Debates of April 6th, 1995

Government Contracts

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if the practice of using public funds to develop a communication strategy for the Liberal caucus is widespread among his cabinet colleagues, and if it is consistent with government ethics?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has some facts, only some. The balance of her question is a combination of either invention or wishful thinking.

The funds were spent for the legitimate purpose of seeking the advice of others as to how best to serve the public interest. This was not advice on how to deal with caucus. This was advice on how to deal with issues that confront the Minister of Justice in relation to performing public responsibilities in the public interest. That is exactly why the money was spent.

Gun Control

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the justice minister said Liberal MPs who express their opinion and opposition to gun control legislation would not be punished. That was cool comfort. Already these MPs have been turfed from their committees.

[The Speaker]

As I explained earlier, we have a tradition in the House of not referring to any votes taken in the House or how members have voted. I ask hon. members to please be cognizant of this in framing their questions and also in giving their answers.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Could the government House leader explain to the House and to the Canadian public what has happened to the red book promise of allowing more free votes in the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, free votes are those designated as such by the government. We did not designate the vote on second reading of the gun control bill a free vote.

However, we are keeping our promise each day the House sits because we treat all private members' business as free votes. This is certainly a lot more than was done by the previous government. At the same time, in the way the House voted on the gun control legislation we are responding freely to the consensus of the Canadian people.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, MPs must be allowed to represent their constituents without threats from the party whip. MPs should be praised for that, not punished.

Could the justice minister or the government House leader explain to the House why some Liberal members have been immediately turfed from their committee duties?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter involving the government as such but the internal workings of our caucus.

We would be happy when the time comes to go to the Canadian people as a party, as a caucus and ask for their support on the basis of the good work we have been doing for the Canadian people. This is exemplified by our support of the Minister of Justice's very positive, necessary and constructive gun control legislation.

Telecommunications

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Last November, the federal government, unhappy with a CRTC ruling on direct satellite broadcasting, formed a committee made up of friends of the government so that it could bypass the CRTC ruling in order to benefit other friends of the government, including Power Broadcasting.

How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage give credence to the report by a panel of so-called experts, when they only met with the Power Broadcasting project representatives and refused

to meet with their competitors under the pretext that they did not have enough time?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, these allegations are false. I suggest to the hon. member that she could perhaps take the time to read the report; she may even agree with the recommendations made by this panel of experts.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague earlier, the Minister of Industry said that the government had set up its own committee in order to get the opinion of experts.

Are we to understand that the minister formed his own committee because he felt that the CRTC was not able to make what he sees as an appropriate recommendation and that his own committee would make a recommendation that would suit him?

[English]

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, no. In fact, the government has not indicated it wants a particular decision at all. The government has the responsibility to establish policy in an important area which affects not just the delivery of program services but indeed has quite a broad effect on the information highway initiative in general.

The responsibility for making policy is that of the government. That is why governments are elected. We will consider the views of the panel of experts which will be reporting today and we will indicate what policy we believe should be followed.

The issue of who wins and who loses in these things frequently is a result of decisions of a regulatory panel, a tribunal, as in this case the CRTC. Nobody has suggested those decisions should be made elsewhere.

Indian Affairs

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of Indian affairs displayed petulance and obfuscation which has forced him this morning-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to be very judicious in the words he is going to use from here on in.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the minister of Indian affairs clarified his conflicting answers on the series of events on the Stoney Reserve. It is now evident the minister did not seriously investigate this ongoing situation until after yesterday's question period.

I have now heard reports that there are five other locations in Alberta where logging may be exceeding DIAND permits: Gerard, Sturgeon, Hart Lake, Boyer and Eden Valley. What is the minister doing about this?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was enlightening if for no other reason than the member for Kootenay East told the Vancouver Sun that all the companies were from his riding and would not name them.

In case the hon. member wants to know where the member for Kootenay East is, he is about three down and sits in the Reform Party. If he wants to be helpful, he obviously knows the names of the companies and he could quietly provide the RCMP with the information so that charges can be laid.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be refreshing to have the minister stop attacking the Reform Party every time he is asked a question. He could start being a professional manager.

The minister has given conflicting reports as to when he knew about the overcutting at Stoney Reserve. Did he know when the department knew one year ago? If not, why not? If he did, why did he not do something?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would categorize this as more of a confession than an attack. I am glad the hon. member has raised that question because I think it is time to get positive.

What are we going to do about it? I think we could use the help of the Reform because the National Aboriginal Forestry Association has proposals for legislation. It represents 120 First Nations who are involved in forestry, 50 forestry companies, educational institutes and the Meadow Lake Integrated Management Program which does training. They have five goals all of which presumably the Reform will endorse.

If they work through a consultation process, which I think they will, and if we have legislation-

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Useless.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Just relax. I know I get you every time.

[The Speaker]

I think I will just relax and go on to the next questioner.

Status Of Women

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

This morning, women representing literally hundreds of Quebec and Canadian organizations came to Ottawa to protest against cuts in the Equal Opportunities for Women Program. They denounced the gradual erosion of federal grants to

women's groups, which have shrunk by over $4 million over the past six years and are getting smaller every year.

How can the Secretary of State for the Status of Women justify these new cuts to organizations working with disadvantaged women when pride and dignity is all her Prime Minister ever talked about during the last election campaign?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and confident of our government's unequivocal commitment to equality for women, period.

I must remind my hon. colleague that we have restored the Court Challenges Program, are setting up health centers of excellence for women and are working on sentencing reform, firearms control, employment equity and small business issues, all with women in mind. I think this clearly shows our concern for equality for women.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women is said to have informed women's groups before the budget was tabled that the criteria for grants would be reviewed by next fall.

Does the hon. secretary of state intend to hold consultations with these groups in developing these new criteria? If so, how much weight will she give to the results of these consultations in making her final decision?