Debates of Feb. 16th, 1994

Official Residences

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any idea why. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition made his decision out of generosity. Actually, the platform of the Bloc Quebecois stated that its leader could not live on the Ottawa side.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

Gun Control

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Do lawbreakers shop for their weapons after participating in a gun safety program and receiving firearm acquisition certificates?

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

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with the question. I take it my friend's question refers to the value of firearm acquisition certificates and training courses.

Let me use this as an opportunity to say in response, if that is what my friend intended to ask, that both the training courses and the application requirements for the certificates are, as the hon. member knows, intended to demonstrate the kind of controls we need for dangerous weapons, the determination of the Canadian people to ensure we have proper gun control and the responsibility of government to ensure the safety of our citizens.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister did not catch the gist of my question at all.

Will the minister explain to the House why gun control measures are largely directed toward honest citizens instead of the criminal elements in our society?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned that we avoid having firearms in the hands of those with criminal intent and to ensure the safe use of firearms which are owned lawfully.

Let me point out that the vast majority of deaths that occur by firearms in Canada each year occur through suicide. It is terribly important that those who lawfully own guns store, maintain and deal with them safely and prudently so they are not taken by someone who has the intent to do harm to themselves. The courses which were designed and are now in place are intended to achieve that.

We are after two things: making sure criminals do not have firearms and making sure those who have them lawfully deal with them safely.

Mil Davie

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

On Saturday, February 12, the Quebec City daily Le Soleil reported that the mayors of the Magdalen Islands were putting on pressure for a new ferry. The same newspaper reported the next day that the Premier of Quebec was urging the federal government to give the work of building the new Magdalen Islands ferry to MIL Davie. This would kill two birds with one stone by reviving the MIL Davie shipyard and providing the Magdalen Islanders with the ferry they need.

Can the minister tell us today whether he is still considering buying a used European ferry as a serious alternative, even though it would create no employment here and its performance in the ice-bound St. Lawrence is questionable?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility to provide service between Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands and we will meet this commitment to the people who have long been asking for a ship to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery.

As for building or buying a ship, this is a decision for the government, and we have not yet made a final decision. We are looking at all the possibilities. But the main objective is to provide a safe and efficient service to people travelling between Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us today, now, although he answered the same question I put to him on January 26, when he intends to make a decision on this?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the decision affecting mainly the Magdalen Islanders is concerned, we know that they need a ship to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery . We will try to come up with a solution.

Of course, the question raised by the hon. member as to whether the ship will be built or bought is one of the criteria to be considered in reaching a decision.

It is a very complicated process. I met with the Quebec Minister of Industry, Mr. Tremblay, and we are discussing the whole issue in order to come up with the best possible solution, taking into account the needs of the Magdalen Islanders and of travellers and also our responsibilities to Canadian taxpayers.

Agriculture

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

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

In a letter sent to the office of the Prime Minister on Monday of this week the chair of Market Choices Alliance, made up of several farm groups from western Canada, reminded you of your June 9, 1993 promise to call-

[The Speaker]

Perhaps the member would rephrase the question.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

-reminded the Prime Minister of a promise to call a producer plebiscite on the continental barley market issue and to honour the result. The continental barley market would allow farmers and grain marketing companies to compete with the Canadian Wheat Board in North American markets.

Will the Prime Minister honour his commitment to hold this plebiscite and if so when?

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

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

The quotations referred to which were attributed to the Prime Minister could have been attributed to me and to other members on this side. They were made in the context of an action taken by the previous government to remove barley, at least in part, from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Subsequently the action was proved to be without legal authority and the subject of a court challenge. The court eventually held that the conduct of the previous government was outside the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

It was in the context of the legal dispute that we made our remarks about a year ago now, or last summer, in respect of the desirability of a plebiscite.

Having said that, we are not philosophically opposed to a plebiscite or to the proposition that was put forward by the farm groups referred to in the hon. member's question.

I would caution the hon. member and those farm organizations that we all need to think through very carefully both the procedures and the implications of a plebiscite with respect to this particular farm marketing issue because it is not quite as simple as those who might raise this proposition would lead some to believe.

Canada Post

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the other day an article in the Ottawa Citizen stated that Canada Post recently awarded an Australian firm a contract to produce Canadian stamps.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Could the minister explain to the House the reasons behind this contract being awarded to a foreign country?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the hon. member for his excellent and, I might add, unexpected question.

I wish to inform him and all other hon. members that the company supplying Canada Post with the quality material went bankrupt and as a result Canada Post had to go offshore.

The hon. member should be apprised that 57 per cent of Canada Post's printing requirements are done by Canadian suppliers. I can assure the hon. member we are continuing to work with Canada Post as well as Industry Canada to ensure that the remaining 43 per cent which comes from offshore will come from Canadian suppliers in the not too distant future.

Grain Transportation

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture or Minister of Transport.

Last August the previous government began dismantling the Crow benefit portion of the Western Grain Transportation Act by cutting it by 10 per cent. It proposed further cuts over four years which would see the Crow disappear completely.

Since rents and farmland values are being forced down by this policy, making the refinancing of a diversified western economy more difficult, if not impossible, will the government fully reinstate the Crow benefit in perpetuity?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to taking the same line as the Minister of Finance, I think my hon. friend will have to wait for the budget to get the answers to questions regarding the Crow and a number of other questions we are all waiting with bated breath to have answered.

Patrick Tremblay Foundation

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On February 11 last, I called the attention of this House to the case of the young Patrick Tremblay who is fighting a severe form of cancer. This young man has to undergo expensive treatment available only in Texas.

To raise money to pay for his treatment, a foundation has been set up. This foundation, we are told, will go on helping other people in a similar situation after Patrick is cured. Unfortunately, the Department of National Revenue is delaying granting the accreditation application that would enable this foundation to issue income tax receipts.

My question is the following: Is the minister aware that any further delay in accrediting such a foundation is endangering not only Mr. Tremblay's life but also the lives of all Quebecers and Canadians who suffer from the same disease and who could benefit from the assistance provided by this foundation?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is a very important and serious one particularly for the family involved.

The department is faced with the problem of the very tight legal requirements put on it by this House and of course by legislation. I will however attempt to see what I can do. In due course I hope to be able to report to the hon. member a decision one way or the other.

Justice

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an unexpected question for the Minister of Justice. It concerns the mercy applications under section 690 of the Criminal Code which pertains to applications for new trials by convicted Canadians.

As the minister knows, it has taken as long as four years for his department to process and decide on such applications. In view of this would the minister consider a review of the process within his department in order to expedite these applications? Would the minister give consideration to adopting the recommendations made by the royal commission of inquiry into the Donald Marshall case?

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

Mr. Speaker, a review of the process surrounding the section 690 applications is presently under way in the Ministry of Justice. We are taking a close look at the recommendations of the Marshall inquiry.

We will be announcing in the next few months changes in the system to ensure that all such applications are dealt with fairly and as quickly as possible.

I should point out one thing. While it is true some of the applications in recent years have taken an extended period, I have examined the records and they show that in those cases counsel for the applicant was making additional submissions sometimes with new evidence. Therefore those working on the application had to take that new material into account which delayed the process.

I do agree we should process them as quickly as possible in the interests of fairness and justice. We do have it under review. I will be happy to report to the House when we have come to our conclusions.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville rose on a question of privilege and made submissions with regard to certain allegations that have been made.

He indicated when he rose on his question of privilege that he wished to clarify an issue, and I am quoting from Hansard at page 1387: ``that has become a subject of debate not only in this Chamber but also across the nation''.

The member stated: "This has impeded my ability to function effectively and efficiently as the member of Parliament for the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville". Later on in his submission he stated: "I invite my colleagues in the House to examine my academic credentials and weigh the accusations in a rational and judicious manner".

Mr. Speaker, I confirm that you and I had a discussion earlier this day with regard to this particular matter. I understand you are presently considering the question of privilege raised by the hon. member.

I indicated to you that I wished to make submissions on this question of privilege. Therefore I wish to ask you to defer your decision on this matter pending an opportunity for me and other members, if they so wish and desire, to make submissions as to why this particular unfortunate matter has affected the privileges of each of us individually and the House as a whole.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, you will be called upon when a matter of privilege is raised to simply determine whether it is a matter of privilege and whether to allow a motion to go forward recommending a particular course of action.

I wish to give notice of my intention to move a motion. If you so decide there is a breach of privilege, I wish to move a motion that the matters affecting the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville be referred to the elections and privileges standing committee. The committee would then have the authority to investigate the allegations against the hon. member. The committee would have the authority to hear and I would submit-

[The Speaker]

Order. Colleagues, I have not yet made a decision as to whether our hon. colleague does indeed have a prima facie case of privilege.

I will probably rule tomorrow but if I deem it necessary it may take some extra time. I want to make sure I consider all aspects of this submission which have been put forward. When I have decided, I will come back to the House and give my ruling at that time.

Following the ruling we will then proceed in an orderly fashion as to whether or not the House indeed wants to consider anything further in the matter of privilege.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity as a member of the House to make submissions in advance of your ruling.

I believe that members of Parliament have been affected by this matter. We have certainly received telephone calls and letters. I simply wish and I would like you to confirm that I will have the opportunity to make submissions to you in advance of your decision.