[Translation]
of Human Resources Development. Yesterday, in fact, this minister told my colleague from Mercier that the transition period in the new employment insurance program had started in January. He said:
It is time the hon. member for Mercier realized that the reason why some provisions of the act were implemented on July 1 while others will take effect January 1 is precisely to give people time to adjust to the reform.Now, there is a little problem; it would be hard to have something in application since January 1, when the act was passed in June. The minister has a problem. In the spirit of fair play, however, I will give him the chance to correct himself today. Yesterday he told us that there would be changes to the regulations, which he described as minor, in order to effect the transition between the old and the new systems.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm that these minor changes to which he referred include a hypothesis that, effective January 5 and for the application of the new system, weeks worked prior to December 1996 are all deemed to have been 35 hours in length for the purposes of eligibility for the new system? Can the minister tells us whether or not this measure exists?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday on the employment insurance reform is that, for several months, our government has been working very hard to inform Canadians so that they may adjust to the new system.
We have run a national advertising campaign for Canadians since this past July 1. We have set up a 1-800 line so that Canadians can get information on the conditions of this employment insurance reform. We have printed a leaflet announcing passage of the legislation, which was mailed out to all recipients in July. We have, therefore, fully done our duty in informing people about the new system to start this coming January.
What we want is for Canadians who work part time to be covered, starting January 1, from the first hour worked, because we see this as a reform of considerable interest to a great number of Canadians.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have a big problem here in the House, and the minister has a really big one. The minister tells us that the government is doing its best to inform Canadians. Could the minister start by informing the House, since he is being asked questions.
I will ask him very, very precisely what we want to know. I cannot speak to him directly. I will do it through yourself, Mr. Speaker; however, I would like him to listen in order to understand the question. Can the minister tell us whether he is, or is not, in the process at this time of examining the hypothesis of a transition which would consider all hours worked during 1996 as 35-hour weeks? Is he, or is he not? That is the only thing we want to know.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not my habit to comment on each and every hypothesis which could have been presented to me on what the Leader of the Opposition tells us.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a system which represents the bread and butter of a good many Canadian families starting in January.
(1425)
Huge numbers of people are in danger of being excluded from the system by the transition rules, which would appear to require 35-hour weeks. Huge numbers of people will no longer have access to the employment insurance plan. They would qualify under the old system, they would qualify under the new one, but they would not qualify under the transition rules.
First, is the minister aware of this and, second, will he take this into account when making a decision?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, would the opposition be opposed to a system which, in Quebec alone, will enable 73 per cent of employment insurance contributors working for under 35 hours a week at the present time to be eligible? Is he aware that 127,000 Quebec part time workers will, in future, be covered for the first time? Does the opposition not accept a system which will enable 500,000 more Canadians to be covered by the employment insurance system, including 270,000 women? That is what the new system starting up January 1 will be like.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Either the minister does not understand, although there are enough officials in his department to explain the matter to him, or he does not want to understand, which is unfortunate for the Canadians and Quebecers who depend on his judgment. I will try two simple questions.
Does the minister realize that if there are no transitional measures to transform weeks under the old system into hours under the new system, in other words, one week of work equals 35 hours, a young person who worked 26 20-hour weeks in 1996 will not be entitled to employment insurance on January 5, if he loses his job? Does the minister realize that without transitional measures, this young person will go on welfare?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the opposition in fine fettle, despite its lack of programs, especially constructive programs. We will try to do better than the opposition, which is
simply there to obstruct but has nothing to do, obviously, because it will never have to run this country.
What Quebecers want and what all Canadians want is an employment insurance system. A-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish explaining to the opposition that we have five active employment insurance measures aimed at helping people adjust to the new labour market. The transitional measure happens to be one of these five active measures.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on January 5, a pregnant woman goes on maternity leave and reports to a human resources centre after having worked 30 20-hour weeks. According to the legislation in effect in 1996, she qualifies for special so-called pregnancy benefits. Without transitional measures, on January 5, this woman will not be entitled to her pregnancy benefits. The minister can hardly say this is unimportant, that these are minor measures. This is important to the life of the average person. Does the minister realize that?
(1430)
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I realize, first of all, is that a woman in Sydney, Nova Scotia who works 14 hours a week in a department store does not have insurable employment at the present time. Under the new employment insurance system, she will be entitled to benefits after 30 weeks.
A father in East Montreal who has three jobs, each of which takes up 14 hours a week, adding up to 42 hours, does not have insurable employment at the present time.
This system wants to encourage people to work and will insure them starting with the first hour worked.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour now ready to intercede and set in place rules that would permit those workers to resolve this issue and to ensure that other people caught in this situation in the future do not have to go through the same pain and anguish that Canadian's unionized employees have been going through?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions during the last few days, I have urged all parties involved to go to the negotiating table with the Canadian alliance and find a negotiated solution.
Unfortunately, we are at an impasse and 16,000 jobs are at stake. That is why I directed the Canada Labour Relations Board to organize a vote for the employees of Canadian Airlines who are members of the Canadian automobile workers union. I directed the board according to the authority given to me under article 17 of the Canadian Labour Code.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government has seen fit to end this problem. I hope that in the future, if these kinds of problems come up, that collectively we will act quicker to save that same pain and anguish.
There is still more to this. I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance. The package that the federal government has provided to Canadian does help. I am pleased to see that something is there, but it is based on the fuel tax. That fuel tax is twice as high in Canada as it is for the American competitors that all Canadian airlines must compete against under open skies.
Will the government reconsider the method by which it is helping and go instead to a straight reduction of fuel taxes so that it applies to all airlines? In that way we do not solve the problems of Canadian and transfer them on to someone else.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the taxation of any entity, one has to take a look at the full range of taxes: payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes and anything else. The taxes levied on Canadian transporters are quite competitive and do not in any way inhibit their situation.
Furthermore, on international routes, the federal government does not impose undue taxation. What the hon. member might want to do is to take a look at the level of provincial taxation.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are looking at provincial taxation. However, I was sent here to represent people at the federal level and not slough it off to the provincial governments.
I would point out that the Minister of Finance certainly started out very correctly when he gave a long list of the taxes that the government levies against companies like Canadian Airlines.
(1435 )
Rather than tell us what we already know, that Canadian pays a lot of taxes in a lot of categories, will the minister re-examine the
tax on aviation fuel and go for an across the board reduction in the name of fairness to all Canadian aviation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two questions here. One is the question of fuel taxes and taxes generally which has been answered by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
However, it is important for us to remember, including the hon. member whom I commend for his interest in this issue, that Canadian Airlines is not yet in a position where it is assured of success. Ten organizations, five of them unions, three of them governments and two companies are on side. We trust that a vote of the members of the auto workers union who are employed by Canadian Airlines will have a positive result. Of course we are not sure. We do not know how they will vote.
I would remind all members of the House that this company has had five weeks of uncertainty. It has had five weeks of problems, ranging from creditors on the one side to bookings on the other. If Canadian is to survive it needs the co-operation of all parties to move forward with the restructuring proposal to turn from a company which had chronic losses that totalled over $1.3 billion to one in the black which makes money.
To continue with his example of the woman in Sydney, I would ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to explain how this person will manage to qualify for employment insurance, when no employer recorded the number of hours worked in 1996?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was explaining that we have a new system where we are trying to break with the old methods. Can the opposition not accept the fact that we are really trying to adapt to a new labour market and that, necessarily, the new system is much fairer and more equitable in our opinion, because it will insure people from the first hour, from January 1, 1997.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us take this calmly and explain matters to the new minister. In the example he himself gave us a few minutes ago, the minister said that the woman would now be eligible for employment insurance on the basis of the hours she worked. We know that her hours have to be indicated in order for the Canada employment centre to process her application.
In 1996, no employer was equipped to count the hours employees worked. The application was based on the number of weeks worked. How will they know this woman worked 720 hours? There is no way of knowing.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who are covered by employment insurance in 1996 will continue to be covered and will not lose their coverage as of December 31, 1996. I think this is important.
On the other hand, we can also inform. The opposition claims I am not familiar with the system. I can tell you that the woman in Sydney working 14 hours in a department store will be insured after 30 weeks.
(1440)
The young father of a family in Montreal East, whom I mentioned earlier, holds three jobs and works 14 hours a week at each and is not insured. He will be, after the 11th week. The system is much more suited to things as they are at the moment and is far and away more interesting than the old system the opposition clings to in its retrograde reveries.
The Krever inquiry and the victims of tainted blood want to get to truth. I ask the Prime Minister, who was deputy prime minister in August 1984, will he release all the documents and the draft legislation from 1984 to Justice Krever, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has replied to that question many times in the House of Commons. We were very unhappy with the situation that existed at that time. There is an inquiry which we hope will be able to report soon. Then improvements can be made to the legislation so the same mistakes will not be repeated.
As far as the cabinet documents are concerned, according to the law of the land there is a limit. I did not pass this law. The law is there and we will respect the law. I am very surprised that the member is asking us not to respect the law.
The minister at the time, Madam Bégin, said that she is willing to testify. I do not know why the release of cabinet documents, if they exist, will help. I think the judge has all the things he needs to make a report and help us ensure the problems do not recur.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is hiding behind excuses. First of all, the Canada Evidence Act is discretionary. He could choose to change that and release those documents if he wanted to. It is as simple as that.
Second, when he talks about Monique Bégin, she has already said, and documents were uncovered yesterday, that the Deputy Prime Minister was incorrect in that. She said that she had refused frankly to testify. So those excuses simply do not wash.
Justice Krever wants the documents and tainted blood victims want answers. That is all there is to it. That is all those people want. It is up to the Prime Minister now to decide whether he will release those documents or continue to hide behind those flimsy excuses.
Will the Prime Minister release the documents or will he continue to hide the truth. Just like John Turner in 1984, you have a choice, sir.
The Speaker: Colleagues, you will address yourselves to me, please, in all the questions. I will permit the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer if he so chooses.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Turner was the prime minister for three months and Parliament was not in session at that time. After that it was Mr. Mulroney. I am not here to protect anybody in that.
There is a law of the land that protects cabinet documents. All the documents the law authorized us to give to the judge were given to the judge. We hope he will be able to report and make the recommendations needed so we can improve the situation.
The Minister of Health in collaboration with his provincial colleagues already moved on the problem even before the judge made his report.
A young worker loses his job on December 31, 1996, having worked 26 fifteen-hour weeks. The minister must know, at least I hope he does, that this young man is eligible for employment insurance. Right? His neighbour loses his job on January 5, after working 26 fifteen-hour weeks.
(1445)
I would like the minister to tell us whether or not this person will be eligible for employment insurance. This is not too complicated: Will six days make a difference in the way these two employees of the same company will be treated, yes or no? That question is clear enough, I hope.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the interest shown by the opposition today. This is indeed a system I want to draw attention to.
What this worker will get when he meets with his employment officer at the HRD centre-I wish to acknowledge the excellent job these people are doing in all our ridings-is someone who will have enough common sense and skill under the regulations we are developing to be able to assess the number of hours of work accumulated in the past year.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this officer will certainly have more sense than this minister, I have no doubt about that, because the minister is unable to answer a question in this place.
He would not be fit to do the job of a government employee, who, I am sure, will be able to answer questions, provided that the minister has given him clear instructions, which does not seem to be the case. Either no instructions were given, or the minister is not aware of them.
I would like to put another question to the minister, since I did not get an answer to the first one. If a person who juggles three jobs, three 16-hour jobs, as mentioned by the minister, has to quit one of them, because working 48 hours a week at three jobs is not easy, is it not true that this person will be disqualified for quitting his or her job? Yes or no? I ask him to answer me as a government employee would, not as a Liberal minister.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): There we have it, Mr. Speaker. The opposition has objected to any change to an employment insurance system that is much more interesting. Those people voted against spending $800 million on active measures to help workers get back to work.
This is a government that adjusts to the modern economy. The opposition party, on the other hand, has rejected every effort to reform the system, when we were trying to include the part time workers the people opposite are referring to. That is what the opposition is capable of.
[English]
The tainted blood tragedy could have been prevented by those regulations.
The Prime Minister says he has nothing to hide. All we ask is that he put those documents on the table so he can prove that he has nothing to hide, because the law gives him discretion.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the law is clear. We do not have the right under the law to make public cabinet documents produced under previous prime ministers. The law is very clear on that.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Evidence Act clearly gives discretion to the Prime Minister. It does not preclude those documents being released at all.
In fact, Krever tried to get Monique Bégin to testify at the inquiry. Her lawyer said ``no way''. Let us get that excuse out of the way as well. Now the Prime Minister, as we look for open disclosure, is saying ``no way''.
Will the Prime Minister make the right decision this time and release those documents of truth to Krever?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to that question.
[Translation]
In its report tabled in October, the Liberal task force on people with disabilities recommended that the federal government continue to financially support national organizations for people with disabilities. In its report, the group said that the federal government's commitment in that respect should include, but not be limited to, core funding totalling $5 million per year.
Can the minister tell us if this recommendation means that the financing of all organizations promoting the rights of people with disabilities will be restored to pre-1994 levels?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before answering the opposition member's question, I should first congratulate the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, and all the members of his task force whose exceptional work contributed to a greater understanding of people with disabilities.
I must tell you that the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and myself were impressed by the quality of their work. The recommendation regarding the financing of organizations for people with disabilities was taken under consideration and we will follow up on it at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is unbelievable. I have never seen such a bad performance in the House before. The minister can congratulate his colleagues, he can tell me to get lost, but when it comes to people with disabilities, we expect action from the government, not just lip service.
Let the minister wait. I am not through with my question. In any case, we are in no hurry, because we will not get an answer. Will the minister admit that his inaction amounts to shelving the report of his Liberal colleagues and confirms his contempt for the needs of people with disabilities?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, comments by the opposition accusing us of showing contempt for people with disabilities are totally uncalled for. The reason people have so little respect for politicians is because we do not debate issues more intelligently. I am sorry, but this sanctimonious tone by people who do not even have an agenda is totally uncalled for.
What I can tell you is that I was very proud, last week, when the ministerial council on Canada's social union, which is co-chaired by Minister Stockwell Day, representing the provinces, and myself, made the plight of people with disabilities a top priority. We are looking at the reality faced by these people, because Canada needs their full commitment.
Against all democratic principles, the Serbian government has refused to honour the local elections that recently took place in Belgrade and other cities. Citizens have taken to the streets to demonstrate to show their outrage over abuse of authority.
Could the secretary tell me what our government is doing to defend the rights of citizens of the federal republic of Yugoslavia in order that they may enjoy free and democratic elections?
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is deeply concerned that Belgrade has chosen to ignore accepted international norms for conducting democratic elections.
Today in London at the peace implementation conference for Bosnia, where Serbian leaders were present, the Minister of Foreign Affairs voiced Canada's concern that opposition candidates in Serbia have been deprived of their rightful places on local councils.
(1455)
He also drew attention to the closure by the council of the federal republic of Yugoslavia of independent radio stations, an affront to democratic principles.
In Belgrade Canada's ambassadors conveyed to the government of the federal republic of Yugoslavia our serious concerns. Are you listening?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso): They urged authorities to exercise constraint in dealing with peaceful demonstrations. Canada will continue to follow with great care developments in Serbia. We have made it clear to the government of the federal republic of Yugoslavia that its failure to respect the democratic process and ensure full media freedom could have an impact on the pace and content-
The Speaker: Wonderful Wednesday.
Farmers wanted a more accountable, flexible and transparent wheat board, one they could govern and call their own. Instead, the minister is proposing a powerless, partially elected board where the minister calls the shots.
Ontario wheat boards have had their own farmers direct the boards for many years and, believe it or not, have been able to manage their own affairs.
Why does the minister show such blatant disregard and lack of respect for Canadian farmers by not proposing that they run their own wheat board?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have put before the House of Commons does in fact provide for a more accountable, more flexible, more transparent Canadian Wheat Board, to use the language of the hon. gentleman.
It does call for a majority of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board to be elected by farmers across western Canada and of course the board itself will be accountable to that new board of directors including a producer elected majority.
The fundamental difference between this government and that party is that party has an agenda with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board that would utterly destroy the institution and this government will defend it.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister has read his own bill.
The primary reason to reform the wheat board was to allow farmers to actually manage the board that they pay for. Instead, the minister wishes to retain his tight leash on the board by handing out the key management positions himself. He will appoint the chairman of the board. He will appoint the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister not see that farmers want a board that is accountable to them and not to him?
Why does the minister feel that a farmer elected board of directors is incapable of choosing its own chairman and selecting and hiring its own CEO?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fundamental point is that the direction and control of the Canadian Wheat Board will be placed in the hands of a board of directors, the majority of which will be producer elected across western Canada. The hon. gentleman fundamentally misunderstands corporate governance.
For a number of months now, the disabled have run up against the inflexibility of Revenue Canada officials in the application of the disability tax credit and a number of other tax measures affecting them. The official opposition voted in favour of a Liberal motion that should serve as a guide to the government if it truly wishes to respect the disabled.
Given the obvious and urgent need to review all tax measures that affect the disabled, what recommendations will the minister make to her colleague, the Minister of Finance, in order to resolve this unacceptable situation?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the disability tax credit. As I have mentioned several times in the House, my department is
working proactively and co-operatively with people who have made applications for that particular credit. The advice and direction has been given to our tax centres across the country to deal in a humane and compassionate way with individuals who have had complexities and difficulties with the department on this particular tax credit. But we apply the law as it stands right now.
(1500)
As my hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, mentioned just a few moments ago, he along with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and myself will be responding to a very good and thorough report presented to us by members of our caucus with specific focus on ways to improve those programs that we have to help Canadians with disabilities to participate actively and as full citizens in our country.
Does the minister condone the actions of his officials and, if not, what is he going to do about it?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and this House know that this is a court ruling and I am not going to comment on that.
Could the secretary of state tell the House how status of women is helping Canada become a better society for all Canadians?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only that but the critic also said that she did not think women needed special programs.
This is a country in which 90 per cent of families headed by women are poor. This is a country in which one woman is shot every six days.
The hon. member does not even understand the status of women in this country. Canada is a country that believes in removing the barriers to every individual so they achieve their potential and be able to be independent contributors to society.
This is what status of women does. It is a pity that Reform Party members do not even understand that fundamental value.
Will the Minister of the Environment reaffirm his personal commitment today and tell the House and the people of Canada that on December 12 he will acknowledge that Canada is not doing enough and that he will talk about concrete measures which will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions to ensure Canada meets its international obligations by the year 2005?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question. It was the federal government at the recent CCME meeting of federal-provincial ministers of the environment that put climate change on the agenda in preparation for the meeting that my colleague, the natural resources minister, and I will attend.
We have been very clear and transparent with the Canadian public that we made international commitments in 1992, as did the international community, and it is time that the international community meets its obligations.
We have also said that Canada, together with most of the world, is falling behind in meeting those obligations. It is imperative that the federal government, together with the provincial government ministers of the environment and energy try to do everything in their power to come up with new initiatives to improve the voluntary program so we can, together with the world, meet our obligations together with industry and the NGO community.
(1505)
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
I would also like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Standing Order 37(1) which states:
Questions on matters of urgency may, at the time specified in Standing Order 30(5), be addressed orally to Ministers of the Crown, provided however that, if in the opinion of the Speaker a question is not urgent, he or she may direct that it be placed on the Order Paper.The Order Paper allows, immediately following question period, for the tabling of documents and statements by ministers.
It was quite obvious from the question posed and the response by the parliamentary secretary that this was a pre-planned and orchestrated question and answer to get the information out on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not think that it was a matter of urgency if it was orchestrated and pre-planned, as it obviously was.
Since we are now moving into Routine Proceedings, that would allow the government to table that particular document. I think this type of information should be tabled at the appropriate time and question period is not the appropriate time.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I would submit that is not a point of order. If the member wishes to have a better read of what was offered by the parliamentary secretary he could read Hansard tomorrow. It will be there word for word verbatim.
The Deputy Speaker: Urgency is something in the eye of the beholder. The ``blues'' will be available and as there has been a change in Speaker I will ask that the ``blues'' be referred to His Honour the Speaker who was here earlier during question period.