Debates of June 6th, 1995

Code Of Ethics

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said something. If he can make an accusation according to the rule of the House that there is a contract that has been attributed because money has been paid to the Liberal Party, he should make the proof and not chicken out from that. That is the rule of decency. They cannot prove it because the contribution is public.

I am going to fundraisers across the land every week. I have more rubber chicken in my body than any other Canadian. I do that because I believe that what my party believes in is the right thing for Canada. These years, the people are coming in the thousands to give money to the Liberal Party. Good for them.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Ogilvie Mills

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

Ogilvie Mills workers in Montreal have been deprived of their jobs since a year ago today, when the company started using scabs with impunity, due to the laxness of the federal legislation. The apathy of the minister regarding this issue is simply unacceptable.

Considering that this labour conflict has been persisting for too long, and given the many public commitments made by the minister, how can she justify that, after a whole year, her government still has not taken any measure to solve this unfair dispute for the workers concerned?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is indeed deplorable to see a labour conflict persist for so long. Ogilvie Mills workers are obviously experiencing a very difficult situation.

Some time ago, the union asked to meet with me. A meeting took place and the union asked to go back to the negotiating table, with a special mediator. A mediation meeting took place on May 25 and 26.

That meeting resulted in some noticeable progress. Consequently, the two sides, including the union, decided to hold another mediation meeting on June 20 and 21.

I do hope that the parties will reach an agreement.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it must be pointed out that the conflict is not due to the state of negotiations but, rather, to the fact that there is no anti-scab legislation.

How can the minister explain that, after claiming that such legislation was a priority, she has yet to do something about it? After all, she is well aware of the benefits of the Quebec anti-scab legislation.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that the conflict is related to collective bargaining. Today, I urge both sides, the union and management, to reach an agreement.

As regards the use of replacement workers, I made it clear to the union that the issue was being examined as part of the overall review of part I of the Canada Labour Code currently under way.

Code Of Ethics

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants specifics. How much more specific can we get, with an inappropriate diversion of funds from a federal-provincial agreement as defined by the auditor general of Nova Scotia?

This diversion of funds has been called illegal, immoral, and misappropriation. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to have his ethics chairperson look after this thing and investigate it.

[An hon. member]

Lapdog.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

My question is for the Prime Minister. Since at least one person has called the highway 104 scandal a misappropriation of taxpayers' funds for which someone will be held accountable, why has the Prime Minister silenced not only that member but the minister responsible for this unethical diversion of funds?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained many times in this House, the priorities for highways within a province are decided by the

minister of transport or highways within that province. In the case of Nova Scotia, the Government of Nova Scotia had other priorities, so we did what we have done with many other provincial governments. When there is a need to change priorities, we oblige the provincial governments, as a good government in Ottawa should do.

We can impose our will all the time, but everybody would tell us that we are not being respectful of the wishes of the provinces and are being the big brother deciding for them. When we oblige them they blame us.

For a good situation in Canada, it is good that my ministers listen to the provinces whenever possible.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are looking for good government in Ottawa. We have yet to find it.

Listen to the concerns here in the House, which have been going on since last year. Ethics, integrity, honesty, and openness are all gone out the door with this government. These are all broken promises of the Liberal red book. It is Liberal, Tory, same old story, right across the row here.

My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Since we are now seeing the arrogance of Brian Mulroney over here with a new red book face, just how bad does it have to get before the Prime Minister sees fit to assign his ethics counsellor to this situation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when it is time for the next election all our promises listed on page 111 of the red book will have been met. I can guarantee that.

We were elected for five years and we have only been here for a year and a half so far, yet we have already met two-thirds of these election commitments. That is not bad. We will keep working to meet our commitments.

As far as the hon. member is concerned, he has been up a dozen times with this question, and every time it has been strike one, strike two, strike three.

Breast Cancer

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

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

More funding is required to support efforts to establish breast cancer support groups across northwestern Ontario. This funding is especially warranted in light of data indicating the federal government committed greater amounts of funding on a per patient basis to other diseases than to breast cancer research.

Does this government have any intention to increase funding for breast cancer research, education, and support groups?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fiscal challenges we face as a government, much is being done in terms of breast cancer.

Among other things, we have formed partnerships in order to have more dollars to put into a broad range of research projects. We have among others the Canadian breast cancer research initiative, which is a broad partnership of Health Canada, the Medical Research Council, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, and the Canadian Cancer Society.

Additional funds are also being invested by the corporate breast cancer fund started by the Royal Bank. It is estimated that this partnership will generate approximately $55 million toward breast cancer research in the near future. Is it enough? It is never enough, but we will continue to work very diligently toward finding more dollars to look into this very serious disease.

Agriculture

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

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

The Bloc Quebecois has affirmed many times in this House that the Minister of Agriculture must treat all producers fairly, including Quebec producers, regarding the Crow rate issue. The minister remained vague on the issue and, when the 1995 budget was tabled, we saw that the compensation offered to eastern dairy producers was not fair.

Does the Minister of Agriculture realize that western producers will be compensated for the loss of the Crow rate subsidy, but that eastern dairy producers, who will also be hit with cuts, will have to face the consequences of the budget without compensation?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the budget clearly demonstrates that we are handling transportation issues across this country in a way that is even handed and fair minded. We are dealing with all of those transportation programs in a consistent fashion, whether it be the WGTA in western Canada or the feed freight assistance program in various other parts of Canada or the maritime freight rates assistance program or the Atlantic region freight rate assistance program.

All of those transportation subsidies are in the process of being eliminated, and in every case there is an adjustment fund or a transition program being put in place to ease the adjustment from the old subsidized regime to a new economic order without the degree of subsidization that has existed in the past.

The compensation measures with respect to the WGTA are very explicitly laid out in the legislation that was dealt with at report stage yesterday. In addition to that-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Immigration

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto Star today printed a story that is nothing short of shocking. They reported that last year our immigration minister personally, with his own signature, gave permits to nine members of terrorist and revolutionary organizations to enter Canada.

These are not campus protesters. These are people from groups that have claimed tens of thousands of lives in civil wars and uprisings.

Is this bizarre story true? Did the minister give entry permits to members of terrorist organizations? If so, what will he now do to remove them from this country?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, a ministerial permit is a tool that is used by officials across the country and internationally to try to assist individuals in various situations.

Almost 7,000 ministerial permits were granted last year. Nine individuals received ministerial permits who were members of organizations that are automatically excluded from Canada. These individuals came here for periods of two days to a few weeks.

An example is an individual from Rwanda who was invited by the standing committee on human rights. Another individual was from the Middle East and was involved with foreign affairs in multilateral peace discussions. Another individual from an organization that has been defunct since 1970 came to give testimony on the human rights situation in Central America.

It would be very irresponsible for the member to try to intimate that these individuals were here and had gone underground, had asked for asylum or permanent residency. These individuals were allowed to come here for a short while and there was nothing untoward to the Canadian community.

G-7 Summit

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

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

We know from press comments this morning that the G-7 summit in Halifax is going to cost taxpayers about $36 million to host. We all appreciate how important it is.

Since the conference is yet to be held, how is it that I have in my hand the Halifax summit communique, the final comment on the actual Halifax conference, which has been leaked to me. It is 11 pages of detailed commentary about all the agreements that the G-7 nations have taken. Could he explain that please?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is sufficiently experienced to know that prior to any international conference, the sherpas, the various delegations get together and basically attempt to narrow the issue.

The member is also sufficiently experienced to know that the discussions take place when the leaders gather. That is when the decisions are made. The ultimate decisions may well bear no resemblance to whatever document the member happens to have.

I am sure the Minister of Foreign Affairs would agree with me that ministers of finance and ministers of foreign affairs would like to control their respective leaders and get them to say what they want. However it is my experience that rarely happens.

[The Speaker]

That will conclude question period. I have notice of a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

Points Of Order

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to provide just a bit of background to my point of order.

Last Friday, June 2, in Oral Question Period I asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in which I brought to the minister's attention the case of Mr. Victor Sumbley, who has had enormous difficulties securing a visitor's visa for a family member to come to Canada.

In reply to my question the minister of immigration responded with the following: "Today he," meaning me, "decides to do some constituency work after all because there have been a lot of complaints from Canadians in Calgary, Alberta who cannot get the time of day on immigration matters from members of Parliament. It pleases me, finally, to see the member of Parliament stand up for his constituents.".

I have no quarrel with the accusations made by the hon. minister of immigration. I am quite accustomed to his style of debate. However, in the interests of accuracy I must insist that the Speaker ask the hon. minister to recognize one very impor-

tant point. Mr. Sumbley, a successful Canadian for whom I have made an intervention is not my constituent. He is, in fact, represented by the member for Mount Royal, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

Mr. Sumbley turned to me for assistance in his immigration case because that member refused to Mr. Sumbley's face to assist.

[The Speaker]

I would rule that the hon. member surely does not have a point of order. It is a point of debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, be read the third time and passed.