Debates of March 17th, 1994

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the band who obviously are very concerned about the negligence shown by Abitibi-Price in this particular case.

Subsection 36(2) of the pulp and paper regulations makes it very clear that when there is a spill, the spill is to be reported immediately. In this case it is intolerable that the company waited four days before notifying authorities that 828 kilograms of this particular pesticide were dumped into a river which subsequently serves as drinking water for Canadians.

We are vigorously investigating with provincial authorities. There are a series of charges being contemplated, both charges for non-reporting and charges for deleterious substances being released into the river system. We intend to report back to the member and to other interested members on this issue as soon as we have a final conclusion.

Electronic Highway

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

The electronic highway will have a major impact on many aspects of society such as consumer activity, personal privacy, industry and education, to name only these. We have learned that the committee that will develop the government's strategy will meet behind closed doors.

My main question is this: Given the electronic highway's strategic and determining role in the economy, how can the minister justify his decision to have this committee hold its discussions behind closed doors?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we decided to have a consultative process with a committee, a fairly open process. All those with opinions to express can inform us if they wish; we even have an Internet address for submissions to help us prepare our policy on the electronic highway.

I do not understand why the hon. member thinks that a committee must open all its business to the public. Perhaps when the Bloc wants to open the doors to its caucus discussions, we can consider it.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second question. To avoid looking too much like the Conservatives, whom the government denounced on many occasions in the past, does the minister not agree that the government should be more open and involve the public and Parliament in the work of this committee?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member misunderstands what we are trying to do here.

We have formed an advisory committee. Everyone in the country is not on it. Therefore by its very nature some people are going to be excluded. The process is multifaceted. There are many ways for people to express their points of view.

With respect to the advisory committee itself, as we explained yesterday the committee will be receiving submissions from people as they wish. Reports as they become available will be made open to the public. For that matter, if the chairman and members of the committee wish to hold public hearings as far as I am concerned they are most welcome to do so.

We want a process that is both functional and inexpensive to get us to the conclusion of this part of our policy development process as expeditiously as possible and as I am sure the member would like us to do.

Government Contracts

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

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

Yesterday I asked the minister if she would table the guidelines that help to guide her department in the allocation of advertising contracts under her jurisdiction. I hope to get those guidelines sometime soon.

When it is a sizeable contract, like the one that has been awarded to McKim Advertising in Winnipeg, surely the minister has conducted a detailed investigation into this or any prospective contractor, especially if the agency has come under new management just two weeks before the major contract was awarded.

Was the minister personally aware of the political background of the new owner of McKim Advertising when she signed off the new contract?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the hon. member how this all works.

McKim is the advertising agency on specific issues for my department. It was chosen through the competitive process prescribed in the government communications policy and overseen by the advertising management group of the Department of Government Services.

By the way, this particular agency was chosen before this government came to office. Pending the review by government of contracting procedures for advertising companies, Health Canada was authorized to extend the contract to McKim for six months. It is not a huge contract. I believe yesterday the amount mentioned was $185 million. That is the whole tobacco strategy. This extension of contract is very small.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Warner, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I have notice of a question of privilege arising from question period. I will hear it because it did arise from the question period.

Question Of Privilege

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker. I feel that, while answering a question today, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions violated my privileges as a parliamentarian by attempting to put some of the blame on me for his government unacceptable abdication to the American giant Paramount.

What he suggested is absolutely false. I have never been associated in any way with this issue. It is the minister's responsibility to name the anonymous entity behind which he is taking cover to justify this abdication on the part of his government.

No minister has the right to cast such a doubt on me when the government knows who is the guilty one but will not name him.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to ask that the member have the decency to withdraw these allegations.

[The Speaker]

The Speaker was present during Question Period today. We heard an answer in which there may have been an allusion to a member having done this or that at some other time.

I am not sure this is a question of privilege; it may simply be a point of fact. I am taking the request into consideration, but I want to consult Hansard . Agreed? Thank you.

There is another question of privilege. If the question of privilege by the member from Swift Current is arising out of this question period then I will hear a question of privilege from the hon. member.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity so many members opposite think that irony is something found in a scrap yard.

It is equally a pity the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has attempted through my remarks to divert attention away from a personal attack he made on one of my colleagues. It was indeed a personal attack.

If the minister would care to read my entire speech in Hansard rather than taking a few lines out of it, he would know full well that I was taking a shot at people who use the term redneck as a conversational A-bomb to devastate anyone who does not agree with their politically correct views. I then proceeded to define redneck in my terms and I stick to it.

I still am a redneck by those terms, but not by the insulting terms used by the minister which imply-

[The Speaker]

Once again I believe that surely the hon. member would have a point of debate and perhaps even a point of grievance. However, I would not see a point of privilege at this particular juncture.

It is my understanding that any statements allegedly made by the minister were made in committee. I would ask hon. members involved if they could perhaps seek redress on their grievance first in committee. If the committee of course chooses to report this to the House, then it will become a matter for the House to decide.

My colleagues, if I may be permitted I would point out with all respect that this House has conducted itself immeasurably well. I encourage all hon. members to act with one another as they have for the greatest part of the few months we have been sitting. It is a measure of the Parliament that we have been able to have the quality and the substance of debate we have had. I would hope that is the forerunner of the good relations to continue.

I believe the hon. member does have a point of grievance and indeed of debate. I would ask him and other hon. members who would feel aggrieved in committee to please address themselves to the chairman of that committee. They would have recourse there.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the Government House leader tell us what business will be dealt with tomorrow and next week?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. opposition House leader for his question.

As we know, today is an allotted day on the criminal justice system.

Tomorrow we will ask the House to consider Bill C-14 respecting borrowing authority. If this were to be completed we would turn to Bill C-17 regarding implementation of the recent budget followed by Bill C-9 respecting a previous economic statement.

On Monday the House will consider a measure now on the notice paper for introduction tomorrow concerning the electoral boundaries system. When this is completed we will return to the point where we left off on the list for Friday.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day under the auspices of the Official Opposition. Since it is the last allotted day in the present supply period, at the end of the day there will be motions to concur in final supplementary estimates and in interim supply followed by the passage of appropriation acts.

Starting on Wednesday and continuing for the rest of the week we will resume the legislative list outlined for Monday. If we make progress on the items already mentioned, we will bring forward as well Bill C-7 regarding the control of certain substances, Bill C-11 respecting tobacco, Bill C-4 respecting the NAFTA side deals, and Bill C-2 respecting Revenue Canada.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I was wondering if I could seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to statements by ministers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

National Defence

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, in an answer to a question from the hon. member for Charlesbourg, I said: "I will not be able to comment on the chain of command or anything to do with the Canadian Airborne Regiment, anything that could be construed as interference in the judicial proceedings". I have a few more details to add.

I thank hon. members opposite for allowing me to add a few words to what I said yesterday to the hon. member for Charlesbourg.

As a result of the several incidents arising out of the Canadian Airborne Regiment Battle Group deployment on United Nations duties to Somalia, a series of investigations were undertaken by Canadian forces authorities.

Military police investigations into the incidents commenced on April 15, 1993. They have resulted in a series of charges under the National Defence Act being laid against members of the Canadian forces. These charges have and will result in disposition by courts martial.

As well, on April 28, 1993 the previous chief of defence staff directed that a board of inquiry be convened to investigate leadership, discipline, operations, actions and procedures of the Canadian Airborne Regiment Battle Group. Phase one of the board of inquiry is completed. Phase two will not commence before the disciplinary process which is presently under way is completed.

The evidence given at any of the courts martial will be reviewed by appropriate military authorities who will determine what, if any, further action is required.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a ministerial statement which complements an answer and does not require a long comment on my part.

I simply want to tell the Minister of National Defence that we appreciate obtaining supplementary answers. This particular one does not provide a lot of specifics. It simply tells us about how things should normally proceed from now on. But we want to point out to the minister that our colleague was very concerned about the negative situation prevailing on that military base, with a regiment whose behaviour seems very unusual.

I reiterate my colleague's concerns and remind the minister of the importance of ensuring that all the facts are known about the incidents which took place on that military base, which are disturbing, to say the least.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, all Canadians were disconcerted and disappointed by the incident that occurred in Somalia. We are watching with great interest the outcome of the courts martial.

We agree with the government that the appropriate time to discuss phase two in detail is following those courts martial when all the details are known.

We will be very attentive to the results of that phase two investigation and even more interested in the recommendations of the minister and chief of defence staff as to how to rectify it to ensure that this does not happen again.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(B), because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by four minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Business Of Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert has seven minutes left.