Debates of Nov. 15th, 1994

The Environment

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question. The member for Davenport is deservedly well known as one of the strongest environmental voices in the country today.

I am pleased to say to the member that the government will move forward on the recommendation of the NABST report on an oceans act. It is our intention to release as early as tomorrow a public discussion document entitled "A Vision for Ocean Management" so we can hear from coastal people and all of those concerned about the health of our oceans.

As quickly as we can make it happen and as efficiently as is appropriate we will move forward with legislation setting out a new oceans act for Canada.

Arms Embargo In Former Yugoslavia

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The United States' decision to no longer participate in the control of the arms embargo in the former Yugoslavia provoked strong reactions among the allies, creating division within NATO and member countries of the former Yugoslavia contact group. The NATO Council, which met in Brussels this morning, insists on solidarity within the alliance.

Can the minister tell us what Canada's position is regarding the embargo in the former Yugoslavia?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that Canada continues to believe that it is very important to maintain the arms embargo in the former Yugoslavia. The United States' decision does not jeopardize this effort, since other countries, particularly those which have troops in the area, will be able to effectively maintain the embargo.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if he will reconsider Canada's participation in the UN mission in the former Yugoslavia in the event that the United States stands by this decision?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I just told the member that the United States' decision does not jeopardize the arms embargo. However, Canada has already indicated, through the Prime Minister, that we would withdraw our troops if the United Nations decided to

lift the arms embargo, and other countries have said the same thing.

France and Great Britain, which have the largest numbers of troops participating with us in the peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia, have expressed the same opinion. But, for the moment, we think that this embargo can be maintained and that there can be effective controls to ensure that the United Nations mission is not threatened.

Gun Control

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the justice minister again expressed his desire for the universal registration of firearms in Canada.

Will the minister acknowledge that since the introduction of the universal registration of hand guns in the country, the criminal misuse of hand guns has actually increased? Will he acknowledge this irony?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yes, but if I may say so, I do not believe that response leads logically to the conclusion there is not a good case for registering all firearms in Canada.

May I point out that the increased use of hand guns for criminal purposes in recent years has for the most part first, been in urban centres, and second, been because of smuggled illegal hand guns.

The proposal we will bring forward will deal, among other things, with preventing illegal firearms from coming into Canada. We will never do it perfectly but we can improve what we are doing.

Second and very briefly on the subject of registering long guns, it should be borne in mind that in rural areas the fatality rate for firearms is higher than in urban areas and primarily derives from the use of long guns, not hand guns.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister makes our case. The emphasis should be on controlling smuggling and that type of thing.

Professor Gary Mauser of Simon Fraser University has released a report estimating that universal firearms registration in Canada will cost a minimum of half a billion dollars and could be as high as a billion dollars.

Given the failure of present registration programs to stem crime and the disastrous fiscal situation of the country, how can the minister justify even considering this major new spending initiative?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, should the government commit itself to a universal registration system, the second thing I will do after announcing it in the House would be to mail to that person at Simon Fraser a copy of the analysis we have of cost.

We would never undertake a registration system that cost anything like those amounts of money.

In any event, if the government decides on a registration system it will be because our fundamental purpose is to enhance public safety in the country.

Grain Transportation

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about a number of contradictions which surround the government's position on grain transportation subsidies.

The Minister for International Trade says that the Crow benefit should go and the sooner the better. The Minister of Transport says he wants his department to cut the subsidy and last week his deputy minister said: "As far as the Crow is concerned, the government has to move in some other direction". Even the minister of agriculture acknowledged that cuts must be made but he keeps giving the public signals that he is the defender of the Crow in cabinet.

My question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is this. Is he defending the Crow benefit from attack? Is he prepared today to clear the air and let prairie farmers know that it is the federal government's intention to keep grain moving by rail by ensuring that the Crow benefit remains-

[The Speaker]

The hon. minister of agriculture.

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

Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that subject at some length in a speech I delivered last week at the annual convention of the United Grain Growers in Calgary. In order to save time, I will be happy to send the hon. member a copy of my speech.

I will tell him what is happening at the present time. As the Minister of Transport and I committed some months ago, we are presently engaged in a final round of discussions with farmers and farm organizations about future reform measures affecting the WGTA. Indeed, later today I will have the opportunity to discuss that subject with the prairie ministers of agriculture. Over the course of the next couple of months the Minister of Transport and I will be canvassing all of the major farm organizations in the country.

Our objective is to finalize the government's position with respect to the WGTA so that we might present recommendations to our cabinet colleagues early in the new year.

Education

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the close to 100 town hall meetings held by MPs across the country in the last few weeks, students have been very involved participants. They are interested, prepared to debate and know the status quo is not an option. Many of them have said to me that they need better school-to-work transition, better access to training in the workplace and fairer student loan repayment schemes.

I ask the Minister of Human Resources Development what concrete initiatives he is taking that can point to a post-secondary education system that will really respond to today's student needs?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

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

One thing I would like to point out to the hon. member and all members is that just today at a meeting of the 15 sector councils that are business-labour partnerships, I signed two new agreements in horticulture and tourism which will provide new school-to-work internships for over 1,000 students, one for people in rural communities and the other will concentrate on training for aboriginal tourism interns.

What is important about this is that the total cost of the project is $18 million. The federal contribution is only $5 million which shows that because of the partnerships we are able to have a two to one arrangement. It shows that the basic thesis that we can do more for less and provide better training and educational opportunities to our young people is already coming true.

Gun Control

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week end, the Minister of Justice declared that he intended to present a bill to tighten gun control in Canada.

Does the Minister of Justice undertake to simplify the regulations on the storage, display and transportation of firearms and to make them coherent so that ordinary people can finally understand and comply with them?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that the proposals will deal with those issues. We will make every effort to simplify. I well understand that the challenge we face is to make Canadians understand and comply with safe storage requirements.

A very important inquest is going on in Quebec right now in which a coroner is examining, I think, a dozen deaths to find out the connection between the safe storage of firearms and suicide, among other things.

I am aware of that need. We will make every effort in the proposals to make those requirements better understood and more readily enforced.

Health Care

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health did not explain earlier why she is following a discriminatory practice regarding facility fees. Why is she threatening Alberta clinics while exactly the same practices are being carried out in other provinces?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to clarify my words. Let me remind the House that at the last meeting of federal-provincial ministers in Halifax nine provinces agreed to put forward legislation to address the problems faced by clinics. The exception was Alberta. We are awaiting a response from Alberta. I have said it before and I will say it again that this government has been patient but it is rapidly losing patience.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, pursuant to an order made on November 14 we will now revert to presenting reports from committees.

Committees Of The House

[Jean-Robert Gauthier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Special Joint Committee on Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy.

In accordance with the order of reference, our report addresses the changes occurring in the world today and their impact on Canada. We all can see that Marshall McLuhan's global village is becoming more and more of a reality for Canadians. That reality has an impact on their security, their jobs and their well-being. The whole world is affected. Therefore, Canada's foreign policy is a domestic policy and our domestic policy is a foreign policy.

Some people would say these changes cause upheaval in interests and fundamental values and that Canadians today are then faced with significant challenges. Our report contains conclusions and recommendations on the principles and priorities that should guide our foreign policy.

In fact, our report suggests a new agenda for what is left of this decade and for the beginning of the 21st century.

The new agenda we propose reflects the deep rooted values that Canadians want to see expressed in their foreign policy and the need to make strategic choices. In fact selectivity and criteria for selection are features of the report.

The agenda includes: reform of the major international institutions of global governance, such as the United Nations and the international financial institutions to make them more effective, more transparent, more representative and more accountable; expanding our concept of security to include non-military factors and a greater specialization of the armed forces to better support peacekeeping operations; and promoting a rules based multilateral trade system and a Team Canada approach to trade development and foreign policy in general.

The agenda also includes: a greater emphasis on the promotion of Canadian culture and learning as a fundamental dimension of foreign policy; a strategy for managing the complex relationship with the United States of America, including better use of the multinational mechanisms; and a reformed foreign aid program designed to target assistance more effectively to meet human development priorities.

Finally the agenda includes: strengthening foreign policy linkages with sustainable development and human rights; and continuing the democratization of Canadian foreign policy through dialogue and education.

I would like to thank the 500 witnesses who presented evidence to the committee during the last seven months and all those who sent briefs and proposals. We received approximately 560 briefs. I would also like to thank the members of the team: the clerks and their personnel, the research assistants and all those who co-operated with us and gave us such a tremendous support.

On my own behalf, I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues of this House and of the Senate who worked hard to produce what I consider to be an excellent report.

The committee members were all struck at the commitment of Canadians towards the very simple principle that we should build a better world. This report testifies of the fact that when working together and in unity, Canadians can make a very unique contribution.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, Mr. Speaker, the committee asks the government to present a comprehensive response to this report.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to associate myself with the tabling of the report of the Special Joint Committee on Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy, especially the tabling of the dissenting report by the Bloc Quebecois members on the committee.

Throughout the proceedings, committee members honestly tried to offer an innovative vision of what Canada's new foreign policy could be. For that, I want to thank and congratulate them wholeheartedly.

I would also like to join my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier, the joint chairman of the committee, in thanking all those who contributed in one way or another to the preparation of the report, especially all the Canadians and Quebecers who made the effort to appear before the committee or send in a brief.

However, in spite of everybody's good will, the majority report is based on an interpretation of the international situation we cannot accept. The Bloc Quebecois's dissenting report highlights the aberrations and the shortcomings of the majority report, offering alternatives which, we believe, are closer to what a foreign policy that would be both progressive and realistic should be.

We especially fault the government for not taking into account such fundamental issues as nationalism, the emergence of new states and the recent arrival on the international scene of many new actors.

We also deplore the lack of clear guidelines regarding foreign aid, the interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, especially education and culture, and their impact on the international level.

Finally, we find the lack of a chapter dealing specifically with human rights inexplicable. Moreover, we cannot endorse the unjustified mistrust of the majority report for our main partner, the United States.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I bring this report to your attention, hoping that the government will find it highly instructive.

Privilege

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege.

I am rising with regard to the premature release of the report of the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy. It is my understanding that this report which has just been tabled has been in the hands of the media for almost one week. It has been the subject of extensive coverage and some articles even contain comments from members of the standing committee itself. Since this article was published in the French

language press on November 10 I have been contacted by several members of the media asking for my comments as well.

Citation 877(1) of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:

No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.

It goes on to say:

"-the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person". The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of this House I did not feel it would be appropriate for me to respond to the media's request for fear of being found guilty of contempt of this House. Citation 877(2) states:

In Canada, when a question of privilege was raised concerning the publication of a committee report before it was presented to the House, the Speaker ruled that the matter could not be resolved as in the British practice because the motion appeared to attack the press for publishing the confidential document but did not attack members of the House for their attitude in respect of their own confidential documents, and in missing this point, it missed something most important with respect to the privileges of the House.

Where I would like to draw the attention of the House is to the words "did not attack members of the House for their attitude in respect of their own confidential documents".

Leaking of information seems to have become a way of life of this Parliament. This was evident in the case of the finance committee study on the GST tabled last June. At that time the hon. member for Willowdale rose in the House on a question of privilege and I refer to your ruling of June 1, 1994 on page 4702 of Hansard recommending that the finance committee investigate the matter itself.

I have spoken with the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and I assure you I will be raising this issue at our next meeting.

The point I want to raise today is one of personal privilege. My privileges as a member of Parliament were breached in the sense that the media and other committee members had in their possession a copy of the report. They were making public statements in the media and referring directly to the content of the report. In fact, I had not even seen the minority report submitted by the official opposition until it was tabled today.

As a member of Parliament I recognize my obligations to keep reports confidential until they are tabled in the House. Unfortunately some MPs chose not to honour this convention and spoke to the press.

Through my silence and respect for the rules I am afraid I may have left a false impression that our party supports the government when we have in fact tabled a dissenting opinion. I believe we have come to a point where this House needs to establish clear and binding guidelines for MPs with respect to the release of confidential information. In the event that the rules are broken members must know that punitive measures will be taken.

I would argue that this is a clear breach of my personal privileges and shows a clear contempt of Parliament. Therefore I ask that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Should you rule that there is a prima facie case I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a valid point at least in respect of his opening remarks when he stated that the practice of this House has been that committee reports are confidential until they are tabled in the House. I believe he was also correct when he indicated it was a contempt of the House for any person to release the contents of such a report prior to its tabling in the House. Indeed that has been dealt with as a contempt of the House on past occasions.

I may say that if the hon. member could determine the malefactor in this case that person could be brought before the House and the contempt purged in the appropriate way. That would be entirely appropriate. It could be done either here or in the committee and the committee could bring in a report and the matter dealt with. Having said that, I assume he does not know who the malefactor is and given that we are in a position where I do not know that we can deal with that particular contempt of the House in this case, or indeed in some others that have occurred in the course of this Parliament.

However, the second point that his own personal privileges have been violated is another matter. I recognize that in refraining from making comments until the report was made public this afternoon he may have somehow found that his privileges have been affected. It is a matter that could be studied.

I would be happy to have the matter referred to the procedure and House affairs committee that I have the honour to chair for review. We may have something useful to say on it after hearing what he has to say, I do not know. Whether it is a fact of substantial interference with his ability to carry on his work as a member of Parliament I am not sure.

I invite Your Honour to consider the point that he has raised. If Your Honour finds a prima facie case, I can say that the committee will be happy to undertake the appropriate study should it come our way.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I treat all questions of privilege as being very serious in nature. I will indeed review all of the information put before me. With the permission of this House and after due consideration if it is necessary I will come back to the House with my decision.

Points Of Order

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, last night I spoke during the Adjournment Proceedings. In accordance with Standing Order 37(3) on October 28, I informed the Speaker of my dissatisfaction with the answer I received from the Minister of Canadian Heritage about my question on his letter of intervention to the CRTC.

Yesterday prior to 5 p.m. and in accordance with Standing Orders 38(3) and (4) the Deputy Speaker informed the House that my question would be raised during the late show; reference Hansard page 7753.

During the late show the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue stated, and I quote from Hansard at page 7767:

-I am not prepared to respond to the question of October 28th. I am prepared to respond to the question of October 24th.

Standing Order 38(5) is clear. Ministers or parliamentary secretaries are to respond to the matters raised by members. Not only did the parliamentary secretary not respond to the matter I raised; she admitted she was not prepared to respond and she apologized for not doing so.

The matter raised in my question relates to a serious matter which was before the House for two weeks. I wished to clarify for the House during the late show issues relating to the incompetence of the Department of Canadian Heritage and the minister's letter of intervention to the CRTC. However I have been denied the due process of the Adjournment Proceedings.

I am informed that there is no precedent in this regard. Further, I have not found one instance where the government ever refused to answer a question raised in the Adjournment Proceedings. I remind the Speaker that the Adjournment Proceedings have been a parliamentary procedure for 30 years.

This is an unacceptable precedent for the government to have set. In order to redress this procedural breach I request a written response from the government to the issue I raised last night and ask that the response be given in the House during tonight's Adjournment Proceedings.