Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1994

Government Spending

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says this is quite normal. I agree. It is normal for this government to keep doing the opposite of what it says it will do.

How can the minister reconcile the mandate the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs received to downsize government and government spending with the decision to give him $6 million more for operating expenditures?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, on June 25, 1993, the previous government implemented changes that abolished the Federal-Provincial Relations Office.

When the new government came back, it obviously concluded that, considering the profile of the opposition, in particular, this was a problem that should be given all necessary attention, and that is what we did.

Of the $5.9 million in the Supplementary Estimates, several hundred thousand dollars will be used to reduce overlap, which is exactly what the Government of Quebec and the opposition are asking us to do. This will cover the cost of rebuilding a group of officers to take care of federal-provincial relations and of eliminating overlap and duplication.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether she realizes that the government is doing the exact opposite of what everyone expects it to do. It lets its administration spend more and comes down on the needy in our society by cutting social programs.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well we have always had Supplementary Estimates. That was already the case when he was a minister in Mr. Mulroney's government.

What we said today, what the Minister of Finance said last week and what the Prime Minister has emphasized, is that we intend to meet our commitment to a target of 3 per cent of GDP. And we will succeed.

We are going to meet our targets. We intend to meet our targets. We are going to meet our 3 per cent and the Prime Minister is committed to that. Every member of the cabinet and the government is committed to that deficit reduction exercise.

Pharmaceutical Industry

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The intentions of the federal government remain unclear regarding former Bill C-91. In their attempt to have the supporting regulations changed, a group of government members are challenging openly and publicly the validity of the act designed to protect pharmaceutical companies manufacturing brand name drugs, companies that invest substantial amounts in the design and development of such drugs.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with this open attack on Bill C-91 by several of her fellow government members, with the support of former Liberal minister Bob Kaplan, who now lobbies for generic drug manufacturers?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Nothing is being attacked, Mr. Speaker. Our committees are their own masters. A proposal was tabled in committee and defeated.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering that all the Liberal members in attendance at the committee meeting this morning voted against the regulations pertaining to Bill C-91, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take these members to task, in order to prevent a recurrence-

[The Speaker]

Order! I would ask the hon. member to rephrase his question, as it deals with two matters. First, it deals with committees and then with what sounds like a problem within a political party. So, if you could just rephrase the question, it would be acceptable.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to take to task these Liberal members, to prevent major investments by pharmaceutical companies from again being jeopardized by their persistence?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we respect the committee's capacity to act independently. I hope that the hon. members opposite also respect the right of individual parlia-

mentary committees to do their job properly, acting independently, as they should, under the reforms we have proposed.

Ethics

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a week. What has become crystal clear to Canadians is that this government has sacrificed its integrity on the altar of political expediency.

Not only did the Minister of Canadian Heritage violate existing guidelines for ministers, albeit a watered down version of Tory guidelines, the Prime Minister failed Canadians by not firing the minister. He compounded his failure with a story a day.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister claim with a straight face that this government will restore integrity to any of our political institutions?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, in the questioning in the last few days we have been skirting that very fine line where we impute motives to members of Parliament.

I believe the questions, as much as possible, should be directed to the administrative responsibility of the government rather than using this type of wording. I would appeal to all hon. members to please back up a little from the impugning of motives in any of our questions or answers. I will permit the Deputy Prime Minister to answer this question if she so chooses.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Speaking of straight faces, Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear the member yesterday saying that Jean Chrétien looked like Brian Mulroney.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The Prime Minister knew of the heritage minister's letter fully a month ago and he did not contact the ethics counsellor, who only found out about it from the media last week.

The Prime Minister had made up his mind before he contacted the ethics counsellor, who was not even asked for a ruling. These are the facts, not fiction.

If this government wants to restore public confidence and maintain the ethics counsellor as a watchdog of this place as he should, not a lapdog, why will she not have him report to the House on this affair immediately after the recess next week? What are they afraid of?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reflect on integrity but when the member across the way speaks about integrity I find it passing strange that two days ago she made certain false allegations in the House which she knew subsequently to be false but which she did not have the integrity to withdraw.

I hope today she takes the opportunity to-

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, once again I would appeal to you to try to deal with the facts as opposed to personal attacks. It would make things a lot easier for the House.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as you and I clearly know, calling and intervening with a quasi-judicial body is wrong. Calling a judge for any reason is also wrong. This Prime Minister never denied that he actually called a judge. There was discrepancy about why he called. He admitted he had called a judge.

This entire affair has been unbelievable and continues to be unbelievable. There is no denial of that.

This government has placed politics before principle and its damage control spin doctors have spun out of control. This Prime Minister has set a precedent of claiming to be responsible and accountable but he is neither. Frankly, I wonder would any further supplementaries be totally wasted on this government?

[The Speaker]

Order.

Human Rights

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

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

Tonight, the Prime Minister will begin a long trip at the head of a Canadian delegation that will take him to China, in particular. We know how important respect for human rights is and the leadership role which Canada has always assumed in this regard. Last week, the Prime Minister admitted in Vancouver that he did not intend to raise the issue publicly.

How can the Prime Minister believe that timid action behind closed doors can significantly improve the human rights situation in China?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, this trip to China will be the biggest delegation ever assembled from Canada. We are going to strengthen and advance the ties between Canada and China.

On this front we will advance on the four pillar policies that we have stated so clearly in this House. The first is the economic and trade ties between us. The second is the role China plays in the security of the world. The third is sustainable development and issues about the environment. The fourth is about human rights, good government and the rule of law development in China.

This government would not sacrifice any one of those for the other.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly what we heard.

Are we to understand from the reservations expressed by the Prime Minister that Canada has now given up its leading role in defending human rights around the world?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question, last week, I observed with interest the meeting between the Premier of Quebec and the governor of a Chinese province and I noted that the Premier of Quebec made no public comment about human rights in China.

Immigration

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister in his 1995 immigration plan told this House and the Canadian people that the levels of family class immigrants would not increase but would remain stable at a level of 51 per cent of all immigrants. Does the minister still maintain that this is an accurate representation of the facts?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, what we have said and confirmed in this plan is that the family class is very much a cornerstone within the immigration program. Not only in the family class category itself but the principle of family is protected in every other category. When we bring in an independent or a business class immigrant or a refugee they also have the legitimate right to bring in their families.

We have also tried to seek a balance because there are four different categories in the immigration program. We want each category to have an appropriate market share of the overall program. It has been well received in the east, the west and central Canada.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a plan and the numbers as the minister has released them to the Canadian people are somewhat deceptive.

This minister has in effect created two separate and new classes of immigrants that did not exist last year. These classes were included in last year's family totals but have been conveniently shuffled off into another column. In fact the percentage of family class immigrants in 1995 is expected to be significantly higher than last year.

Why did the minister obscure and fudge the numbers?