House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.

Topics

Benefits
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is completely inconsistent with the document the minister has acknowledged has been distributed around, certainly in the Liberal backbenches, and which has found its way into the media now.

If that is part of the Liberal government's priorities, and it is certainly on a list of initiatives, and it is on the document that this was a memorandum to cabinet, why in the world is the Prime Minister not acknowledging this has been discussed? Why is he not coming clean with Canadians and acknowledging this is something the government is looking at?

Benefits
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Maurice
Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, we have a piece of legislation in front of the House and there is a lot of discussion in cabinet and in caucus. In our party we consult with caucus members and, contrary to the Reform Party, we listen to them.

In this case it was a result of the work of the party, as it was voted in many party resolutions for more than 15 years, and it will be voted on this afternoon. I am very proud of it. In order to achieve this I have been able to get this bill passed even by giving freedom to members of my party.

I heard yesterday on the news that members of the Bloc Quebecois were complaining they could not vote freely on it. Since this issue has come before the House, everyday we have read silly statements by members of the Reform Party.

Laval Space Camp
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Bertrand Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

In recent weeks, the federal government has been criticized repeatedly in the press for taking funds out of the national infrastructure program budget to finance the space camp in Laval. In non equivocal terms, is the federal government contemplating dipping directly into the national infrastructure program budget to finance the space camp, yes or no?

Laval Space Camp
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Outremont
Québec

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec

The answer is no,Mr. Speaker. The City of Laval did, of course, contemplate the possibility of submitting an application for the space camp under the infrastructure program. But its application would not have met program requirements, since it would have been essentially an application for refinancing.

However, the City of Laval made changes to the proposed multipurpose complex before the infrastructure program's March 31 deadline-

Cuba
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Terrebonne, QC

Mr. Speaker, last week, American, Canadian and Mexican officials met in Washington to discuss the Helms-Burton bill, a bill to toughen American economic sanctions imposed on Cuba. On that occasion, the minister hinted at possible retaliatory measures.

My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Could he tell this House whether he intends to introduce legislation providing for retaliatory measures designed to counter the effects of the Helms-Burton bill?

Cuba
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

York Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton Minister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, we are watching the situation very carefully. We are into a consultation process with the United States at this point in time, and depending on how that consultation process goes we will proceed with this matter further within the NAFTA framework.

We want to protect Canadian law, we want to protect Canadian interests and Canadian businesses that are legally doing business in Cuba.

We will continue to oppose the measures of the Helms-Burton law and will look at different options and ways to protect Canadian interests.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

May 9th, 1996 / 3 p.m.

Reform

John Cummins Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, today a respected B.C. economist, Dr. Peter Pearse, described the fisheries minister's plan as a cold shower. It sure is. It is a shock to the entire industry. The plan will irrevocably change the lives of thousands of British Columbians.

In the face of mounting opposition why the rush? Why not implement those portions of the plan where there is widespread support and delay the rest in order to address the broad based concerns being expressed in British Columbia?

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception
Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I am not doubting the word of the hon. member, although I am very surprised to hear it. Dr. Pearse was in my office at eight o'clock this morning. He told me he was very supportive of the plan, so I have difficulty with what the member said.

The plan is one of choices. There are three choices. The fishermen can choose to exit the fishery, they can continue to fish with their present investment, or they can increase their investment by buying a licence from a fisherman who exits the fishery and increase the number of licences. These are choices for fishermen that will relieve the pressure on the fish stocks and will result in a better economy and a more viable industry.

Presence In Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

We have the honour today of welcoming to this place new recipients of the Order of Canada.

These men and women from across Canada have made outstanding contributions to our country. I would ask you to please hold your applause until I have called each of their names: Donald Baxter, André Bérard, the Hon. Sidney Buckwold, Mr. Jean Davignon, Norman Inkster, Mrs. Jean Pigott, John Roberts, Verna Huffman Splane, Richard Splane, Denis St-Onge, Dr. Bryce Weir, Abel Diamond, Nabil N. Antaki, Luc Beauregard, Jack Bell, Gordon Brown, Eugène Bussière, Louis Collins, Walter Curlook, Mr. Omer Deslauriers, Soeur Lorette Gallant, Calvin Gotlieb, Roy Lindseth, Bob Lowery, Hon. Jack Marshall, Judith Maxwell, John McKellar, David Smith, Donald Smith, Armand Viau.

Please join me in welcoming them and saluting their achievements.

Presence In Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would ask a future recipient of the Order of Canada what is on the agenda for next week.

Business Of The House
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Saint-Léonard
Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, today we will conclude consideration of Bill C-33. Tomorrow, we will resume the debate, at report stage, on Bill C-12, the employment insurance act.

On Monday we will complete report stage and second reading stage of that bill. If there is time we will proceed to Bill C-19, the internal trade bill, followed by Bill C-20, the air navigation bill. On Tuesday we will continue third reading of Bill C-12. On Wednesday, depending on what was accomplished on Monday, we will call Bill C-19, Bill C-20, Bill C-4 and Bill C-5. Thursday will be an allotted day. Friday we will take up business from where we left off on Wednesday. If we are making better progress, then I expect we will add to the list.

Business Of The House
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Ray Speaker Lethbridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate whether there will be a free vote on Bill C-33, thus row by row?

Business Of The House
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

With the greatest respect, I do not believe that is a matter of business relative to the original question.

Point Of Order
Oral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order regarding the use of services provided to help members fulfil their parliamentary duties.

The facts are as follows: yesterday, a House of Commons envelope bearing the mention "for the member's eyes only" was put in my postal box. It contained the position of the Ligue catholique des droits de l'homme on Bill C-33.

There was no mention of the source of the documents and no covering letter. In other words, the documents were sent anonymously.

It seems to me that such use of the House's postal services is not compatible with the rules.

Members certainly have the right to send mail to their peers, so as to make their ideas known regarding the issues reviewed by the House. However, they should use their post-free privilege or, at least, identify themselves when they send documents.

But to send mail anonymously, through the House's postal services, for the benefit of the Ligue catholique des droits de l'homme is to lobby for this organization. This clearly violates the rules governing the House's postal services, since these services are being used for purposes other than those for which they are intended.

How do we explain the fact that the House staff deemed appropriate to put an anonymous envelope in a postal box?

I ask the Chair to refer the issue to the Board of internal economy, so that it can investigate the matter and shed light on this rather serious incident.