House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was taxes.
Ron Irwin LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, the question is: Do rank and file aboriginal people of Manitoba want self-government at this time? The response would be yes.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In the last six months I have received over 60 examples from Manitoba describing instances of misappropriation and fraudulent use of band funds, mismanagement of band funds for unauthorized purposes, interference of band leaders in the deliveries of programs, and fear and intimidation tactics including assault and band memberships being forcibly removed from the reserves.
In the self-government agreement being negotiated-
Indian AffairsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.
Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB
How will the minister assure the protection of individual rights and how will aboriginal leaders be held accountable to rank and file aboriginal people?
Ron Irwin LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is that we cannot trust these people because they cannot handle their affairs. I do not accept that premise.
What I see out there are honourable chiefs, honourable members, 400 of whom met at The Pas and unanimously said: "The time is now. We like your policy. We are prepared to work with you", and I intend to work with these people.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. According to this morning's Toronto Star issue a secret memo, addressed to all members of the cabinet, told them what strategy to use when dealing with Ginn Publishing. They were advised not to make any statement on the sale of this company, and also to dismiss all possibilities of inquiry on the matter by a parliamentary committee.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm the existence of such a secret memo and tell us if this is the reason why an inquiry on this sale has been rejected by the cabinet and by the Parliamentary Committee on Canadian Heritage?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the secret memo the member refers to is so secret that none of the ministers involved had seen it or heard of it in fact until this morning; but I am told there was some advice contained in a
communications memo prepared although I am not sure by whom.
They tell me that it said among other things: "Be boring and dull". I can assure the hon. member I have been doing my best to fulfil that qualification. It has worked so far, has it not?
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am outraged at seeing the government turn into a farce a question dealing with Canadian Heritage.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage still pretend he is defending the Canadian Heritage when his only concerns are to give answers that leave no trace since they are strictly oral and to blindly follow this memo instead of trying to shed light on this sale to American interests?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say a moment ago, the important thing that was also contained in this memo was to grind down the questioner with facts.
Unfortunately the facts have not been of great interest to the hon. member who has put a number of questions on this file; but the facts include the fact that when Investment Canada approved the acquisition of Maxwell Macmillan limited by Prentice-Hall, it approved the acquisition of a company which was in receivership.
The result of the acquisition was the preservation of about 100 jobs in Canada, as well as the acquisition of a series of undertakings given by Prentice-Hall and its owner, Paramount, with respect to the distribution of publications within Canada, as well as the continuation of as many employees as possible.
There is a series of undertakings there. We received undertakings which we think are meaningful and which made this a good deal for Canada.
The facts are not of a lot of interest around here a lot of the time, but it is time members started to take recognition of the fact that in this case we got a good deal for Canada.
Beryl Gaffney Liberal Nepean, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is supplemental to the one previously asked in the House with regard to today's Federal Court of Appeal decision on child support payments and is for the finance minister.
In recent weeks many members on all sides of the House have spoken in support of changes to the Income Tax Act with regard to how child support payments are taxed.
Will the minister please take into consideration those members' views before making any decision on the approach the government will take?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development -Quebec
Mr. Speaker, it is particularly appropriate that this question would be put to me today by the member for Nepean who has shown such a consistent interest in this subject and in fact has her own bill before the House.
As the member knows and as a number of members in the House know, prior to the last budget there was extensive consultation. It was as a result of suggestions made by members in the House, and particularly in this caucus, that in the last budget we made reference to the potential disparities that might exist and our intention to await the decisions of a federal-provincial family law commission dealing with this subject among many others.
I can assure the member that we will take her advice and the advice of other members in the House into account. Our major concern is that the financial support for these children be as good as it can possibly be and that tax equity be maintained.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The minister had the opportunity for some tough talk over the weekend. He promised to get tough and to close loopholes for deportable criminals.
Last week the immigration and refugee board gave refugee status to a man convicted in Canada of raping an 18-month old child.
In light of this fact could the minister tell the House exactly what concrete measures have been taken during his tenure to toughen up and to protect Canadians from criminals his department allows to stay in Canada?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I said last week and I repeat that in the large number of cases of individuals who appeal to the immigration appeal division my department is not in favour of staying or overturning those deportations.
The member ought to use his words very carefully because it is not true when he characterizes my department as being against the individual's deportation.
Second, I think the member owes it to the immigration file not to suggest somehow that the entire situation is out of whack. The
member should not consider immigration in the way we sometimes consider airplanes, by the ones that do not land, because 99 per cent of the airplanes land at our airports seven days a week, 24 hours a day.
It is the same for immigration. Of the 1,100 cases appealed last year only 16 in terms of criminality were overturned. I admit that some cases ought not to have been overturned and I was very honest and candid with one case last week.
Before last week I said it is not incompatible to have a fair and progressive immigration policy which also means being tough in applying the law to those who seek to break or abuse it. We are not backtracking on that. We will be bringing those amendments to this Chamber so that we can target those individuals who by their actions give all immigrants a black mark.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is that one plane crash that causes horror and devastation. That is the one we are talking about today.
Here is a fact. Just two short weeks ago this minister disbanded the permanent residents unit which tracks down and apprehends the most dangerous deportable criminals in Canada. This is the sort of criminal this minister's appeal division and refugee board seem to enjoy putting on Canadian streets.
My question for the minister-
ImmigrationOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, order. I am sure the hon. member is going to put his question. I encourage the hon. member to not in any way impute motive to any other member in the House. It makes things that much more difficult. I am sure that if the hon. member would want to withdraw any imputation of motive to the hon. minister, I would invite him to do that before he continues his question.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, if I have said something that offends this minister, then I withdraw it. However, I am talking about his department.
My question to the minister is this: How can this minister in good conscience continue to preach about getting tough and at the very same time disband that unit which provides Canadian families the most protection from dangerous deportable criminals?
Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, I said last week that this member does not have a monopoly on virtue or concern and that I do not take any pleasure whatsoever in seeing those individuals who do not merit our consideration walking our streets. The member should do justice to how all members feel about a number of cases.
In answering the question I am going to ask the member to get his facts right and perhaps he could listen. For example, in Ontario since 1992 there has been a reduction of general immigration staff from 1,560 to 1,040. In the meantime, in Ontario, in terms of investigative enforcement officers, the staff has increased from 50 to 60. Five of the six individuals who were reduced in Toronto at the behest of this minister, those individuals have not been reassigned. They are still there.
Also, the unit was not-
René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the week-end issue of The Ottawa Citizen , it was reported that the cabinet had turned down a strategy preventing foreign take-overs of our cultural industries.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Can the minister confirm this information and could he shed some light on the reason why he refuses to put in place measures to protect Canadian cultural industries so as to avoid another fiasco like the Ginn Publishing disaster?
This time, I hope that the real Minister of Canadian Heritage is going to rise and answer my question.
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, to this day, I have not presented the cabinet with an overall policy concerning the protection of Canadian cultural industries. Therefore, the cabinet has not taken it into consideration nor made a decision in this regard.
René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Speaker, I did not say policy; I said strategy.
I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that 80 p. 100 of school books in Canada are sold by foreign-controlled companies, can the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the real one, tell us when he intends to present a policy to prevent what is left of our publishing industry from falling into foreign hands?
Publishing IndustryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would remind all hon. members that when they are addressing a minister, it is the real minister they are talking to. So, there is no need to mention it, please.
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, there is already a policy and I intend to give it some more teeth.
Werner Schmidt Reform Okanagan Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Next Monday, May 9, there will be a large protest at the Osoyoos border crossing in south central British Columbia. The protest is being staged by B.C. fruit growers angry at the inaction by this government on the issue of dumping of Washington apples into Canada.
According to figures supplied by the growers, the industry has lost $1.6 million after only eight weeks of dumping. By the time the Canadian International Trade Tribunal gets around to hearing the complaint, the industry estimates that $25 million could well be lost before the dumping is halted.
Yesterday the minister said he needs proof of damage from the industry. Will the minister acknowledge that industry has supplied the proof and undertake self-initiated action before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal now, before any more growers are hurt by this inaction?