Debates of Feb. 18th, 1994

Liquor Smuggling

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the hon. member can rest assured that we are in fact in touch with our provincial counterparts on the issue of the anti-smuggling campaign. May I remind him that the measures taken last week by the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and other members of the government were not designed only with cigarettes in mind.

We believe the reduction in tax on cigarettes is an important element of a strategy with many parts. Certainly the campaign is against smuggling which includes liquor, illegal arms, pornography, illegal aliens and kidnapped children.

We will continue to maintain the closest links with the provinces to make sure that the interdiction activities of Canada Customs are as effective as they possibly can be.

Members Of Parliament

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

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

In recent days our Prime Minister-

[The Speaker]

Order. Earlier in the Question Period there was reference to members either being here or not being here. It is the accepted practice of the House that we do not make mention of whether or not members are here for the simple reason that all of us are called away for various reasons.

If hon. members would refrain from mentioning anything like this it would be appreciated.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad you are here. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister has to do with the fact that our Prime Minister has gone on and on recently about the need for members to use their judgment. Yet the last time this House voted on the question of physician assisted suicide back in March 1993 the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, failed to show up to cast his vote.

Canadians are wondering when the Prime Minister-

[The Speaker]

I know the hon. member will want to rephrase her question just a bit and she will be putting the question.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if for some reason some member of the House chose not to vote on that sensitive issue, whom would he or she be representing: the party position, his or her personal judgment or conscience, or the wishes of his or her constituents?

[The Speaker]

The Chair is having a bit of difficulty in the sense that this question, which was put at another time, does not refer directly to the administrative responsibility of the government.

However, I guess in a general sense all hon. members are responsible for voting the way they wish. If the Deputy Prime Minister chooses she may answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, to refer to the comments made by the Prime Minister, the point the Prime Minister was trying to make was that in any decision of government we reflect on the views of our constituents, on the position of our party, on the knowledge we have garnered from listening to input, and ultimately we have to make our own decision.

I think the member is treading on very dangerous ground when she is suggesting that we should be mere voting machines. The member will remember that the leader of her own party who took a very strong position against the Charlottetown accord was not supported by his constituents. They in fact voted in favour of the Charlottetown accord, yet he continued to campaign against it.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

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

The Deputy Prime Minister can try to legitimize this mandate all she wants, but the fact remains that not a single word was campaigned on about physician assisted suicide, specifically in the Liberal red book.

In the absence of a national referendum what guarantee could the Deputy Prime Minister give that government members will effectively represent their constituents' views on this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear it is the view of the Liberal Party and of Liberal members of Parliament that they are sent to Parliament to exercise their judgment; they are not voting machines.

If we are to be reduced to mere voting machines in this age of technology, it seems to me we might as well abolish the House of Commons and just put the buttons in everybody's homes so they can vote immediately.

The reason we have members of Parliament is so that we can come to this place, engage in a vigorous and informed debate, and ultimately exercise our judgment in our votes as members of the House of Commons.

Cod Fishing

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, agreed yesterday to put in place a one-year moratorium on cod fishing in the southern region of the Grand Banks off the coast of Newfoundland. Earlier, I heard my colleague say how delighted he was about it.

Could the government explain why members of NAFO have settled for a one-year moratorium, while Canada was stressing the need for a three-year moratorium in order to rebuild cod stocks?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who until very recently was in Brussels-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member is taking away my thunder.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

On behalf of a Canadian representative who has recently been in Brussels may I say to the hon. member that the success of the negotiations on NAFO with respect to cod is a tremendous achievement for the minister and the Canadian government.

I would point out that we have had almost no movement with respect to the members of NAFO on this issue for many years despite previous ministers of fisheries adopting a heckling, blustering tone which our minister of fisheries has failed to adopt. The diplomatic approach has succeeded.

I would like to say that we had a vote. It was not a unanimous vote but it was an excellent vote. There were three abstentions and I believe eight votes in favour. We now have the beginning of an agreement.

It would be unfortunate if we attempted at this point to ask for too much. We have the start of an international agreement. It is the very first time we have had this. I think hon. members on both sides of the House will agree that if we try for too much at this stage we may indeed lose again. The appropriate, diplomatic and low key approach of the minister of fisheries has been enormously successful. I would like to applaud his success.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the answer the minister just gave us. However, will the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister or God knows who from the other side of the House, acknowledge the fact that this moratorium will have a limited scope, since Norway and the European Union have refused to support the moratorium other members of NAFO have agreed upon?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is true there were three abstentions, but we believe even when nations abstained in the past they did not necessarily go against the majority decision of NAFO.

We hope and trust that in this case we will have the same experience and we will find that in fact the moratorium is successful. After all, this is the very first time many of these members of NAFO have agreed there is a fundamental conservation issue on those two areas to the Grand Banks.

That is an enormous step forward in the negotiations we have had with the Europeans on this issue.

Standing Committees

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

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

The government recently introduced changes to the standing orders to make the work of parliamentary standing committees more meaningful. Reform members have heard that the government has a plan to prevent Reform MPs from receiving any vice-chairs on these committees.

What precisely is the plan that the government members are supposed to follow? Is this type of arm twisting really compatible with the freedom of members in committee as promised in the speech from the throne and in recent amendments to the standing orders?

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

Mr. Speaker, the whole premise of the member's question is false. In fact the government does not change the standing orders. They are changed by the House of Commons.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the minister.

Would the minister then be willing to send a memo to all government backbenchers advising them that they are free to vote in committee using their judgment which the Prime Minister-

[The Speaker]

Again the Chair is having a bit of difficulty with the formulation of the question. Perhaps I might suggest, if the question could be put in more general terms the member could get the information he is seeking.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, regarding this business of the House, the Prime Minister declared he had placed much confidence in the judgment of his members rather than them being mere voting machines.

Therefore, would the minister respond on behalf of the government that it will give its backbenchers freedom to vote and act in committee using that judgment?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the House itself cannot discuss matters that go on within committees. However, in order to be helpful to the hon. member, if he would like to raise this matter with me at one of our House leaders meetings, we will see what we can do to come up with a reasonable response.

It is certainly not the desire of the government to prevent members from doing their jobs. I regret the hon. member has made such an unwarranted innuendo.

Canada Labour Code

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Industry will not mind if I put my question directly to the Deputy Prime Minister on a matter of great concern to Montreal.

Several times in the past Liberal critics have asked for changes in the POWA program. This income support program for workers affected by collective lay-offs discriminates against Montreal, because one of the criteria provides that 100 workers must be laid off for a company to be eligible for the program. In fact, when the hon. member for Saint-Léonard was still in the opposition, he presented a petition with 8,000 signatures condemning this rule.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this outrageous discrimination should be stopped, and is she prepared to make lay-offs involving more than 20 employees eligible for this program?

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's suggestion, and if he wishes to table a Private Member's bill, we are prepared to discuss it. As for making a single change that would involve the Canada Labour Code, when we realize that the province has the lowest minimum wage in the country, I think there are many other priorities to consider.