Debates of May 2nd, 1994

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am ready to deliver my decision on two questions of privilege which were brought up on Thursday. The reason I am giving my decision now before the start of Question Period is that it could impact on Question Period itself.

I will add whatever time it takes for me to read my decision to the end of Question Period today.

As I said, I am now ready to render my decision concerning the question of privilege raised by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs on Thursday, April 28 following Question Period. I will also respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Roberval at the same time.

The minister has indicated that his privileges were breached when, in the preamble to certain questions, statements were made that he was unwilling to answer some questions that had been addressed to him. Such comments could give a poor impression of his work as a minister and a member.

We must always bear in mind the basic principles that govern Question Period. These principles have been eloquently summarized in the past by Speakers Jerome and Bosley, and the highlights of their statements can be found in citations 409 and 410 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne.

One of these principles is that the Opposition is free to ask questions of any minister but only if these questions fall within the administrative responsibility of the government. However, according to citation 410, paragraph 16, in the 6th edition of Beauchesne:

Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current portfolios.

I would like to remind this House of the remarks of Speaker Lamoureux on this subject on October 16, 1968, which were reported at page 133 of the House of Commons Journals :

-a minister may be asked questions relating to a department for which he has ministerial responsibility or acting ministerial responsibility, but a minister cannot be asked, nor can he answer questions in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province or, again, as spokesman for a racial or religious group.

These remarks, which were referred to by Speaker Bosley in his statement of February 24, 1986, today apply more than ever and should be followed as strictly as possible by the members when addressing questions to a minister. As the members will recall, during Question Period on Thursday I had to redirect certain questions to the ministers who were responsible for them.

This is also why I found the question of the hon. member for Portneuf unacceptable. Furthermore, on rereading the Debates , I must acknowledge that the questions and comments by the hon. member for Roberval to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and those by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie to the Minister of Finance were not only incorrect, but totally unacceptable acording to our rules.

The Speaker accordingly recognizes the merits of the arguments raised by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I must, however, state that what is involved here is not prima facie a question of privilege, but rather a point of order.

Finally, to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Roberval, as to whether ministers may be questioned on a public statement unrelated to their departmental responsibilities, I reiterate the principle that a minister may be questioned during Oral Question Period on matters directly related to areas affecting his department. The member is incorrect in claiming that a minister of the government may be questioned on any comment he may have made. The precedents and the parliamentary practice are very clear on this point: a member may not question a minister concerning a public statement that is not directly related to his department.

In closing, I would like to add that since the beginning of this Parliament the exchanges during question period have been interesting and lively and in the overwhelming majority of cases marked by the respect that we owe to ourselves and to this House. I am certain that we can continue along this path.

I thank the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon. member for Roberval for the clarity and conciseness of their interventions and I hope that these comments will be of use to them and may also serve as a guide to all members as well.

It is now 20 minutes past the hour. This Question Period will last until 3.05 p.m.

Regional Economic Development

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appointed the Minister of Finance as the minister responsible for Quebec's regional economic development. However, because of his personal economic interests, which we do not criticize him for but which exist, the finance minister's room to manoeuvre is significantly reduced on several issues of importance to Quebec's economic future.

Does the Prime Minister admit that his finance minister's room to manoeuvre is extremely reduced on several economic issues of major importance to Quebec since he cannot, as he himself acknowledged, deal with the high speed train, the Magdalen Islands ferry, the multifunctional smart ship or, in large part, the conversion of defence industry to civilian uses? Does the Prime Minister admit that Quebec is thus poorly served?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We have ministers responsible for every portfolio and if there are cases where the Minister of Finance cannot get involved for the reasons we all know, well, the Prime Minister comes from Quebec and he can intervene. However, the Minister of Transport or other ministers consider the issues and report back when it is time to do so. Everyone knows how competent the Minister of Finance is and, considering the responsibilities we have given him, he could not do any better.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister has seen fit to appoint ministers responsible for Western Economic Diversification, the Atlantic provinces' development and Quebec's development, I imagine he had good reasons to do so.

Are we to understand from what the Prime Minister just said that every time the minister he entrusted with Quebec's economic issues cannot get involved, the Prime Minister will take over his portfolio and intervene as the minister responsible for Quebec should?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this may occur in one or two areas, especially in transportation matters, for the reasons we all know, but these issues are well known by all the ministers and by the Prime Minister.

In this as in most cases, the Minister of Transport is kept abreast of developments so Quebec's interests are never minimized at any time because the Minister of Finance, who must also deal with the rest of the regional development portfolio, happens to be the minister responsible. On the contrary, I think the hon. member should rise and say, "We are very lucky that the Minister of Finance comes from Quebec".

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister admit that the Minister of Finance is in a very bad position, under these circumstances, to intervene on behalf of the MIL Davie shipyard in Lauzon for the Magdalen Islands ferry, while his colleague in Transport, who is directly involved in the decision, and the minister responsible for development in the Atlantic provinces have all the freedom required to intervene on behalf of a shipyard in their region, in their province?

Is Quebec not at a disadvantage since, unfortunately in this issue, the official spokesman has his hands tied, unlike his colleagues?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to really understand the objectives and purpose of the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec.

As I announced three weeks ago and as the Minister of Human Resources Development announced regarding the Western Diversification Fund in the west, we in the Federal Office really intend to emphasize small and medium-sized business.

In Quebec, we who are really the heirs of the Quiet Revolution and the entrepreneurial revolution know very well that Quebec's economic future is in our hands, in our small and medium-sized businesses, and as the federal government, we intend to encourage this dynamism; Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there is no conflict of interest between the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for the Federal Office and Quebec entrepreneurs.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who is also responsible for regional development.

The future of the largest private employer in the Quebec City region is in serious jeopardy. It is riding, basically, on two decisions to be made by the federal government: one concerning the project to build a ferry for the Magdalen Islands and the other concerning the project to develop a multipurpose ship called a smart ship.

Does the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec recognize that the future of the MIL Davie shipyards basically depends on the decision the federal government will make in these two matters and does he recognize at the same time that he cannot intervene directly to protect the interests of MIL Davie in these two very important matters?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows very well I believe, we have just received a draft of a comprehensive business plan for MIL Davie. Our officials are presently reviewing this plan and, when a decision is made with the stockholder who has the greatest share of responsibility for MIL Davie, we may have an opportunity to give it some advice on the company. We are perfectly aware of the major role of this company in the Quebec City region.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

My question is for the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that the very fact the Minister of Finance is incapable of answering this question in the House clearly shows the difficulty he has carrying out his functions as minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, given he is incapable of intervening in favour of MIL Davie in cabinet, while his colleagues from Transport and Public works will be able to defend without any restrictions the interests of shipyards in the Maritimes?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that in the case of the prairies the file is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. We are following and I am following personally this file.

I believe the interests of everyone concerned are very well protected. The mandate that has been given to the Minister of Finance does not mean he is responsible for the Minister of Transport. We have a very good Minister of Transport who is looking into this need and what is required for transportation. He has to look at all the alternatives and the costs and the decision will be made in due course.

In the case of the chantiers maritimes, we have ministers responsible. The office that is under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance has nothing to do with MIL-Davie or transportation or defence. It has to do with small and medium sized businesses. The minister is doing an excellent job helping them.

Income Tax

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

Last night many Canadians stayed awake to do their income tax returns.

[An hon. member]

The hockey game.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

No, it was not to watch the hockey game. Canadians were sorting through their T1s, T1CTBs, their T778s, their T4s and T5s. Frankly, today there are lot of teed-off Canadians out there.

Every year Canadians spend countless millions of dollars on accountants and lawyers to have their income tax returns prepared. The 2,091 page Income Tax Act is an unmitigated mess of rules and regulations and is screaming for reform, as are many Canadians.

When will the Prime Minister instruct his ministers and mandarins to simplify the income tax system to reflect equity, efficiency and effectiveness and thereby reduce the tax burden on Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is very evident that the hon. member of Parliament read the red book.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow's supply motion will be on this very subject. I hope the Prime Minister takes the time to listen to some of the comments by members of this House.

Currently tax freedom day is July 7. That is how long Canadians have to work to pay their share of the costs of this government's red book plan.

I ask the Prime Minister, when can Canadians expect to pay less in taxes in a current year than they did the year before?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be in that position the minute all Canadians who want to work find jobs. That is the best way to reduce the tax burden. However when 11.6 per cent of the people are unemployed such as the situation we faced when we were elected, we asked how we could rectify that.

The easy answer is to have programs that will create jobs. However, I note every time we want to have a program to create jobs the Reform Party is opposed to it.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the income tax system is so complicated that the revenue department is the largest employer in the public service with over 35,000 employees at a cost of $1.8 billion. That is a workforce larger than the town of Shawinigan.

I ask the Prime Minister, has the government calculated how many billions of dollars it could save in government administration costs and how much individual taxpayers could save in tax preparation charges by introducing a fair and integrated system of taxation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we have committees of the House of Commons looking into that. The Minister of Finance is looking into it all the time also.

I noted in the debate on the budget and when there was a rumour something might be changed that very often the Reform members were opposed to it. Sometimes people are afraid of too many changes.

We are trying to change the GST and replace it with a fair system of taxation. I am very confident the committee will come out with a report next month so that the Minister of Finance will be in a position to study the recommendations of the House of Commons. This is a very complex system that people want to get rid of. I know the Reform Party wants to keep the very complex system of GST. One of the statements made by the leader of that party was that they love the GST. We hate it and we will kill it.

[Translation]

Rwanda

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The civil war continues in Rwanda, where an estimated 200,000 people have been killed. Negotiations for a ceasefire have reached adeadlock.

Friday, the UN Secretary-General urged the security council to consider the use of force to put an end to the massacre of thousands of innocent people, even if this would mean bringing in more-UN peacekeepers.

According to a news bulletin this morning, the Minister of National Defence is hesitant to support this proposal by the UN Secretary-General. Could the Minister for Foreign Affairs indicate whether Canada intends to support this proposal?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the slaughter which continues in Rwanda cannot be tolerated by countries that have had development aid programs in Rwanda.

Canada is among those countries who are trying, within the United Nations or the Organization for African Unity, to find ways to make these factions who are killing each other today see reason.

I can inform the hon. member that preliminary talks which took place at the United Nations have not been successful, and that is why we feel that perhaps another forum, the OAU for instance, might be in a better position to start a conciliation process and persuade the parties to stop killing each other. Any proposals to that effect will certainly be supported by Canada.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering the increasing number of Rwandan refugees who are fleeing the civil war and 30 years of close ties between Quebec and Rwanda, does the minister intend to increase the humanitarian aid he announced previously?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the Canadian International Development Agency has donated $1 million for emergency aid, and we have also donated $2 million to the International Red Cross to help save lives and help the wounded in that country. It is not much, considering the extent of the slaughter. Canada, in co-operation with other countries, is trying to determine what kind of humanitarian aid should be sent immediately.

Obviously, as long as the fighting and the carnage continues, it is extremely difficult to bring in humanitarian aid and ensure it reaches those who need it. Nevertheless, Canada and other countries will continue to look for ways to go and help these people who have been left to fend for themselves.

Justice

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

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

The minister is on record as stating that he fundamentally disagrees with the proposition that there is a crisis in confidence in the Canadian system of justice. He has also stated he thinks the justice system works well and that it is fundamentally sound. Today it is reported that the minister has been selective in the use of his statistics to back up these claims.

Does the minister truly believe that a 61 per cent increase in violent crimes over the past 10 years does not constitute a crisis in Canada's criminal justice system?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that I do not think any useful purpose is served by a protracted debate about the numbers. The fact is any amount of crime in Canada is too much. The justice system could always be improved and we are working hard to achieve that.

On the subject of the numbers and the statistics, let me point out to the hon. member that the statistics reported today in one of the newspapers on this very subject involve numbers going back to 1962. While that is interesting what is perhaps of more relevance to today's purpose are the more recent statistics.

Since 1977, in the last 16 years during which numbers have been kept, homicides are up only 4 per cent. Those are the statistical facts from the same source referred to in the newspaper this morning.

Reference is made to violent crime. However in many of those statistics if you look behind the initial number, violence often includes such things as schoolyard shoving and slapping by

young offenders, behaviours which were not charged in the days before the statute but now are and form part of the statistics.

I say to the hon. member that any amount of crime is too much. I insist that we keep this issue in perspective and I repeat that the justice system on the whole is in very good shape.