Debates of Sept. 25th, 1995

Gun Control

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, three of the attorneys general named in my earlier question appeared before the standing committee and said that they were not consulted. The aboriginal groups, as well, said that they were not consulted.

Through clause 103 of Bill C-68 the Minister of Justice has granted the federal government the power to initiate proceedings under the Criminal Code, which is clearly an incursion into provincial jurisdiction as guaranteed under section 92 of the Constitution. Did the minister gain the consent of the provinces before expanding the federal government's criminal law powers into traditional provincial jurisdiction?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me symptomatic of the very tired and lifeless condition of the hon. member's crusade against this legislation that he is trying to revive an issue that was fully debated last year and put to rest with the facts. The facts are that there was consultation. There has been consultation throughout this process, both with provincial governments and with aboriginal organizations. If the results are not pleasing to the hon. member that is too bad, but it does not mean that meaningful consultation did not occur.

Land Mines

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Today in Vienna members of the world community are coming together to begin another round of talks on the United Nations protocol for certain conventional weapons, including land mines. It was reported in the media today that the Ministry of National Defence does not support a ban on land mines. I would ask the minister if he could tell the House the government's policy on this controversial issue.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we as a government are committed to taking action with respect to land mines, but we have to realize that until such time as all countries in the world deal with this very difficult problem, in national defence we have to have contingencies as part of the defence doctrine.

Our objective at this conference in Vienna is to put in place an effective framework for implementation and to work toward the day when all of these land mines will be eliminated.

Unemployment Insurance

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The confidential document issued by the minister's office on the UI reform the federal government is trying to hide from Quebecers contains proposals to further restrict access to unemployment insurance and bring down the maximum number of benefit weeks from 50 to 45.

Given that the 1994 UI reform has already driven nearly 5,000 Quebec families to seek social assistance, will the minister recognize that any further cut is simply forcing more and more unemployed onto welfare? Is that what the minister has in store for Quebec voters if they vote No?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I have two responses.

First, the hon. member is wrong in suggesting this is a cabinet document. There is no document. In fact I have never signed that kind of a document and I have not presented to cabinet my proposals for reform.

I know what the separatists are trying to do: they are trying to manufacture something out of a document. But I can say to the hon. member that he should not be using that kind of speculative paper as the basis for any kind of argument because it is simply not based in fact.

Second, I would point out to the hon. member that included in the changes we brought in last year was a special measure that would provide direct assistance to the lowest-income UI users. As a result of that reform, over 400,000 Canadians, including over 100,000 Quebecers, are receiving an additional $1,000 a year. This shows our commitment to help the lowest-income people in this country.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the request the minister has received from the Minister of Finance, will he admit that the federal government's sole objective is to curb its deficit at the expense of UI and welfare recipients through UI reform and cutbacks on transfers to the provinces?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, of course not. The hon. member knows much better than to say that.

We have said right from the very start that we have a mandate from the people of Canada to help create jobs and get people back to work. At the centre of that initiative is a need to change a piece of legislation that has not had any major modification for over 50 years. It no longer relates to the kind of world of work we are in.

Enormous changes have gone on in the workplace. We want to modernize that system, upgrade that system, improve that system so that people have a better chance of getting employed. That is the fundamental purpose of the reforms we are initiating.

Pearson Airport

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the beginning the Pearson airport contract has been a conflict of allegations and facts.

The latest allegation is that the Prime Minister discussed Pearson and solicited funds from Jack Mathews. The facts are that as soon as the alleged evidence of the Prime Minister's involvement surfaced an offer worth $325 million more than Terminal 3's value was floated, which if accepted would conveniently end the newest allegation.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he not agree that this latest allegation is serious and that paying off people without a full public inquiry, which I have been requesting since the beginning of this fiasco, would lead to an assumption of guilt?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the sad saga of the hon. member's campaign to try to defend an indefensible deal is pathetic.

In this situation I want to quote directly, because the allegation the hon. member made last week and is repeating again today about the potential for the purchase by the government of Terminal 3 has been refuted not only by the government. Jack Fleischmann, speaking for Claridge president Peter Coughlin, said: "The idea of selling the terminal may have been raised casually, but never in a serious way. To characterize it in any way as serious or semi-serious is just ridiculous."

The hon. member should check with members of his party. I do not really believe that anybody other than the hon. member in the Reform Party supports the Pearson deal.

Tobacco

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who like all members is shocked by the fact that 45,000 Canadians die each year as the result of illnesses related to smoking.

Will the government stop giving the tobacco companies special treatment and include them under the Hazardous Product Act?

Failing that, will the Prime Minister invoke the notwithstanding provision of the Constitution to overrule the recent decision by the Supreme Court? Surely 45,000 deaths a year is a good reason to use the notwithstanding clause.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health replied to that question last week. We are looking at all the options. We thought it was a good idea to ban the advertising of these products in the media. The supreme court ruled it was not constitutional.

We are now looking to see what can be done and if we can change it. There was some indication in the judgment where the judge perhaps gave us some options. The Minister of Justice is looking at the judgment at this time along with the Minister of Health. When we have an answer we will be happy to report to the House of Commons.

School Dropouts

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who claimed this afternoon to share or have concerns about the younger generation.

If that is so, I would like to know why his government cancelled the Stay-in-School program designed to fight the problem of school dropouts, a problem so important that his own colleague, the Minister of Finance, criticized the Quebec government last summer for not paying enough attention to the problem of school dropouts.

Why did his government cancel the Stay-in-School program then?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member's question. I remind him he was a member of the administration in the previous government and he would know the stay in school

program was funded by the previous government only for a five-year time limit. It was sunsetted after five years.

I extended it for an additional year in order to give us time to work with various private sector and community organizations to enable them to pick up the program. As a result of that extension we have been able to negotiate a number of agreements.

I am very pleased to announce we now have agreement with the new National Basketball Association franchises in Vancouver and Toronto which have continued to encourage the stay in school program as part of their community involvement. We now have the program continuing through the auspices of various important initiatives by the National Basketball Association and other community sponsors.

Middle East

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.

We are all familiar with the rebuilding of infrastructure in the Middle East, especially given the improved peace initiatives in that region. We are also familiar with the important role Canada plays in Middle East affairs.

Could the minister tell us what Canada is doing to ensure we are proactive in pursuing opportunities for contracts in the rebuilding of infrastructure in the Middle East?

[Roy MacLaren, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the member for London-Middlesex is especially timely given the progress that has been made in the peace settlement process in the Middle East. Against that background the need for infrastructure and the need to sustain the economic development of the region is evident everywhere. It is in such products that Canada is eminently qualified to supply.

We reopened our embassy in Beirut in January, indicative of the commitment we are making to the further progress in the Middle East.

I also take this occasion to pay tribute to my parliamentary secretary, the member for Ottawa Centre, who has been particularly active in leading delegations and trade fairs to the Middle East.

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

I draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from India led by the Speaker of the Lower House, my brother Speaker, the Hon. Shivraj V. Patil.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

This concludes question period.

Points Of Order

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification and I am sure you will help me.

During the last question the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley was standing. You, Mr. Speaker, named a member who was not standing at the time. Is this the way it is supposed to be?

[The Speaker]

It is a legitimate question. The hon. whips of all the parties were privy to discussions which went on as to how the Speaker will recognize various members during question period. That a member is standing does not necessarily mean the Chair will recognize that member.

The Chair has been provided with some guidance by the whips of all parties, and to the extent possible your Speaker tries to fulfil those wishes prior to going to any new members.

If the hon. member would like further clarification, I invite him to see me either in my quarters or here behind the chair in a few moments.

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 three petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.

Your committee has considered Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I

have the honour to table the 87th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which lists the members of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament as well as the associated members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 87th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)