Although everyone shares the same anti-smoking objectives, it must realize that many people, restaurant owners, hotel operators, taxi drivers, are convinced they will lose a large part of their earnings if Quebec's cultural and sports events are attacked.
Is the Prime Minister aware that in Montreal alone, I hope the ministers from Quebec across the way are listening closely, $240 million in spinoffs will disappear because the government is refusing to listen to reason concerning tobacco company sponsorships?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question. The fact of the matter remains that over the last number of months we have been very reasonable and very comprehensive in the legislation we are putting forward.
As I am sure the hon. member knows and knows only too well, there is no banning of sponsorships. There is no banning of sponsorship promotion. In point of fact it was his party and this leader who stood in their places and supported the principles on second reading which included the restrictions on sponsorships.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the minister, as I did yesterday, that our political party shares the objective of reducing smoking. What we do not agree with is their desire to kill events in Montreal.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: I would like to tell the health minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that Quebecers will never accept a decision that interferes with the entire range of sports and cultural development, particularly that of Montreal and of Quebec. We will not accept it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Did the health minister not hold discussions with his colleagues from Quebec? Did nobody in this government point out to him that, if over 50 per cent of sponsorships go to Quebec, the repercussions of his plan on Quebec will be extremely negative in the short term?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of all political parties in the House have to listen quite carefully to what the Leader of the Official Opposition says on the subject matter.
So that we have all the facts I will share with my hon. colleague opposite that 36 of the medical associations in la belle province de Québec are in support of the legislation; 24 public health networks in the province of Quebec support the legislation; 140 hospitals in the province of Quebec support the legislation; and 27 anti-tobacco groups in the province of Quebec support the legislation.
When the hon. member stands in his place let him remember that in the province of Quebec in excess of 200 municipal units support the provisions of Bill C-71.
(1420)
The Speaker: At this point I judge the questions to be in order today because they never made mention of the bill which we are debating in the House. I would ask also that in the responses from the government no mention of the bill be brought up.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister can talk all he wants about support but the fact remains that, if he were more aware of what was going in Quebec, he would know that on all the radio stations today, everywhere, Quebecers are protesting against certain provisions of his bill. They would like to get him to listen to reason.
I heard the Minister of Labour say on television: ``We will see. Perhaps it will be the end of the world; we will wait and see''. Is the government going to run the risk of waiting and seeing Quebec's sports and cultural events destroyed before reacting? Are we once again going to be the victim of a bad decision made by Ottawa much too far away from where we live?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues opposite for that round of applause. I think the tone has been hit by the Leader of the Opposition when he talks about reasonableness.
The fact is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health heard all the various groups make representation. It was a result of their recommendation, which his party was a part of, that this government had heeded the suggestion of the hon. member, giving him an implementation period.
I want the hon. opposite to reflect on this: ``My name is Eric Carsley. My wife, my companion, my best friend for 23 years, died two years ago at the age of 45 from lung cancer that was caused by her smoking''. That man is from the province of Quebec. This government stands solidly behind children and people across the country to fight tobacco consumption in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a letter addressed to Hon. Senator Colin Kenny, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, who is not a Bloc Quebecois member-
An hon. member: No, she is Liberal.
An hon. member: Not yet.
Mr. Duceppe: -who is Liberal, writes the following: ``If Quebec's sports and cultural activities are to be the guinea pigs of a policy that will not produce its intended effects, I want no part of it''. This comment is from Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, the vice-president of the Liberal election campaign. She definitely did not make it for political expediency.
If the minister will not listen to the official opposition, will he at least listen to a Liberal senator, to the vice-president of the election campaign of a party seeking to win seats outside Quebec, but which seems to have let Quebec and its members down, since 68 per cent of Quebecers are against the Liberals?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was precisely for the reasons which were given at the Standing Committee on Health, where all members of different political parties were represented and recommendations came forward in order to provide some reasonableness for an implementation period for arts and cultural groups, that we have followed up on that suggestion.
Furthermore, I think it has to be understood that notwithstanding the date, October 1998, thereafter there is no banning of sponsorships. There is no banning of sponsorship promotion. In point of fact, our bill, as the leader of the opposition has indicated, is indeed very reasonable.
(1425)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the party in office rejected all the amendments we proposed. It did not want to hear promoters of cultural and sports events-
An hon. member: None.
Mr. Duceppe: -and had it not been for the Bloc Quebecois, these people would not have been heard. Ask them-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am listening very carefully to the questions as they are posed. It is true that today we are debating a certain bill. It is also true that before the question is posed, and I do not know what the question is, if members take me too far down the road in the preamble it would be my intention to intervene.
However, with respect to all members who are raising their voices in question period, I have judged to this point for these questions which are posed to be of a general enough nature that they are acceptable. I am going to permit these questions, providing they do not refer specifically to the bill under discussion today.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I am quoting the Hon. Senator, who said: ``Give me your support to keep Montreal, which is already plagued by unemployment, from being the big loser regarding this policy''.
Did the minister hear the people from Trois-Rivières today, those from Montreal, the cab drivers, the restaurant and hotel owners, the promoters of major cultural and sports events, who said it does not make sense to destroy Montreal's cultural and sports life, to eliminate its cultural and sports events, adding that the government should educate young people about the dangers of tobacco use, instead of going after Montreal's economy and the city's cultural and sports events? Will the minister listen to these people once and for all?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was precisely for those reasons that many individuals came before the standing committee. That was the rationale we had for the purposes of the implementation period, so that people have the opportunity to adjust to the new regime.
It is quite false for individuals to suggest or to imply that this legislation in any way bans sponsorship or sponsorship promotions. What is being done is that restrictions are being placed on four essential items: the price, the place, the product and the promotion.
I am appalled that a candidate for the leadership of a party would stand in his place and dismiss $3.5 billion in costs to our health care system and 40,000 lives each and every year. Shame on the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Kroeker rightly predicted that the CPP was unsustainable and for that he lost his job. For that he was blackballed by the federal government and labelled a kook. Mr. Kroeker said that the CPP would be broke by the year 2000 without constant and large infusions of cash from Canadian taxpayers.
Will the Prime Minister, who was part of that Pearson government decades ago, admit that Mr. Kroeker was right in 1965 and that his own Liberal government was wrong?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is wrong is that the Reform Party is wrong about the CPP. We have changed the rules of the CPP.
I have to remind the Reform Party that the CPP is a federal-provincial policy.
(1430)
It is not just a federal program. To change the CPP requires two-thirds majority of the provinces with two-thirds of the population. We have gone out as a government and got that two-thirds majority. We have the support of the majority of the provinces.
In the Reform Party's proposal for reform, does it have the support of any of the provinces? It has the support of none of the provinces, let alone a two-thirds majority. It does not have the support of any.
We have, also, the support of the Canadian people. The Canadian people want a secure, publicly funded pension program and we have the support of the Canadian people.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this junior minister talks about having the support of all the provinces on it.
In 1965 Mr. Kroeker stated that the Pearson government simply lured the provinces into the CPP by offering them loans from the fund at amazingly low bargain basement interest rates. No wonder they are keen on the project.
Thirty years later in the 1990s this government is doing exactly the same thing with the provincial governments. Using the CPP as a cash cow for governments was a lousy idea in 1965 and it is a lousy idea now, 30 years later.
Why did the Prime Minister and those in charge of dealing with the provinces right now on this deal lure the provinces into a sweetheart deal at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers who will have to belly up and pay that cash?
The Liberals learned nothing since 1965. Which way will it be, sweetheart deals for the provinces or the best deal for Canadian taxpayers in their retirement?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have in the CPP now is the best deal for the Canadian people.
Compared with the Reform Party's absolutely ridiculous proposal with rates of return that are absolutely beyond belief, our proposal is a reasonable proposal. It is a proposal backed by the Canadian people and it is backed by the provinces. It is not a proposal that any of the provinces do not want. It is a proposal that the Canadian people want.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian young people want to know that there will be a sustainable
plan for them. They would like to earn three times as much through privately funding their own RRSP rather than any CPP plan.
Thirty-two years ago these Liberal politicians called John Kroeker crazy for predicting that CPP was unsustainable without constant payroll tax increases.
In the next 6 years from now alone, premiums will have gone up over 70 per cent and Canadians will be paying a full 10 per cent of their paycheques toward a pension plan that still is not sustainable.
The minister thinks people in the galleries here and across the country are really pleased about this plan of mismanagement of their own money.
Is it not true that the government is hiding the fact that premiums will have to go up again before the Canadian public gets any benefit which these people have promised?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that younger Canadians want to know there is a secure pension plan. This Canada pension plan is that secure pension plan.
What would the Reform Party offer instead? The Reform Party's finance critic said about their own proposals on pension: ``I'm kind of reluctant to get into the numbers''. Why would he be reluctant to get into the numbers? It is because their numbers do not add up.
Why do they not add up? What would their contribution rate be? Would it be 10 per cent? Would it be 15 per cent? They do not say. How would they honour the commitment to today's seniors, $18 billion a year and growing? Would they honour those commitments?
If they are going to honour those commitments, where would they find the money? Would they simply renege on those commitments? What do they plan for Canadians who have contributed?
[Translation]
To explain why his government is going to such lengths to unreasonably restrict the sponsorship activities of the tobacco industry, the Prime Minister keeps referring to the health issue. There are other more efficient ways to protect the health of the public. What the Bloc Quebecois is against is a ban on sponsorships, because it will be irretrievably detrimental to various sports and cultural events.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the official opposition has supported 80 per cent of the bill, that the Bloc has even moved more proactive measures to fight smoking among young people and that if the Prime Minister were to agree to sit down with the opposition and event organizers, a solution could be found? Is he aware of that?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely for the reasons that the hon. member has referred to that we on this side of the House have accepted the very reasoned amendment which has been put forward by the chair of the Standing Committee on Health, that we have a period of time for the purposes of implementation keeping in mind, as I said previously, that in no way are we at the present time banning sponsorship or banning sponsorship promotion. After the implementation period is over there will still be the opportunity to promote one's product. So we are just restricting the promotion as well as the sponsorship.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that by trying so hard to save his head before the next election, he is not helping to improve the health of our fellow citizens, but is contributing to the demise of the tourist industry in Montreal, which will only make the people in Montreal and throughout the province of Quebec even poorer?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): I have great respect for the honourable member opposite and I want to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member the words of a prominent Quebecer: ``Sponsorship is subliminal publicity. People associate cultural products to tobacco brands. It is a very powerful way to push consumption of the product, in particular among youth''.
I know the hon. member does not wish to believe me, but perhaps the hon. member will believe the minister of health of the province of Quebec.
Now they want to simply continue the status quo, only with double the tax revenue.
The minister says that our numbers do not add up, but what does not add up is Canadians paying $3,200 a year for a $9,000 pension 30 years from now. That does not add up. Canadians deserve better than paying more to get less.
Why will the government not dispel the fears of Canadians that CPP will not be there for them and offer individualized tax sheltered accounts for their mandatory CPP tax deductions?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CPP will be there for Canadians.
Why do Reformers not tell Canadians what their rates will be if they put their plan forth? Why do they not tell Canadians that the pension plan will not be there for the 50 year-olds and over and the present pensioners with their plan? Why do they not tell Canadians that it is going to cost them twice as much for their plan than it is for CPP and it will not secure their future for them?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all age groups want and need to know that they can count on a decent standard of living upon retirement. There is no question of that. However, Canadians have been deceived in the past by successive Liberal-Tory governments about the sustainability of the CPP.
(1440)
First the rate was 3.6 per cent. Now it is 5.6 per cent. Soon it will be 9.9 per cent. The minister talks about rates. Where is it going to stop? No one seems to know.
The government has proven that it cannot be trusted on the GST promise. What would lead Canadians to believe that it can keep a promise on the CPP?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, was there a question?
The Reform Party misses the point. This reform of the CPP is supported by a majority of the provinces. This is a federal-provincial initiative. The Reform Party has no province supporting its suggestions whatsoever. We are going to secure a firm public pension plan for lower and middle income Canadians, for all Canadians.
When the official opposition comes to the defence of sponsorship of sports and cultural events, when it defends the importance of keeping the thousands of jobs that depend on it, the only remark the Prime Minister can muster is that the official opposition is being politically opportunistic.
If the Prime Minister defines opportunism as an attempt to save sporting and cultural events, how does he describe the behaviour of his own government, which continues to pocket billions of dollars in taxes on tobacco? Is that is not what one would call opportunism?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the member did not reveal how much smoking costs the Quebec economy. In 1991, taxpayers paid $4 billion because of smoking. This is in addition to the costs involved for all those who die of smoking related cancer or heart conditions.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, would it not be opportunism to talk about improving health on the one hand and to protect the revenues Canada Post makes from continuing to allow the tobacco companies to advertise by mail on the other?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about productivity. We are talking about jobs. Every year, 12,000 people die in Quebec, unfortunately, from smoking. We are taking action because we agree with Louise Beaudouin, the Quebec minister of culture, who said, and I quote: ``I agree that Quebecers' health comes first and foremost'' in Le Soleil last year.
Will the Prime Minister stop interfering in the personal affairs of Ontario when he is directly responsible for the crisis?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is rather obvious that the Reform Party does not wish to stand in its place and support francophones outside the province of Quebec.
I want to tell the House and the hon. member that the Prime Minister of Canada has every right as a Canadian citizen to voice his opinion, whether in this House or outside. When it comes to defending francophones there is none better than the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is interesting because I went to the hospital this morning and asked the chief executive officer what he thought of the Liberal government's cuts. His comment to me: ``If there weren't Liberal government cuts we wouldn't be in the position we are in today''.
(1445)
Where does the problem lie? Listen to this. The government gives $221,500 to the Society for Canoe Championships. It then
gives $734,766 to the Majestic Fur Association. Reform would give that money to health care.
Why does the government look after its buddies rather than looking after health care and the hospitals?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a great day. We have a representative of the Reform Party standing in the House in an unholy alliance with Michael Harris, the premier of the province of Ontario.
Canadians will not swallow this unholy alliance with the Conservatives in the province of Ontario. The Mike Harris tax break is going to cost in excess of $5 billion on an annual basis. That is what the province of Ontario is doing with the money.
Last weekend, his own supporters drew the labour minister's attention to the catastrophic effects this quasi-ban on tobacco sponsorships will have on Montreal's economy. Content with blindly defending his government's position on the matter, he added insult to injury by stating that, once they were through with tobacco, the Minister of Health would probably address alcohol.
Are we to understand from the irresponsible remarks made by the minister that his government is set to take the absurdity of its policies one step further by threatening to ban beer sponsorship of sports events? Does the minister mean to say that someone, somewhere in the federal government is preparing to shut down the Molson Centre or to prevent Labatts from sponsoring the Expos?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition would have us believe the apocalypse is upon us.
More seriously, I would like to quote someone who, we must agree, is an authority on the organization of the Montreal Grand Prix, Jacques Duval. He sent me a letter by fax yesterday, in which he states clearly the following: ``Contrary to what you may think of someone who has been involved with auto racing for many years, I fully support the government policy on the tobacco control legislation.
He concludes by saying: ``Media attitude in this issue is deplorable, and the remarks of some journalists are far from objective. I urge you not to yield to a campaign that is starting to look more and more like intimidation''.
I think there is no lack of support for the government's action, and we are here to-
Some hon. members: Oh!
An hon. member: Answer.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Dodging questions is an art, Mr. Speaker.
We will recall that, when the Minister of Health was considering banning raw milk cheese a few months ago, the Minister of Labour rose in the name of common sense. In the name of Montreal's economic health, will a Liberal from Quebec rise in this House today and speak up in its defence?
Will the Minister of Labour dare, once again, to rise and oppose this breach of common sense that will cost Montreal millions of dollars and thousands of jobs?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has made many representations. It is because of that kind of quality representation that we have been able to provide an implementation period which will allow a variety of different groups to become accustomed to the new regime.
As I have said before, we are not banning sponsorships and we are not banning sponsorship promotion. Furthermore, if my colleague wishes to make representations to me with regard to banning beer at the Molson Centre I will take it under advisement.
My question is for the Minister of Health. Is that his version of the government allowing the provinces to absorb $7 billion in transfer payment cuts to health care? Does he want the patients to absorb that with their lives?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member opposite is an individual who likes to keep the House fully informed of all the facts. It would not be for me to suggest that there is any form of negligence being exercised here today.
As the hon. member knows, the reduction of interest rates alone has saved the treasuries of the provinces in excess of $1.8 billion. Approximately $8.6 billion is being provided through the auspices of equalization.
The provinces asked something of the Government of Canada. They asked for predictable funding with a cash floor. Not only did we provide them with a cash floor, but we provided them with predictable funding not for three years, as they had requested, but for a five-year period with an escalation clause.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have been accused of being a slash and burn party. We want to put $4 billion into the health care of Canadians.
How can the Minister of Health tell the provinces what stable funding is? Is stable funding the removal of $7 billion in transfer payments to health and education? That is slash and burn health care in Canada.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I get the opportunity to stand on the floor in the House of Commons to concur with the preamble of the hon. member's question when he refers to his party as the slash and burn party of the Parliament of Canada.
The hon. member opposite should discover all of the facts and not some of the selected facts that he and the leader of his party are trying to portray to the Canadian people. The reality, as exhibited by the National Forum on Health, is that Canada has the second most expensive health care system in the OECD countries. It is not an issue of funding. It is an issue of management.
Last month, prior to the budget, the minister attended meetings with his financial counterparts from the G-7 nations. Based on budget projections, can the minister advise the House how Canada compares to the other G-7 industrialized nations of the world in economic growth and jobs and in bringing our financial house to order?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister was very well received by his G-7 counterparts, largely because of the efforts Canada has made in deficit reduction.
Canadian federal borrowing requirements, which are the way most countries measure their deficits, have fallen sharply and will be eliminated in 1998-99. This will be well below any other G-7 country. The total government deficit, both federal and provincial, relative to the GDP has also improved dramatically. It was three percentage points above the G-7. It is now well below the G-7.
(1455 )
Furthermore, both the IMF and the OECD predict that Canada will have the fastest employment growth of the G-7 countries in 1997.
The minister will be aware that the United States has indicated that it would ignore any World Trade Organization ruling having to do with the Helms-Burton act.
Would the Minister for International Trade consider, in the name of Canadian identity, if not security, adopting a similar stance toward WTO rulings which prevent Canada from defending itself with respect to culture and our health care system, vis-à-vis the price of drugs, things which are as important to Canadians as security surely is to Americans.
Would Canada consider that policy?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we believe that international obligations should be respected and we intend to respect them, whether they are with the WTO or with the NAFTA.
We have, in fact, secured provisions that are relevant to the protection of the health care system and relevant to the protection of culture as well.
We intend to continue to follow those rules. We expect the United States to also meet its obligations with respect to the WTO.
On February 23, at a rally held to maintain Mirabel airport, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette spoke on behalf of the government and sought to reassure the public by saying that the Liberal government would finally break the deadlock that it had created. The senator even added that a committee made up of two members of Parliament and three senators, all Liberal, was reviewing the issue and might propose the building of a high-speed train between Mirabel and Montreal's downtown.
Since the Standing Committee on Transport agreed today with the Bloc Quebecois' arguments and decided to hold, in the near future, a day of public consultation on the Montreal airports issue, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us that her government will dismantle the recently set up partisan committee made up of Liberal colleagues of hers, most of whom are not elected members of Parliament?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that each and every committee of the House is the master of its own destiny.
If the hon. member would like to bring his suggestions to the transport committee, I am sure its chair, the hon. member for Winnipeg South, would be more than happy to entertain them and possibly have a day on the very issues about which the member is speaking.
We know now that the letter that was eventually accepted by the Swiss authorities on the Airbus scandal went far beyond the evidence supplied by the RCMP. According to court documents, seven drafts of the letter were prepared by justice officials.
How many drafts of the letter were rejected by the Swiss authorities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it may be that the hon. member is not familiar with international protocol in such matters, which was established some years ago by the previous government.
The letter that was sent to the Swiss authorities, the only letter that was sent in final form, was acted on by the authorities in keeping with international practice.
Peterborough has been hard hit by the reorganization of HRD in Ontario. A disability unit has been disbanded and other jobs have been moved. This affects services over a wide region.
I would ask the minister what he can do to assure quality human resources services in our community.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important for us as a government to ensure the future of our social safety net. It is important also that we use the technologies which are available today to run the most efficient operations we can.
(1500)
Canadians will continue to be very well served through the reorganization of the local human resources department. We will have personnel help in over 300 offices across the country that will actually be delivering it. We will have 6,000 automated kiosks that were not available before to serve Canadian citizens.
The office in Peterborough is a very important centre for us as a government. It will continue to serve clients and senior citizens of Peterborough for a long time to come.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I received a letter from the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie regarding a question of privilege. I will listen to the hon. member and then I will hear the points of order raised by other members.
First, this advertisement is false and affects the privileges of this House. Indeed, the ad suggests that the House has passed Bill C-71. The fact is that, while the government did its utmost to gag the opposition regarding this issue, the act has yet to be passed.
The Speaker of the House made an interesting ruling on October 10, 1989, regarding a similar situation concerning a GST ad, when the legislation had not yet been passed. The Speaker ruled, and I am quoting page 4461 of the Hansard:
-if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never recur. I-remind everyone within the Public Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called executive democracy-In 1989, when the Liberals formed the opposition, they had welcomed the ruling made by the Speaker of the time. Therefore, I am asking the Minister of Health to apologize in this House, on behalf of his department, for the false advertisement which he authorized and paid for with taxpayers' money.
Moreover, I believe I can get the support of the House in asking the Minister of Health to pay back to taxpayers the costs of his false advertising. The minister should use the taxpayers' money to make young people aware of the harmful effects of tobacco.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you. If you deem that the issue raised is indeed a question of privilege, I am prepared to table the usual motion. But first I will listen to what you have to say.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly did not have, or at least I did not have, notice of the particular question of privilege that has just been raised. I certainly have not had a chance to check with my colleague, the Minister of Health, or any other relevant minister on the substance of the allegations made by the hon. member.
(1505)
I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if we could have your permission to have this question of privilege stood for a day or two while the allegations are checked into. This would make it easier to argue the point and ask you to make the most appropriate ruling.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is a man of experience who surely does not need 24 or 48 hours to recognize something that is quite obvious. I therefore ask for leave to table a copy of that advertisement.
I am prepared to hand it over to him right now, and I suppose the House leader will understand it as soon as he reads it, since he was in this House in 1989. At the time, he advocated a reprimand, to ensure that taxpayers' money cannot be used deceitfully in advance under a false pretenses.
Thus, I table this document and ask that it be passed on to my colleague. With his experience, he will understand at once.
[English]
The Speaker: For any member of the opposition to table any document we need unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Colleagues, when there is a question of privilege in this House, I usually reserve judgment for a few hours.
[English]
I am sure the hon. member for Laurier-Saint Marie would want to see the document. I did not see the document the Minister of Health handed over. I would like to see the document also.
With the agreement of the House I will wait until the Minister of Health or a spokesperson of the government has a chance to give us some information. At that time I will review all the documentation and if it is necessary I will get back to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I respect your decision, unless the government House leader has come to the same conclusion as I did after reading the document I just sent him. If you ask him, maybe he has come to the same conclusion. This is obvious to me.
[English]
The Speaker: As I understood the hon. government House leader, he had not been apprised. This is my interpretation. He has said he does not want to answer in the name of the Minister of Health.
At this point on this question of privilege I will wait until I have more information.
Beauchesne's citation 428 (v) says a question must not ``anticipate an order of the day or other matters'' and (r) says a question shall not ``refer to debate or answers to questions of the current session''.
Citation 428 of Beauchesne's refers to written questions. I am asking you to advise the House on any guidelines you feel are appropriate that would give direction to the opposition parties that formulate questions, so that we can abide by the rules and know exactly what the rules are when we formulate questions in so far as they may or may not encroach upon the orders of the day.
There does appear to be a different interpretation by the Reform Party compared to the Bloc Quebecois on what is and is not allowable and our assumption of what you would or would not allow as far as questions are concerned.
(1510)
Therefore, since there is nothing specific in Beauchesne's or in the standing orders that would give us specific direction regarding oral questions, I ask that you come back to the House to give us guidance.
The Speaker: The request of the hon. member is a reasonable one in the sense that although the Chair can surely give an opinion
on the general direction of questions, I want to give colleagues every latitude in answering questions. When the questions were posed today I listened very attentively that they did not encroach on or refer to the specific bill.
The preambles give me a great deal of difficulty. I have appealed to the House before that if your preambles could be quite concise and then you get into the questions, I am better able to respond. I try as much as possible to listen as you get down to the question or at least to know the direction in which a member is leading. If I feel that a preamble is taking us irrevocably toward a specific section of a specific bill I will intervene.
I would hope on days such as today where Bill C-71 is being debated all day that hon. members would consider perhaps a different line of questioning. I always leave that to members. In my view if a question is of a general nature and not hitting on the bill directly I would tend to allow the question as I have today.
However the point is well taken. I commit myself to reviewing all the questions asked today in question period to satisfy myself and perhaps satisfy the House that the questions were indeed in order. If I find upon reflection that I perhaps was a bit too lenient I will come back to the House and give that direction.
I prefer to give a general direction to members because you know what want to ask and I try to give you as much room as I can. I commit to coming back to the House if it is necessary.