and the present minister is no better than his predecessors.
The minister wastes his time moralizing and showing how compassionate he is, but what explanation does he have for his lack of consideration towards a group of retired employees who were given a raw deal and whose average age is 80?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, precisely because I wanted to spend some time on this case, on the substance of the case.
It has now been seven weeks since I became Minister of Human Resources Development. We are busy with negotiations on the transfer of manpower programs, as well as with the social union and the ministerial council. So when people say I waste my time talking, they are wrong. When I do say something, it has to be to the point. That is probably what bothers them. They do not like it when I talk, because we are working on co-operation.
We have a lot of compassion for the Singer employees, and because these workers deserve more than pretty speeches, we will examine the substance of the case.
This has broken in the news. The company has since withdrawn the offer and returned the cheques.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this type of activity is unethical and what steps will she take to make sure that this type of activity is not only unethical but will be illegal in the future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government in no way supports or condones this type of scheme. The government was not aware of it before it came into the press. Revenue Canada has already said it considers this scheme improper and the company has called it off.
I am advised that amendments to the law are not required because the law currently says very clearly that this should not be done.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): The company is certainly fortunate that it broke in the news if that is the case.
I have spoken to officials in Elections Canada and the elections act apparently does not prohibit this type of activity. I would like the minister to consider that.
This type of behaviour is also coercive toward employees. It forces employees to make a choice. The boss says give donations to the Liberal Party and it is written between the lines-you can read it-your future depends on it.
This company received over $1 million in federal contracts. The president of the corporation paid tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party. This thing stinks to high heaven and the minister knows it.
How can the minister make sure that this sort of thing does not happen and what steps will he take to make sure it will not happen in the future?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the election expenses provision of the law is administered by Revenue Canada, as I understand it, when it comes to the matter of income tax receipts and deductions. I am advised that Revenue Canada considers the practice in question improper. They intend to monitor these situations very carefully to help ensure they are not repeated.
As I have said, I am advised that amendments to the law are not necessary. It is very clear that this type of scheme is not supported by the government and Revenue Canada will be following this very closely.
Yesterday Saskatchewan's premier, Roy Romanow, called for immediate federal-provincial action to restore and enrich support for children that have been eroded by deficit cutting measures.
(1500 )
The premier called for a national plan for children modelled on Saskatchewan's, which includes reviewing all legislation for its impact on children, appointing a children's advocate and setting up local children's centres to provide services in health, nutrition, child care, abuse prevention and recreation that are now pieced out to various ministries.
Is the minister, on behalf of the government, prepared to heed the premier's call?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the government is presently answering the needs of children.
Yesterday Mr. Ned Shillington of the Government of Saskatchewan was part of the ministerial council that identified children as the priority of our ministerial council's work. I was extremely pleased with that.
There seems to be a consensus on a national benefit for children. The government will consider it and I will certainly inform my colleagues of the ministerial council's evolution in that favour.
We are extremely pleased at the great mood of co-operation which was a very good start for the ministerial council and I am proud of its priority on children.
All Canadians are pleased to see some positive developments in the great lakes region of Africa, notably the presence of General Baril in Zaire. We are also aware that the minister has participated in intensive consultations on this subject. Could he please tell the House the results of those consultations and what Canada can do to resolve this tragic situation in Africa?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that as of about noon today we have received indications from over 20 countries that they are prepared to work with us and support our proposal to establish a multinational headquarters in Uganda, that we will undertake a capacity for drops for humanitarian purposes and that we will continue to work on reconnaissance missions.
That means we have succeeded in establishing a multilateral mechanism to help in the basic humanitarian needs in that area. With the kind of commitment we have received, plus the work our NGOs are doing in the area, the work of our military, the work of Ambassador Chrétien, Canadians can be very proud that we are in a position to really help the people of central Africa.
The Speaker: Did this take place today during question period?
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, I sent a page to inform you.
The Speaker: Well, if it is something that took place during question period, I recognize the official opposition House leader.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, during the period for members' statements, the member for Saint-Denis made some remarks about me that were inaccurate, accusing me of having used my householder, and therefore government money, my position and my budget as an MP to support my wife in a school board election in Montreal. This is not true.
For one thing, my wife's name has never been mentioned in any of my householders, and for another, the electoral territory of my wife, who is a school trustee in Montreal, is completely separate from my electoral territory. As a result, my householder could not reach my wife's potential voters. I therefore ask the member to withdraw her remarks, which are inaccurate.
The Speaker: Was this in a statement?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, in a member's statement such as that, it is sometimes one member's opinion against another's.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(1505)
The Speaker: I do not wish to start a debate. The hon. member for Saint-Denis is here. I do not wish to see a debate, so if she wishes to-
Mr. Bellehumeur: She should apologize.
The Speaker: No? So that is the way it is.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, it will be a free-for-all in here.
The Speaker: I see that, when there are statements, your speaker cannot always know what is going on everywhere in the country. We have had a statement by an hon. member and another who says that this was not correct.
In my opinion, this is something-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: The hon. member has had the chance to correct it, and I gave him the chance to speak. In my opinion, this is not a question of privilege.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: In our debates here in the House, there are always two points of view on almost everything. If the hon. member has something to add, he may do so very briefly, but this is not a question of privilege. I am, however, giving him a few seconds.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member maintains what she has said, let her do it from her seat, for she lied.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Denis made a statement in the period allotted for Statements by Members. What I heard of the statement I found to be legitimate. She did not use any unparliamentary language.
(1510 )
Statements by members are opinions of one member speaking in the House according to the fact as she knows them. I heard the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie saying that the facts were inexact and of course when one hon. member stands in this place we take his or her word on the facts.
However, perhaps in my leniency because I want to clear this up, I made the decision and I have given my decision that it is not a point of privilege. At that point, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie rose to his feet and he did use language which was unparliamentary.
This Speaker does not judge the content of any statements that are made here, but you have given the responsibility to your Speaker to decide what language is acceptable and therefore parliamentary or unparliamentary.
I find that the words ``elle a menti'', ``she lied'', are not acceptable in this House. I implore the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois to please withdraw those words ``elle a menti''. The point was made as to what he wanted to do. I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw those words.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I will never put up with hypocrisy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
The Speaker: I address myself directly to you, my colleague, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. This is no longer a question of what one member said or what another member said.
(1515 )
My colleague, we surely do not want to precipitate the crisis which would prohibit the House from continuing with its work for the day.
The hon. member suggests it was a personal attack. I will undertake later on in the day to review the blues to see if it was a personal attack. In the meantime, my colleague, it is no longer a question of whether it was a personal attack, what was said and what was not said, it is a request from your Speaker to withdraw the words ``elle a menti''.
I would once again ask the hon. member if he would withdraw those words so that we can get on with the business of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, in light of your decision to reconsider the matter, to study the statements made, I withdraw my words and we shall reconsider our attitude, subsequent to your decision, in the period for Statements by Members. We shall act as we feel we should, otherwise we will act like her.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for withdrawing his words. We are now ready to get down to work.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with the business already listed. Tomorrow will be the day allotted for final consideration of the third reading stage of Bill C-29.
Next week it will be December which means that there are only two weeks until the date on which this House is scheduled to begin its year end adjournment. In order to be helpful to the House, I wish to indicate our priorities for this period.
On Monday at noon the government shall propose concurrence in a number of notices of way and means. It appears that it will be necessary for the House to consider again in accordance with section 47 of the Constitution Act 1982 the resolution regarding the terms of union with Newfoundland. This will be the subject of debate on Monday.
Among the bills to be introduced on Monday on the basis of the notice of ways and means will be the bill regarding sales tax harmonization. It is our intention to commence debate on second reading of this bill on Tuesday.
Early next week we expect the report of the finance committee on its prebudget consultations. As usual we intend to set aside two days for a prebudget debate.
Those are our three priorities for December. As hon. members know, there is a long list of 32 bills awaiting consideration, including 14 bills in committee and nine bills at report stage or at third reading. Whenever we have the time during the next two weeks, we will also attempt to make progress on these measures and we will encourage the committees to attempt to do the same.
I am saying this not as a form of pressure but in order to permit members to make their plans. As matters now stand, it does not appear it will be in the public interest for the House and especially its committees to expect to go from December 13 to February 3 without sitting for legislative work.
(1520 )
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to facilitate our planning in the Reform Party and to assist the government as much as we can, my understanding is that the Minister of Health will be introducing a major piece of legislation on Tuesday, the tobacco legislation.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to indicate whether there is any other legislation like that or major bills yet to be introduced that we are not aware of so that we can work them into the plans of the House and facilitate things the best we can.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I have nothing further to add other than what I said in the business statement.