Not only are families not getting any richer, but their average income has gone down by $2,800 since 1989, and this is before the new EI system comes into the picture and further reduces their standard of living.
Is the Prime Minister aware that it is incumbent on him as Prime Minister to do a little more for the poor than wish them ``Good luck'', which was all he had to say the other evening on television to those seeking work?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we said when we formed the government was that we had a terrible situation on our hands.
The government found itself facing an annual deficit of $42 billion. If we had not taken steps to correct this situation, there was a danger that the social programs that exist for the protection of the poorest members of Canadian society might disappear.
We took the bull by the horns-
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes we did, and we sorted out the problem of the deficit better than people thought we would.
What we are seeing today is that, in order to be able to create jobs so that people in difficulty can provide their families with the necessities of life, we must contend with the lowest interest rates in 40 years. We have an economy with the lowest rate of inflation in many years. The conditions are there for the economy to create the jobs that will make it possible for the most disadvantaged members of society to provide for their families, in particular their children, as they would like, in so far as possible.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat unfortunate that the Prime Minister sees it as a choice between reducing the deficit and helping people find work.
We have explained to him how taxation reform alone would free up $3 billion for active job creation. We are not criticizing the Prime Minister for trying to reduce the deficit. We are, however, criticizing his lack of imagination when it comes to creating jobs and helping people find work.
The Prime Minister was outraged when former Prime Minister Kim Campbell said during an election campaign that the rate of unemployment in Canada would not drop below 10 per cent. The Prime Minister had a lot to say about that on the campaign trail. Is the Prime Minister more comfortable with an unemployment rate of 10 per cent now that he is holding the reins?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in January 1994, the rate of unemployment was 11.5 per cent and it was brought down to 9.4 per cent last year. Unfortunately, it has now gone back up to 10 per cent, but if OECD and IMF forecasts are any indication, we will have the best economic growth of all G-7 countries in 1997.
We believe that the unemployment rate is going to drop. But we have set up programs. For example, despite the financial difficul-
ties faced by the government, we introduced an infrastructure program in our first few months in office. You will recall that Mrs. Campbell said at the time that it was a ridiculous program, and members of this House used the opportunity to-
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you always to address your comments to the Chair.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, through you, I voice my indignation at the government's actions.
Let us jog the Prime Minister's memory. Since the beginning of the year, and I hope the Prime Minister understands what I am getting at, through you, the number of unemployed in Canada has increased faster than the number of new full time jobs: 121,000 more people unemployed, but only 106,000 new jobs. The government is unable to meet the public's needs.
Is the Prime Minister able to understand that, if the situation continues to deteriorate in this way, it is because his government is not guiding the economic recovery, is not stepping in, is creating only a paltry number of jobs, and dead end ones at that, and because, to top it all off, UI cutbacks will take effect in January? This will be a terrible blow to the poorest members of our society, and it is the government's fault.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has got the numbers wrong. Since the beginning of the year, even thouh there has been a loss of around 45,000 jobs in the public sector, over 200,000 new jobs were created in the private sector in Canada.
Furthermore, in the preamble to his first question, the Leader of the Opposition spoke about family income. I would like to tell him that the truth of the matter is that family income has gone up since we came to office in 1993. Before then, family income had dropped dramatically during the recession between 1989 and 1991. But since we have come to office, not only have we halted this decline, but we have seen family income start to climb.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if family income is the topic, family income is $2,800 lower than in 1989. These are Statistics Canada figures.
There are, however, limits to the statistical juggling that can be done, like the Minister of Finance's statement he has just made, telling us we are one of the top countries in the world where job creation is concerned and promising that the situation will improve. There are limits to everything.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What is his answer, he who is so fond of international bodies, to the OECD's statement that Canada ranks 17th out of 26 industrialized countries with its 1996 unemployment rate? What is the Prime Minister's answer to Statistics Canada, which is telling us that there were more newly unemployed people that new full time jobs in 1996? That is what Statistics Canada said.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): I have before me the figures for average family incomes in Canada. In 1989, the average annual family income was $58,000. In 1993, when we came to office after three years of Conservative government, the annual income had dropped from $58,000 to $54,000. Today, it is going back up, at $55,000.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance wants to talk statistics, that is what Statistics Canada is there for. We can see that, for 20 per cent of poorest families, the income is more or less unchanged, and that for the richest families it has risen, while for the middle class it continues to decrease. This is what the Statistics Canada figures show.
I think that the Prime Minister still has a chance to help those who are becoming more and more familiar with poverty, and he can do before certain measures of the new Employment Insurance Act are implemented.
My question is for the Prime Minister.
(1425)
Could he not suspend implementation of employment insurance reform measures which end up impoverishing the unemployed by taking billions of dollars away from them in order to wipe the deficit slate of the Minister of Finance clean?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are measures to that effect. For instance, the changes we have proposed concerning employment legislation. We have guaranteed a 25 per cent minimum to families, which is a far better guarantee than the one in place before, because we are concerned about their situation.
Unemployment, job security, the GST and national unity are the concerns of real Canadians. The questions raised at the town hall do reflect the worries and anger felt by 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed.
Does the Prime Minister really think the CBC rigged that town hall and that Canadians are not really concerned about jobs, about taxes, and about national unity?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the town hall was rigged. It is the first time that a Prime Minister has gone on a program like that for an hour in French and an hour in English. If I was afraid to face the situation, I could very easily have stayed at home. I am not afraid to talk to the Canadian people.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I replied to all their questions. I told them that it is not easy to run a country. When we started as a government three years ago the people were telling us that Canada was virtually a third world country in terms of its finances. But I was happy to report to the people of Canada that night that now we are considered the best of the G-7 because we took the challenge.
I do not deny that there were people there who would like to work but cannot find a job. We are working on that. It is our priority. That is why we have established programs to improve the situation. Another credit to the nation is that Canada created 672,000 new jobs in the last three years. But that is not enough. We have to keep working on that and it is exactly what we will do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we find it curious that the Prime Minister's colleagues stood when he said he should have stayed at home.
Canadians have every right to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his broken campaign promises on the GST. But that is extremely difficult when the Prime Minister's handlers keep him in a bubble, away from the public. We can understand why they do that, because the last time they let him out he attacked a demonstrator, told a bunch of kids in Winnipeg about imaginary friends and he ended up abusing Canadians at a town hall meeting.
(1430 )
The Speaker: I would invite the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to put his question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is not afraid to attend town hall meetings, will he assure the House and all Canadians that he will not retreat back into his bubble, that he will present himself at more town hall meetings and public forums where Canadian voters can hold him accountable for his actions and his deeds?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not long ago I was challenged by his seatmate. We have a debate here every week and I am in the House more than many other members of Parliament.
With regard to the preamble to his question, it is no wonder the leader of the third party is affected because the support which the people of Canada have for him is going down month after month.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the issue here is accountability. The Prime Minister should expect to be held accountable to the 1.5 million unemployed for saying: ``That's life, lots of luck, try harder''.
In the last election when Kim Campbell said that unemployment would remain at double digits until the next century, she accepted the unacceptable and paid the price. By saying ``that's life'' to 1.5 million unemployed, the Prime Minister is also accepting the unacceptable and he will pay the price.
Does the Prime Minister, like Kim Campbell, consider the present levels of unemployment acceptable and the status quo is good enough? Is that the real reason he rejects public criticism of his jobs policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we came to power the first thing we did was have an infrastructure program to create jobs. That was strongly opposed by the Conservatives. As the House will recall, it was opposed by the hon. member who is the leader of the third party.
After the program was established he was the first one to come to the government for money to create jobs in Calgary. I do not blame him, but it shows that as long as there are people who want to work, this government will be working to create jobs for them.
On Tuesday, the Minister of Industry tried to downplay the serious allegations against the president of the space agency and his executive vice-president. The minister wanted to put the blame on Mario Rinaldi, the former vice-president and comptroller of the space agency. In fact, the latter was fired for having criticized a number of dubious practices at the space agency.
Does the minister admit that Mario Rinaldi, then vice-president and comptroller of the space agency, was suspended from his position because he revealed some dubious practices of his executive vice-president, Alain Desfossés, to Mr. Evans, president of the agency?
(1435)
[English]
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, it is clear that the allegations the hon. member keeps making are in fact the complaints of a discontented former employee of the agency, one of four vice-presidents-the vice-presidential positions having been eliminated in a reorganization of the agency-who is unhappy because he is no longer employed in the agency.
He has indicated that he wants to take legal action against the Canadian Space Agency. It is his right to do so. In the meantime, it is very inappropriate for a member to make accusations on the floor of the House where people being accused are not in a position to defend themselves. The issues will be resolved in a court of law.
[Translation]
The hon. member must be aware of the fact that everyone has the right to answer charges and to have his day in court.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister hide behind a grievance, when the people against whom these serious allegations were made are still with the space agency, unless he wants to protect his former adviser, Mr. Evans?
[English]
The Speaker: We must not impute motives, my colleagues, in questions.
[Translation]
I would ask the hon. member to please put her question.
Mrs. Venne: This is my question, then. Does the minister want to hide his appointee, Mr. Evans? Does he want to protect Mr. Evans, the person he himself appointed president of the space agency?
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 am quite prepared to defend Mr. Evans because he has not done anything inappropriate.
A few days ago, the hon. member raised a question about the amount, it was about $100-
Some hon. members: Oh,oh.
Mr. Manley: -which was not even been paid. I am sure her constituents are delighted with her concern about the amounts spent by government employees. I am sure her constituents would also be interested to hear this is the same member who filed a claim for expenses totalling nearly $5,000, for a Canada-NATO interparliamentary conference where she did not even attend the conference meetings. She just voted-
Mr. Loubier: Liar.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
The Prime Minister is trying desperately to convince Canadians that he never ever promised to scrap, kill or abolish the GST, but on television, radio and in newspapers he has said quite clearly that he would scrap, kill or abolish the GST. Again I say that tapes do not lie.
As Richard Nixon said in the United States: ``I am not a crook and I did not erase the tapes'', I am sure this Prime Minister wishes desperately he could erase the tapes. He cannot erase the tapes, so why does he not just admit that he blew it and apologize?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish they would quote the whole situation.
For example, yesterday she referred to what I said in the House about killing the GST on May 2, 1994 before we referred the problem to the committee. I said: ``We are trying to change the GST to replace it with a fairer system of taxation''. That is all I said. We referred the problem to the committee and the committee recommended harmonization, which was mentioned in the red book. It was recommended as being the best course to take. A month later, in December of this year, the Reform Party, on page 131 of its minority report, said: ``Integration of the provincial sales tax and the GST and tax in pricing are desirable in principle and Reform has supported this policy''.
In that context we said we would replace the GST with a tax that would be integrated with provincial taxes.
Look at what is happening in Newfoundland, for example. Rather than paying 20 per cent, they will be paying 15 per cent next year under harmonization. That is different from the GST. It is a different tax. It is integrated.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that might get wild cheers from his caucus, but it sure as heck did not go down the other night at the CBC town hall meeting.
On April 26 of this year in this House the finance minister said about the GST: ``We made a mistake. It was an honest mistake''. I think people respect him for that. Even the Deputy Prime Minister admitted that she made a mistake. It took a while, but she finally resigned over the GST. The only person in here who stubbornly
clings to the illusion that the Liberals did not promise to scrap, kill or abolish the GST is the Prime Minister, who is whistling and dancing right now.
Why does the Prime Minister not join with his colleagues, the finance minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, stand and say to this House, say to the CBC so it can be played on the news tonight and say to the people whom he scorned in the town hall meeting the other night: ``I blew it. I am sorry. We made a mistake''?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, virtually every time a member of the Reform Party stands to ask a question, the member contradicts their party's established position.
The Prime Minister yesterday and today read from the Reform Party's report on the GST its unequivocal support for harmonization. He has read its unequivocal support for tax in pricing. Yet day after day members of the Reform Party stand and contradict it.
There is another question the Prime Minister might ask them. Members of the Reform Party stand and say that they would like to see tax cuts. Perhaps the members of the Reform Party would then tell us why is it in their report on the GST that they advocated the base be broadened to tax food and drug products?
The real problem is not the $100 or so that Mr. Evans may have spent, it is the principle. The problem of Mr. Rinaldi, the vice-president, began the day he refused to backdate a document to save Diana Durnford, an employee in the minister's office, from having to pay $557.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1445)
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): My question is this. Why is the minister trying to hide the truth and why is he refusing to have an outside independent investigation so matters could be clarified and people would know once and for all what happened at the space agency?
[English]
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, it is difficult to make anything more banal than the opposition does.
In repeating allegations that were made to the newspapers by a disgruntled former employee of the space agency who is taking his complaints to court, the opposition is continuing to cast aspersions on the characters of people who have done nothing wrong and who are not in a position to defend themselves here.
The member, who ought to know better, just made an allegation with respect to an overpayment of $557.82-just so we have some perspective on the amounts here: $375.85 for unpaid leave and $181.97 for two days of work-to a former agency employee who was subsequently hired in my office as a political adviser. Although the overpayment was a result of paperwork relating to the transfer of the employee from the agency and although the question was in some doubt, because that person is of high character and did not want to be associated with anything that could be embarrassing, she gave the benefit of the doubt to the agency and repaid the amount in question. And these people raise it on the floor of the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, she may have repaid the money, but after the refusal to backdate a document.
What causes concern in all of this is the incestuous relationship between the space agency and cabinet. The minister's adviser left cabinet to go to the space agency, and Diana Durnford left the space agency to join cabinet. The minister's credibility is a source of considerable embarrassment in this matter.
I would like to ask him now, and I hope he listens carefully, whether today, from his seat, he can tell us if he himself looked into Mr. Rinaldi's allegations before saying they were totally false?
[English]
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, of course in my responsibilities as minister I would ask the agency for a full explanation of all of the allegations. I have received that explanation.
I have just described in detail how silly one of the allegations is. The same is characteristic of the allegations that were repeated in previous days by the member for Saint-Hubert. I am satisfied that there is nothing wrong.
However, I point out again that Mr. Rinaldi will have his day in court. If he has been unfairly treated, a court will decide that and I presume he will be rewarded in damages. But in the meantime, to cast aspersions of this sort is simply unfair, unfounded and I would suggest improper.
Today Canadians from coast to coast are calling into question the integrity and credibility of the Government of Canada. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his promise of governing with integrity with his broken GST promise?
(1450 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy he has the red book. He should read the page where we stated we would integrate the GST with the provinces through harmonization. It is stated in the red book and it is exactly what this government is doing at this time. We have signed an agreement with three provinces and are about to sign a fourth one. We are progressing in replacing this tax with an integrated tax.
I gave the example of Newfoundland where the people were paying 20 per cent tax. Next year they will only be paying 15 per cent. This is a change from what existed before. This is exactly what we said we would do in the red book from which the member is reading.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think what is compounding the problem is that the Prime Minister refuses to recognize what his promise was. He has now had the opportunity to review both the audio and video tapes. Not only did he promise Canadians that he would scrap the GST, he also promised caucus on a number of occasions that he would scrap the GST. How does he reconcile his promises to the people of Canada and the caucus with his broken promises?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would turn to the page in the book about the GST and read to the House of Commons what the promise was that this party made to the people of Canada. We always said that we wanted to replace the GST with a harmonized tax. This is exactly what we are trying to do at this time. We are not progressing as fast as we would like.
The Government of Ontario at the beginning of its tenure said it wanted to have the integration of the two taxes but it has not signed yet. Some day Ontario will sign the agreement and will have the same situation as that in the maritimes.
The hon. member cannot even read back to the House of Commons what he campaigned on when he ran in the last election.
The unemployment insurance benefits of workers who were laid off when the Kenworth plant in Sainte-Thérèse closed last April have now run out. What a wonderful Christmas present it would be for these workers to have the plant reopen, now that the unions and the Quebec government have finally reached an agreement with PACCAR. All that is missing is co-operation from Ottawa, without which nothing can happen.
Since this is a matter of some urgency, will the minister undertake to approve before Christmas the financial support required to re-equip the plant and retrain the manpower?
(1455)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we know, discussions have indeed taken place since the Kenworth plant closed. There were discussions in Quebec City between representatives of PACCAR, the Quebec government and the Canadian government, which I represented.
The negotiations are going well. The word is that the end may be in sight. There are still a number of elements regarding the business plans that the Canadian government is waiting for. When we have received all the information, we will be able to make our position known. At this stage, it is too early to take a position.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the unions certainly do not think it would be too early if it happened before Christmas.
One month after the government granted Canadian Airlines a $20 million tax rebate, could the minister show be as understanding about customs duties owed by Kenworth, which stand in the way of the plant reopening?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the official opposition's position difficult to understand. There are several jobs and many families at stake, which makes it an extremely important matter.
Hence the need for negotiation, serious negotiation. There are a number of elements directly involving the Canadian government, be it customs duties or the agreement between Industry Canada and Quebec. We are seriously looking into the matter and, as soon as a position can be defined, we will gladly go ahead, if that is what is called for.
My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What does he intend to do to preserve Radio-Canada International not just for the short term, but for the long term?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize how important it is to have an effective voice for Canada abroad to promote trade, development, culture and the other values of Canada. To pursue that we in the government are working on a broader strategy to use new technologies and all the assets we have. We recognize that Radio-Canada is an important element of that.
In light of the funding changes CBC had to make, we recognize that we have to fill in a gap during the time that we work on the broader strategy. We can say that through the work of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, other ministers and myself, we will be able to provide ongoing funding for RCI and at the same time help it convert to a new instrument for Canada's voice abroad to present Canada in an effective way.
The Globe and Mail told us today that the government is planning to proceed with allowing multiple licensing for fishing on the west coast. The minister of fisheries will know that the fishers on the west coast have indicated they are against this proposal.
With the same enthusiasm that the government called for a vote by the Canadian Auto Workers regarding Canadian Airlines International, will the government now follow suit by agreeing to what the fishers on the west coast and the Government of British Columbia are calling for, which is to have a vote before the government proceeds with this issue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the Fryer report which was released today. It talks about a number of things and a number of areas in which action should be taken in support of the fishermen, the fish and the coastal communities.
I have to tell the hon. member that he did not put all the information to the House. The recommendation made by Mr. Fryer, who was the third independent party, essentially was that there was an agreement reached on November 27 among the three parties, federal, provincial and the third party, that a vote would take place. But that vote would take place at the end of 1997, not now.
(1500 )
The Speaker: That completes question period for today. I do not know when the session is going to end, but should it end tomorrow, then this would be the last Thursday of this year that we have together.
In the spirit of the season I would invite all of you to a very small reception which I will be having in Room 216 from about four to six o'clock. You are more than welcome.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is possible that some spirits will help us get into the right mood for the season. It may be that for some, not for me. Your invitation will be most helpful in establishing the proper mood. I hope I am in it already and not because of any spirits, I assure you.
The legislative program for today and tomorrow remains at least for now Bill C-60, the food inspection agency legislation and Bill C-23, the nuclear safety bill.
I do not intend to call the tobacco legislation either today or tomorrow.
My most recent report on legislation that we have sent to the other place indicates that we still do not know how the other place is dealing with a number of items that require Royal Assent in the immediate future.
If any of these bills were to be sent back to us for further action, we propose to deal with them on a priority basis with a view toward completing consideration before we rise for a holiday break.
I think it only fair to advise the House that the government sees it as clearly being in the public interest that some of these bills be finally disposed of before Christmas and if circumstances compel the House to sit next week to do this, we are prepared to take the necessary action to bring this about. I am certain that nobody here views this as a desirable course, but right now we must await decisions in the other place.
By way of conclusion, I want to advise the House that we face a heavy legislative agenda during the winter and we will have to give serious consideration in January whether the public interest requires the House returning a bit before the scheduled February 3 date. If members have ideas about travels or vacations in January, please bear this in mind in making any plans.
In the hope that we can wrap up on schedule I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all the other members the best for the holiday season and, yes, even for the new year.
During question period, the Minister of Industry commented erroneously on my participation in the activities of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association, which took place last November 18 to 20. I was present at those activities.
In addition, the minister implied that I had wasted taxpayers' money by not taking part in the activities and meetings of the association, when in fact I was present. Furthermore, I would like the minister to note that I was seen there by the Liberal members for Nipissing, Hillsborough, Saint-Denis, Mississauga West and South Shore, as well as by Senator Rompkey. I certainly had enough witnesses.
I therefore ask the Minister of Industry to withdraw his untruthful comments about me.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, the minister who made the remarks is here. He may wish to clarify.
(1505)
[English]
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, let me make one thing very clear.
If there is one thing that I consider to be despicable and beyond reproach, it is to make accusations of people who are not in a position to defend themselves. I admit I accused-
Mr. Loubier: Cheap.
Mr. Manley: There is a bird in the front row over there. I accused the member for Saint-Hubert, based on information that I received from two of the members of the committee that she has just cited.
If she is prepared to stand in the House and say in the presence of all of us that she attended the working sessions and not only the social sessions of the Canada-NATO Parliamentary Association in Paris, that she attended the plenary session and voted on the resolutions, then I abjectly apologize to her.
I wish that she would accord to others the right to be able to answer accusations that are made of them.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I think it is now clear. Accusations were made. He said he was mistaken.
[English]
We are trying to clarify a situation. Let me put everything into perspective as I understand it. During the course of question period, the hon. Minister of Industry raised a point about whether another hon. member attended some meetings that had to do with NATO.
The hon. member, who was mentioned, stood in her place and said that she was at all the meetings. That was her position. I then asked the hon. minister if he would clarify what he said and, in my view, he said that if the hon. member claimed that she was there, and she did, she said in front of all of us that she was there and she did everything, I can only accept the member's word.
Having accepted her word, the hon. minister said that he abjectly apologizes and withdraws. In the absence of any other information, unless there is more information, I have an accusation and a withdrawal. I do not want to get into an open debate.
This is a question of privilege and the hon. member has asked and the statement has been withdrawn. In my view, the statement has been withdrawn.
I address myself to the hon. Minister of Industry. Did the hon. Minister of Industry withdraw his statement?
Mr. Manley: Mr. Speaker, I was not there. If the hon. member is saying in this House that she attended the working sessions and that she voted in the plenary session, then I cannot deny that. I cannot say otherwise. Therefore I abjectly apologize if that is what she is saying. I accept it.
(1510)
The Speaker: In my view an abject apology is a withdrawal and I accept it on behalf of the House. I consider this matter to be closed.
I am going to move on to a point of order, the hon. whip of the Reform Party.
During question period after the fourth question from the official opposition you then go to a Liberal member and then normally to a Reform member. Mr. Speaker, this time you failed to recognize the fourth member of the Reform Party and I wondered why. We had a member standing who was not recognized.
The Speaker: I consider that to be a reasonable question. There has been an agreement for three years that we have gone to. When I come to the ninth question, which is the fewest questions I believe we have had in this session, I usually go to an independent member. That is the reason why today in my judgment I went to the independent member for Kamloops. That is a reasonable question.
Do I have a point of order over here? Is this the same point of order?
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I cannot speak on it but I was named by the member opposite.
The Speaker: Order. Is the hon. member talking about the point of order by the hon.-
Ms. Beaumier: Mr. Speaker, I tried to be recognized.
The Speaker: As far as the question of privilege is concerned I have ruled on that and we are beyond that now.
I am talking about a point of order here. Let me clear up this point of order and I will return to the hon. member's question of privilege. I am going to the hon. member for Sherbrooke on a point of order.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is on the same point of order. I was interested in the remarks made by the whip of the Reform Party about question period and how it operates. This is fundamental to the very workings of the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor. I would like to listen to him.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, my understanding of question period is that this is very much the preserve of the Speaker. You will know that taking instructions from the party as far as I am concerned and as far as my knowledge of the rules and the traditions of this place is concerned is a direct contradiction.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Charest: As I was saying, this is a direct contradiction of the role of the Speaker which consists of first and foremost of protecting the rights of the individual member of Parliament. That being said, I noticed during question period something unusual in that the member for York South-Weston, if I understood correctly, was given a position in question period by agreement with members of the Reform Party who substituted one of their members with the member for York South-Weston. With the complicity of members of the Reform Party, who are now controlling the order of questioners that you, Mr. Speaker-
(1515)
The Speaker: I address myself to the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I thank him for his vote of confidence. Ultimately the Speaker has to take responsibility for question period, and I do.
At the time when I was looking for a questioner, I looked to the House and the member for York South-Weston was on his feet. No one else was on their feet-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I can see we are going to get into a protracted discussion on this, but today I recognized the hon. member for York South-Weston and I take complete responsibility for that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we all know how it works here in the House. There is an agreement between the parties, and the Speaker protects the rights of independent members. It is very clear that today the member for York South-Weston worked out an agreement with the Reform Party so that he could have a turn to speak.
The member for York South-Weston has been successful in his attempt to join the Reform Party, unlike the member for Sherbrooke who tried to do the same thing almost one year ago. It is as simple as that.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I would concur with what the hon. member has said.
We certainly accept, Mr. Speaker, your intervention that you are in fact responsible for question period and we abide by your rulings, but I would hope that in the future, if the practice is going to be what the hon. member for Sherbrooke has said, that perhaps there could be a fuller debate among all the political parties and
members in order that we fully understand the practices which are going to commence.
As the hon. member for Sherbrooke has said, if these cozy relationships between the Reform Party and the hon. member for York South-Weston are to take place, I think the House should be informed of them.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when you were instructing the hon. member for Sherbrooke, he said very loudly and distinctly: ``That's a lot of bull''. I suggest that he withdraw that statement.
(1520 )
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to be very clear with regard to this whole episode. The Minister of Health is absolutely right with regard to the precedent that has just been set in this House. This precedent goes to the very fundamental rules of how the House works, of democracy itself within this place and of the role the Speaker plays with regard to the rights of the individual members.
As of today the record shows that a deal was entered into between the Reform Party and an independent member so that the independent member could take up a position that a Reform Party member would have held normally in question period, and that the Speaker of the House of Commons complied with that instruction.
That is what took place. I want to register the fact that this is the record. I think this is objectionable because with regard to the workings of the House of Commons this is a situation in which the Speaker of the House is yielding his responsibility to the parties, a responsibility that he must uphold and assume in the name of each member of this House and not in the interest of partisan politics within the House of Commons.
The Speaker: In these interventions on a point of order, as your Speaker I am ultimately responsible; there is no one else. I can categorically say that no matter what deals may be concocted, it would always rest on my decision as to who would be posing a question.
I recognized the hon. member for York South-Weston. He was standing.
Many times over the course of my time in the House, members have given way to other members who may want to place their questions. If the way question period is carried out is not acceptable, then I suggest perhaps the House leaders come together again and look over whatever agreement was arrived at some three years ago before I took the chair, and if it needs to be fine tuned, your Speaker is the servant of the House and I will continue to be.
To my colleague from Sherbrooke, I find it rather sad that under these circumstances, if the hon. member did mean it as a rebuke to the Speaker of House, it would come out in this way. If the hon. member wishes to pursue the discussion, I would invite him, as I would invite all hon. members, to take up the discussion with me in my chambers. I would be very happy to hear what the hon. member has to say.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to prolong this discussion but as I was sitting in this place near your chair, I observed the member for York South-Weston standing. No one else in this House stood at that time.
As a matter of fact, you did not directly point him out. If the tapes are reviewed they would show there was a pause while you looked through the House. There was no indication that another member wished to speak at that point in time.
(1525 )
I certainly do not understand the accusation brought from the member for Sherbrooke in that case because you had no choice at that time but to recognize the standing member.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just for clarification so that those watching will know how the rules work, there is a schedule for the S. O. 31s, the one minute statements that precede question period. In times past we have given a spot to his co-worker, the hon. member for Saint John, who has spoken in a traditionally Reform spot because we knew she had something to say and we let her say it.
In times past, the Bloc Quebecois has substituted in the member for Yukon in the Indian affairs committee, another member of a minority party who was substituted in on a Bloc's schedule. This is because members of Parliament have privileges that are exchanged and we help one another out if it is appropriate.
Where we help out the member for Saint John on occasion or if somebody stands and is recognized in the House because no one else is standing, there is certainly nothing inappropriate. It certainly does not deserve the condemnation of the member for Sherbrooke who used the language he did to address the Chair.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I think this has gone on long enough. I would like to bring this point of order to a close.
was touring the Versaille with one of my assistants. So the member was not there.
The Speaker: We have a member who has risen in this House and made a statement implicating another member of Parliament. I have ruled on one point of privilege, and that is behind us. I am dealing with another point of privilege where the member for Mississauga West has made a statement. The member she made a statement about is in the House now.
If the hon. member for Saint-Hubert would like to make a statement of clarification, I invite her to do so.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I most certainly would.
The member for Mississauga West unfortunately did not take part in the activities of the Canada-Nato committee on Monday, November 18. She declined to fly to Toulouse with the committee, because, as she told us, she was already familiar with the facilities at L'Aérospatiale in any event.
So I do not think the member has any business casting aspersions, since she herself did not participate in all the activities.
(1530 )
[English]
The Speaker: I think we are having just an ongoing debate. I would rule that this is not a point of privilege on either side and I would like to rest this here.
I have a question of privilege that I am going to hear before the point of order. The hon. member for Sherbrooke on a question of privilege.
I return to the principle that is the cornerstone of the operation of government, the principle of the recognition of the rights of the individual member elected in his or her respective constituency with all the rights and privileges associated with that election.
You have in your remarks, Mr. Speaker, just informed the House that if the House wished to review the operations or the functioning of question period, that there would be a consultation among the leaders of the recognized political parties.
What am I to draw as an individual member, considered at least in this place as an independent member, from the remarks that you have just made? If I am to understand them correctly, it means that my rights in regard to the functioning of question period is something that will be negotiated by the respective leaders of the recognized parties in the House of Commons.
Who will in that respect, Mr. Speaker, speak up for the rights of the individual member of Parliament? Who will at this point-
An hon. member: You are the one that made the deal, John.
Mr. Charest: Oh, please. Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed-
An hon. member: You have got your privileges too.
The Speaker: I want to hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
Mr. Charest: In this respect, Mr. Speaker, if the leaders of the respective parties are given the opportunity to debate, to decide, to influence you in your decision in regard to how question period must function, when and at what point will the individual members for whom this is a basic cornerstone of the operations of Parliament be given equal rights and equal time? Surely you can see from those remarks how the basic rights and privileges of each member are affected, in particular my own rights and privileges.
One remark, Mr. Speaker, with regard to rising or not rising. I hope the members will spare us the grand designs about members rising in this place when every day for the last three years members have been constantly designated for question period, not when they rose but actually were sitting right in their place and never rose. I hope we will be spared the great sermons about rising or not rising in their places.
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question and I suppose you would have to rule whether or not it is a question of personal privilege, but certainly it is a question regarding the privileges of members of the House of Commons who keep the government accountable to the people of Canada.
Having said that, the rules of this Chamber, as all members should realize, and the hon. member who just spoke should realize, are rules that have come to us by custom, that have come to us by precedent.
Those very precedents on question period evolved over a long period of time and changed, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, very drastically in the past 10 years to the point where the major political parties do have assigned periods during question period. The role of the Speaker also has evolved to the point where the Speaker must follow those precedents and those customs as have evolved here in this Chamber, not in any other chamber under the so-called British parliamentary system, because each system is
different and each system has its own system of changing the rules of procedure for question period, as the Speaker so well knows.
(1535 )
I am very surprised that the hon. member would rise in the Chamber and bring this up as a point of personal privilege. It was approximately seven years ago that we adopted as a custom in this Chamber the point of respecting designated questioners by the major political parties in this House. It was so left up to the Speaker that if the person designated for that political party did not stand, the Speaker was free to choose, as is stated in the rules, the person who catches the Speaker's eye who rises first. The Speaker has to follow those customs.
The hon. member is perfectly correct. Perhaps we should take it under advisement and appoint a committee of people from outside the Chamber to examine the rules and to bring in some of the changes that are necessary to bring back the power of the individuals in the House of Commons. However, it is very surprising that the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party should be objecting to the very rules that were brought in while the Tories were the administration in power in this House.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say also that I remember those days the member talked about. Of course I was an independent in the House seven years ago.
I find it unbelievable that the member for Sherbrooke is talking about being hard done by. He and his party used to laugh and cajole every time I would try to stand. I thank the Lord for John Fraser who was the Speaker then. He told me: ``If you have a question, I will make sure that you get on''. I did not get on very often. I know that in the 34th Parliament I had exactly 15 questions, precious few, three or four a year, which is a darn sight less than what the independent member for Sherbrooke gets. It is unbelievable that he would cry foul on this.
I know that our party as well as other parties in the House of Commons would be willing to make some of those changes so that independent members would get recognized more freely, but in the next Parliament so that it will not look quite so self serving that someone would want it now. There is nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention something you said earlier. When you stood up and said that the member for York South-Weston was the only member on his feet, the member for Sherbrooke hollered out: ``That is a lot of bull''. He challenged you, Mr. Speaker and he challenged the position of the Chair. He was asked by one of my colleagues to withdraw.
I am asking you, because he respects the Chair as he certainly should, that he would withdraw the comment he hollered at you: ``That is a lot of bull''. He did not holler it at another member of the House, but at you and you should not stand for it, Mr. Speaker. Please make him withdraw.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really torn with this issue. The members for Sherbrooke, Beaver River, Gander-Grand Falls, the Minister of Health and others have already spoken to the issue.
I think we would all agree that the direction the Speaker has given the House that if it is the wish of the membership of the House to reconsider some agreements or arrangements that were arrived at when we first came to this 35th Parliament approximately three years ago, that possibly it might be timely in the early part of the new year to sit down and have a discussion.
Now specifically to the point raised by the hon. member for Sherbrooke regarding members outside of the official parties. I do not have the records, Mr. Speaker, but I would deem and feel confident in saying that those members who are outside of the ``official parties'' at this time in this Parliament have had their privileges safeguarded, protected, defended by you the Speaker, and others as the member for Beaver River said earlier with regard to your predecessor, Mr. Fraser.
I would hope that if the House chooses, it would make that undertaking to have those discussions among the parties as suggested so that we could put this matter to rest for the time being. I think we are all fatigued, we are all stressed. But certainly there should be no doubt in the confidence of the Chair and its speaker.
(1540)
The Speaker: My colleagues, in my view this is a debate. I know all hon. members wanted to participate in it but in my view it is probably time to move on.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, with all respect, that this point was brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona early in the Parliament. At that time I did do a lot of thinking about it. As your Speaker, I have tried to be as fair as I can with all the members and parties, especially the independent members. I have always felt that it was my responsibility to see to it that the independent members had as much of a chance as anyone in the parties. I will continue to strive to do that. I would like to move on at this point.
Is this a different point of order?
An hon. member: It is about withdrawing ``bull''.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I did not hear the word. I would just as soon move on from here.