Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1995

Gasoline Additives

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform has long pushed this government to conduct independent scientific tests on MMT, yet our view is scoffed at. Legislation to ban is now known not to have been based on good science at all. Obviously, the decision was politically partisan rather than to help the environment.

Will the Minister of Industry admit that Reform was right all along? Will he admit that there should have been independent tests before trying to ban it, a ban that now appears to be completely useless in view of the minister's harmonization goals?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member stands except awfully close to the petroleum companies on this particular issue.

I can tell him where we stand. We stand with the consumers. We stand with the people who are purchasing the vehicles that are using the fuel. We stand with the people who are looking to have their warranties respected. We need to have standards that are consistent north and south of the border. They are not right; they are wrong. Let them talk to the makers of the vehicles.

Referendum Campaign

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Last week he said

that federal buildings in the Outaouais area and elsewhere in Quebec would remain federal property until negotiations on them were concluded.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge as well that common sense and reason along with the rules and practices of international law in the matter of state succession provide very clearly that, when sovereignty is proclaimed, all of the assets of the federal government located on Quebec territory automatically become the property of Quebec?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I see the opposition is opinionated, not to mention hard of hearing. This is the sort of question that makes it hard to concentrate on the goal of the referendum. The goal of the referendum is as follows: "Do you want to separate from Canada?" This is the question. All the rest are hypothetical questions, which have no bearing.

In the present matter, once again, we must not get carried away with marginal issues. What those of us on the no side want is for Quebecers to remain in the federation, because it is in their interest and in Canadians' interest for them to do so and this is why we are going to vote no.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that we are talking about what he said himself. So if there is a diversion, he is the cause of it.

As Quebec has paid for over 20 per cent of all federal assets in the rest of Canada and abroad, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that Quebec will be entitled as well to its share in the ownership of these other federal assets and this is why Canada will hasten to negotiate a quick and equitable division the day after the referendum?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the statement I made is true, it speaks for itself and it stands. What is important is that, in the last week of the referendum, we can no longer divert Quebecers' attention onto such matters, we must concentrate on the basic issue, because a third of the voters in Quebec still believe they will continue to remain in Canada, even if they say yes. This is wrong. Quebecers must know the truth, and the truth is that separation will mean they can no longer live in Canada.

Government Appointments

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

Mr. Speaker, Robert Heinrich, the committee chair of federal affairs for the Liberal Association of Saskatchewan, was my opponent in the last federal election. Guess what? He has been appointed to the National Parole Board. On a daily basis, that is more lucrative work than being an MP. It pays to be a loser if you are a Liberal.

Can the solicitor general describe to the House the rigorous selection and screening process used to assess the qualifications of appointees to these plum positions?

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

Mr. Speaker, the position was the subject of a public advertisement. Candidates submitted applications. The applications were reviewed by the chair of the parole board who carried out an interview process and made recommendations. It was on the basis of competence and merit that the decision was made.

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

Mr. Speaker, at least there is consistency here. A few months ago, Mr. Heinrich's campaign manager received her reward. She was appointed to the board of the Farm Credit Corporation.

My question is for anybody over there who feels competent to answer it. After all the defeated Liberal candidates and all of their campaign managers have received their lollies, what is going to be done for all of those hardworking Liberals who handed out-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Edmonton East.

Human Rights

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

All Canadians value our well-earned reputation throughout the world for being a nation with a deep respect for human rights. Canadians continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in Mexico, our NAFTA partner.

Can the minister tell us how the government is responding to those concerns?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me advance notice of her question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

There is some courtesy in Parliament sometimes. I certainly appreciate this. If other members want to do the same thing I will gladly accept their advance questions.

The human rights president of Mexico, Jorge Madrazo, was in Ottawa some time ago. He met with the Canadian human rights commissioner. They have agreed to exchange information, to work together and to co-operate on a very wide variety of programs which will certainly go a long way in helping Mexico to cope with its situation.

In his discussions with me Mr. Madrazo has indicated that he is quite pleased with the co-operation he is receiving from his government and hopes to see progress in this regard in the near future.

Status Of Women

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance.

At the recent Beijing conference the government committed itself to implementing gender based analysis throughout federal departments and agencies. The need for this analysis is to determine the different social and economic impacts that government policies will have on women and men.

Will his department ensure that full gender based studies in matters relating to his next budget will be undertaken and tabled in the House when the next budget is delivered?

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

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member, the Secretary of State for the Status of Women unveiled a new policy on gender analysis which was very highly applauded by all of the countries that were there.

In the past, individual budget decisions have been studied for their impact on women. It is therefore a major step forward that now each and every government department must look within its own decision making process to make sure no decisions are taken that are hostile to women. It is the view of the government that all decisions taken should be to their benefit.

[The Speaker]

This brings question period to a close.

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

This morning the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan rose on a point of order relating to Standing Order 45 and the timing of the deferred vote scheduled for 5.30 p.m. this day.

His argument is that this vote should have been scheduled for 6.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(6)(a), when a vote is deferred on a Thursday.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader counter-argued that Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) allows the chief government whip to designate another time than the ordinary hour of adjournment so long as he does not set the vote down for a Friday.

I have reviewed the matter and find that the wording of Standing Order 45(6)(a) is very specific. It reads as follows:

A division deferred on Thursday is not held on Friday, but is instead deferred to the next sitting day, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Because of this very specific wording I can only conclude that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan has a point. Standing Order 45(6)(a) clearly states what is to happen when a deferral of a division is requested on a Thursday and a Friday.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader did allude to a possible incongruity between the two standing orders. He may wish to pursue that aspect with the committee that he so ably chairs.

For now, and until the House changes the wording of the standing orders, requests by a single whip, acting alone, for the deferral of a division on a Thursday will be automatically set down at the ordinary hour of adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the question put by my hon. colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I raise it under citation 485 of Beauchesne. I ask whether you ruled his question out of order on the basis of-

[The Speaker]

I ruled the question out of order and that is why I never permitted an answer for it. I found that the question was just not in keeping with the administrative responsibilities of anyone identifiable. I found that it was a matter of what was going on in the party and that does not include what we do here in the House for answers from ministers.

I would like to let that matter sit right there.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate to ask for clarification of a ruling by the Chair? Can a member ask a question for clarification purposes only with regard to a ruling and not on the basis of challenging the Speaker? I certainly understand that rule in Beauchesne, but for clarification cannot a point of order be raised?

[The Speaker]

Hon. members collectively have empowered me as the Speaker to make decisions on what will be in order or out of order in question period. I take this responsibility very seriously.

The hon. member has asked if he can rise on a point of clarification. If an hon. member wants clarification I will be very happy to speak with him or her in my chambers. I find that I am being asked more and more for clarification of decisions that I have taken in the course of question period. I hope that most members feel that the decisions I take are taken in the best interests of the House.

With regard to the points that come up I beg that you give me latitude so I can carry out question period in a judicious manner. Of course a point of clarification can be raised but many times when a point is raised I am led into hypothetical cases which could be misinterpreted.

Therefore, if members will agree, I would prefer that if you have points to be clarified about a particular decision I will be happy to speak to you in my chambers about it. When we keep having these discussions come up time and time again I feel that what is being questioned, not necessarily in this case but in some instances, is the decision itself. I hope you would give me enough room to make those decisions.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is in reference to the decision made by the Speaker with regard to the vote tonight.

For the benefit of all members, some who may not have been physically in the Chamber at the time of Mr. Speaker's ruling, I take it that the vote for today only, without creating a precedent, will remain at 5.30 p.m. Perhaps Mr. Speaker can indicate that.

Second, there has been informal consultation between the Reform Party whip and myself to bring the matter as per the Speaker's suggestion to the procedure and House affairs committee in order to attempt to make more uniform the rules as they apply to every single day of the week rather than the ambiguity which some could perceive as being in the rules at the present time.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, it is my understanding that if the whips of the major parties agree that the vote will be at 5.30, which I presume is the agreement reached, I do not have to ask for unanimous consent of the House.

I see the three whips in front of me now and there is no question but that the vote is going to be at 5.30 and that is so ordered.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.