Debates of Jan. 19th, 1994

Human Rights

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I share the minister's concerns, and our party will support every effort made by the minister to protect human rights. However, I would like to know if, when he talks about taking a very careful look, the minister considers that trade has nothing to do with human rights and that the uprising of natives is but an unavoidable adjustment episode in a period of economic development?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind all hon. members in this House that in 1990 President Salinas created the National Commission of Human Rights which is now entrenched by law. We believe the Mexican authorities themselves want to take measures to ensure that human rights are respected in their country.

Second, I want to assure hon. members that through the NAFTA Canada will now be working more closely on a number of issues with our Mexican friends. We hope the criteria established here in Canada and in the United States in regard to human rights will be followed by the Mexicans.

Clearly through NAFTA we could be in a position to help the situation there. Hopefully the Mexicans will involve their people in this process and those who are poorer than others will benefit from NAFTA.

Goods And Services Tax

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

In the throne speech the government stated that it would replace the goods and services tax. It did not outline any specifics or set out any proposed timetable.

Will the minister please tell members of this House and thereby all Canadians what he knows to this date about the substance of his party's new proposed tax?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your position and congratulate the member on his question.

Time is short. I would be unable to tell the House in the time available everything I know on this subject. I will say, however, that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the goods and services tax is to go. A replacement obviously must be found because the government and the country needs the money and the revenue. Therefore, the process for eliminating the tax and finding an appropriate new tax will indeed be announced in due course by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Revenue rule out categorically in this House today that any tax reform or tax invented to replace the GST will not in fact simply be an increase in taxes?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the wish of everybody on this side of the House, and I am sure the other, that the burden of taxation on the Canadian public be reduced rather than increased.

However, as has been already discussed today in this House by many members, including the leaders of all parties, we have a problem of deficit, we have a problem of debt, and we can make no such promise at this time that there can be no change in tax levels in any particular area of taxation.

We trust that we can in fact deal with deficit and deal with debt and at the same time have no increase in taxation levels.

The Budget

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today in his annual report the Auditor General stressed the need for reconciling the convention of budget secrecy with open consultation in debate to allow greater parliamentary input before budgetary decisions are made.

Will the Minister of Finance inform the House as to his position on opening up the process to provide an opportunity for greater input earlier in the process to enhance the participation of members as well as ordinary Canadians in the very important task of dealing with Canada's debt and deficit?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development (Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is quite obviously very much in the line that this government wants to take and we certainly do support the recommendations of the Auditor General.

We are committed to the elimination of budget secrecy, to open budgeting. As the House was not meeting, the announcement of the deficit was made not by a press release but at a meeting at the University of Montreal involving students from that university and McGill.

We had a public meeting of 40 economists from across the country who dealt with the economic projections and where the country was going. We had a very successful pre-budget consultation meeting in Halifax last week. We expect to have an

equally successful one in Montreal this week followed by one in Toronto and one in Calgary.

When there is more time leading to the following budget for 1995 we expect to be able to do even more public consultation.

In terms of this House, we are going to remain faithful, as we are in other things, to the concepts and principles set out in the red book.

As the Prime Minister and the House leader have said, it will be a substantially enhanced role for the finance committee.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

That was the Reform prime minister.

The finance committee will be given the opportunity to hold public hearings and will play a major role in the development of the budget. All members of this House are invited to attend the four consultation meetings that have been announced.

Also, after discussion with the House leader, who I believe will be discussing with his opposite numbers, we, understanding that there is a very short period of time, would like to call for a one day pre-budget debate, which would be the first time it has ever been held, so that all members can give us their views on what the budget should do, along with ordinary Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Human Rights

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Many Canadians who voted for the government were disappointed that one of the first things the government concerned about job creation did was to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement which many regard as an agreement that makes it more difficult for the government to create jobs and to protect existing jobs.

Following up on the question raised earlier with respect to events in Mexico, an interesting exchange in which those who were against NAFTA defended it and those who were for it criticized it, what does the government intend to do about the situation in Mexico? What is the government prepared to do if the human rights situation does not improve in Mexico?

Are we going to continue in this agreement regardless of what the Mexican army and government do to people who feel these agreements are destroying their lives?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply that in the red book we had a very definitive program regarding the need for the improvements to NAFTA before we signed. We managed to get the improvements that we wanted so we were in a position to sign.

Of course as the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, we are following very closely what is happening at this moment in Mexico. We are putting pressure on its government to respect human rights. We will keep pressing.

However, there are a lot of hypothetical questions in the question the member has put to which I am not in a position to reply. We have to see how the situation develops there. We have confidence that the grievances that exist in that society have no relation to the signing of NAFTA.

[The Speaker]

The Chair is aware that we went a little over. I signified the intention of the Chair to cut off question period precisely at three o'clock. We will have one final short question.

Dairy Industry

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a question from the other side, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

First, I want to thank the minister for his work on behalf of Canadian farmers to date. He must be aware of the anxiety being felt in the dairy community regarding his negotiations with the Americans on ice cream and yogurt.

Canadian dairy farmers want the government to stand up to the Americans and not to cave in on their unreasonable request for zero tariffs on these products immediately.

What specific action is the minister prepared to take to assure the survival of a viable Canadian dairy industry? Is there a resolution to the problem that will help the Canadian dairy farmer?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member for the question.

Since Canada and the United States are continuing to discuss possible solutions to a variety of outstanding bilateral concerns in agricultural trade, including some that affect the dairy industry, my public comments with respect to this situation for obvious reasons must be rather guarded.

What I can say is that we have had useful discussions with our American counterparts. Those discussions are ongoing. Whether they result in a resolution in the short term or not we will have to wait and see.

However, the hon. member and other members of this House can be absolutely assured that the vital interests of Canada including the vital interests of the Canadian dairy industry are very much in my mind and very much on the front of the table.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Allow me first of all to convey my respects and my congratulations to you on your election. For reasons that I will not mention, I was not in the House at the time when you were elected to this office. Needless to say, I am proud to extend to you, on behalf of the Conservative caucus in this House, our support and, above all, to wish you all the best for the coming Parliament.

I have chosen and asked to speak today on an issue which will impact on our rights and privileges during this Parliament. Part of yesterday's Throne Speech reads as follows:

The Government is committed to enhancing the credibility of Parliament. Changes will be proposed to the rules of the House of Commons to provide Members of Parliament a greater opportunity to contribute to the development of public policy and legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus and my Party, let me tell all the members of this House that we fully endorse such a statement and that we intend to support the government in this regard.

In respect to the statement made by the government in the speech from the throne, I want to take advantage of the fact that on the very first day that we sit we have very deep and very real preoccupations relating to our rights and privileges in this House.

I am rising on a point of order today not because I am asking for a ruling from the House, but I want to attract your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of members to a few facts relating to our position on this side.

Even though the election campaign rendered a result that was quite clear in regard to the previous government, the results, if examined objectively for what they yielded for us on an electoral basis, were such that the Reform Party that sits with us in this House obtained approximately 19 per cent of the vote and has a representation of 52 members.

The Official Opposition with 14 per cent of the vote has 54 members. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada with 16 per cent of the vote has only two members. Our colleagues in the New Democratic Party, who I think have approximately 9 per cent of the vote, have nine members.

This, Mr. Speaker, as you know, creates a situation where-

[The Speaker]

The Chair would be disposed at this point to ask the hon. member to come to the point. I would very much like to hear it. I will then take other points of order. I would very much like to hear the end of this point of order if I could.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

If I may be allowed to finish what I have to say.

The point that I want to make today is that as the leader of my own party I intend to bring this matter forward to you first, Mr. Speaker, on an informal basis and with the other political parties in this House so that we can discuss what opportunities there will be for us in this House of Commons in respect to the statement made in the speech from the throne, in respect to the statements already made by our friends in the Reform Party or our friends in the Bloc Quebecois in regard to the opportunities that we will have to speak on behalf of the two million Canadians who offered us their support in the last election campaign.

That is the point that I wanted to make on this day so that at the very first opportunity when this House sits and when question period is happening you know, Mr. Speaker, and all members of this House know that we intend to argue this point and at least have the opportunity to be heard. This is so that we can deal with such matters as my hon. colleague and friend from Saint John sitting at one end of the aisle and I am sitting at the other end.

Furthermore, if I may, I have a question of privilege.

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member has made his point and I look forward to discussions with all hon. members in this House. The point is well taken and I do thank you for your intervention.

Is this on the same point of order or have you terminated?

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

No, I have a point of privilege.

[The Speaker]

I have made the ruling on the point of order. Is this a point of privilege sir?

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is but I understand that my colleague from the Reform Party also has a point of order on the same subject I have just broached. I would be more than willing to enable him to say what he has to say and follow that up with a different point of privilege.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point with regard to the conduct of Question Period, there were a total of 17 members who asked questions today; 14 from the opposition parties and 3 from the government party. In your deliberations I would ask that there be a fairer distribution of questions during Question Period. The governing party has a majority of seats in this House yet we were relegated to three questions during question period.

I would also ask that you consider the use of lists during Question Period. I understand that it is the first question period of the session, but you were referring to lists provided to you by the government and by the opposition parties. I would submit that in effect restricts, limits and fetters your ultimate authority to recognize members in this House. I would ask that in your deliberations you consider the question of the provision of lists in order to establish those who are entitled and able to ask questions during question period.