House of Commons Hansard #115 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was judges.

Topics

Tobacco
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre
Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the member should know that yesterday we tabled legislation which will introduce a total ban on tobacco sponsorship over the next five years.

After a transition period, to give an opportunity for those events to get other sponsorships, we are going to have a ban in this country against tobacco sponsorships well ahead of the Europeans, well ahead of the Americans. Once again we are going to lead the world in our anti-tobacco efforts.

Tobacco
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, on this issue the Minister of Finance could stand in his place and do something he rarely does, and that is support the Minister of Health. He obviously has not done it on the hepatitis C issue.

If he did consider raising tobacco taxes, there would be a 30% reduction in the number of new smokers, particularly young smokers, especially if that increase was coupled with tough advertising and education.

Will the Minister of Finance consider doing that to help save young Canadians?

Tobacco
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that it is desirous of increasing taxes on cigarettes and it is certainly prepared to do so. It would require an agreement between the federal government and the provinces, including the Conservative government of Ontario. We are prepared to do so as quickly as we possibly can. The provinces, however, have said to us that they do not want any risk of increasing contraband. We understand their position, but we are talking to them.

Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Sheila Finestone Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last Thursday at a function in Montreal, Canadians of Pakistani, Chinese and East Indian heritage shared with me their deeply felt concern over the nuclear testing which has led to a really unstable situation in the area.

Can the minister tell this House what action the Canadian government has taken or is taking with respect to enabling a return to stability in the southeast Asia area?

Foreign Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre
Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging to see the broad range of representation in the member's riding supporting what I think all Canadians support, which is that we must put a stop to the spread of nuclear weapons.

The actions that we have taken began with the Prime Minister's meeting at the G-8, where he renounced the testing and asked that a series of measures be taken by all countries. Since then we have followed up to lead at the NATO meetings in a condemnation. We also led at the OAS just this last week and we will be attending meetings next week.

It is absolutely essential that we put the nuclear genie back in the bottle and Canada will do everything it can to make that happen.

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now the Minister of Fisheries has been refusing our suggestions to amend Bill C-27, the fisheries protection act. As it stands now, Canada will not be able to prosecute foreign vessels who are breaking our laws. Ironically, when Premier Tobin sends a letter asking the minister to make amendments, he turns around and says “No problem”.

We know the Prime Minister asked to have this letter kept under wraps, but what we do not know is who is running fisheries and oceans: Tobin or the member for Victoria?

Fisheries
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Victoria
B.C.

Liberal

David Anderson Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is a member of the fisheries committee he should understand that neither I nor the premier of Newfoundland run that committee. He should also know, if he has attended the meetings, and apparently there is some doubt about this, that in fact the bill is now before the committee. If the committee proposes amendments, that is good.

The rest of us in the House will consider them when the bill is reported.

National Highway System
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Jocelyne Girard-Bujold Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the member for Chicoutimi this week, the Minister of Transport said that he had had no request from Quebec's transport minister for financial assistance with respect to route 175 between Quebec City and the Saguenay.

How could the minister make such a statement when a letter containing a very clear request for help repairing route 175 in the Parc des Laurentides and signed by the Minister of Transport for Quebec on May 27, was faxed to his office on the eve of the Edmonton meeting? What kind of game is the Minister of Transport playing?

National Highway System
Oral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Don Valley East
Ontario

Liberal

David Collenette Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the statements that were attributed to Mr. Brassard were clearly made in the aftermath of the Edmonton meeting.

Route 175 was not raised at that meeting. Obviously the minister for Quebec has some interest in Route 175.

The fact is we talked about the national highway system funds potentially being available. If those funds are available, route 175 would be eligible for funding, subject of course to the approval of the Quebec government.

There is no contradiction in what I said two days ago and what I am saying today.

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Prime Minister clearly stated that the change to the UI system put forward by the Conservative government was having a devastating effect on Canada's unemployed. Why the flip-flop? Currently, 780,000 unemployed workers do not qualify for UI.

Will the Prime Minister stand by his campaign promise and help the unemployed by using the $17 billion surplus to widen accessibility to UI?

Employment Insurance
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis
Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, some aspects of this reform were not working at all. The fact that the family income supplement we introduced in our reform applied to total family income and not to individual income, as it did under the preceding government, was clearly unfair, and this was recognized in all the reports on how the system was working.

We also wanted to put the system on an hourly basis in order to give Canadians a fairer and more equitable system. There is no contradiction, because we wanted to improve on previous reforms and correct some of the errors made by the previous government.

Presence In Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I wish to draw to hon. members' attention the presence in the gallery of Dr. Franz Fischler, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission of the European Union.

Presence In Gallery
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The House
Oral Question Period

June 4th, 1998 / 3 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have a document that appears to have been leaked from the government House leader's office that indicates this House will recess on or about June 16. I would like to find out from the government House leader if that is in fact true and ask him what the business is for the remainder of this session.

Business Of The House
Oral Question Period

3 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting question. If this was leaked from my office, someone has obviously misread it.

This afternoon we will continue and hopefully complete Bill C-37, the Judges Act amendments at report stage, followed by Bill C-26, the grains legislation, then by Bill C-3, the DNA bill.

Tomorrow we shall consider second reading of Bill S-2, the transportation safety board bill, and report stage of Bill S-3, the pension benefits legislation.

As already announced, next Monday and Tuesday are allotted days. After the supply is disposed of on Tuesday evening, our priorities will then be the completion of Bill C-37, at third reading hopefully; concurrence in the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, the wheat board legislation; and the completion of other bills already mentioned.

In addition, among other matters we intend to pursue the completion of the following: Bill C-38, respecting the Tuktut park; Bill C-25, the defence legislation; Bill C-27, the fisheries bill; Bill C-20, the competition legislation; Bill S-9, the depository notes bill; Bill C-30, the Mi'kmaq education bill.

This is a heavy load to complete before the adjournment date set by the standing orders. I intend to consult the other House leaders to determine whether we will require evening sittings to meet this deadline. I hope that we do not, but as I have been saying for some time, it is clear that we have at least two more weeks of intensive work.

I know that the rumour mill has it that the House would be adjourning much earlier. Some people have even said, and quite irresponsibly, that we could be adjourning as early as June 12. This is plain silly. There is more work to be done. I would hope to be able to adjourn by June 19 if all goes well.