Debates of Oct. 30th, 1996

Bombardier

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let me first of all assure the hon. member that in introducing this new program called technology partnerships Canada we are looking only at those companies where we see an investment in research and development bringing in products to the marketplace that will have success in the international markets.

That is the same attention that I will pay to prominent firms in his own riding that are applying under technology partnerships Canada.

Let us look for a second at the $87 million in assistance which, as I have told him, is fully repayable and compare it to his proposition of tax relief. If we take the $87 million and divide it among the 20 million individual tax filers in this country, roughly $4.40 would go to each taxpayer.

I will take the investment in Bombardier, the 2,700 jobs it will create and maintain, over the $4 to buy a hamburger for everyone else in Canada.

Air-India

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general. By the way, it is great to see the solicitor general back in the House. The Gander, Newfoundland air crash, the Hinton train wreck, the Dryden aeroplane disaster and the Westray mine explosion have one thing in common: inquiries were conducted into all four tragedies.

The Air-India explosion more than 11 years ago was the worst civil aviation disaster in Canada's history. Can the minister tell the House when Canadians can expect the long overdue inquiry into the Air-India tragedy?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, the crash of the Air-India plane in 1985 was a terrible tragedy but it was also a terrible crime. Hundreds of Canadians lost their lives.

That is why the RCMP has been actively investigating the matter with a view to getting the evidence on which charges can be laid and those responsible for the bombing can be successfully prosecuted.

The government has not forgotten the victims or their families. For the first time a solicitor general, namely myself, met with the families. I directed senior RCMP officers to keep them regularly informed of the progress of the investigation. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, a $1 million reward has been offered. This has generated hundreds of leads which are being actively pursued.

It is not considered appropriate to have a commission of inquiry while there is an active investigation. However, the commissioner has confirmed to me that if there is an impasse in the investigation I will be informed. I want to assure my hon. friend that if there is such an impasse I will immediately discuss this matter further with the Prime Minister.

Education

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada has announced that tuition fees for students at Canadian universities have increased by nearly 12 per cent over the last year.

Since the Liberal government took power and started hacking away at transfers for post-secondary education, tuition fees in Canada have increased by a total of almost 30 per cent. Increased fees mean more and more young people are being excluded from the opportunity to participate in the so-called knowledge based economy that we consider so important because they can no longer afford to go to school.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. If by continuing the cuts to education is it his intention to deny the children of middle class and working families access to education. Is it the government's intention to return Canada to the days when only the wealthy could afford to go to university?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, tuition fees began to rise in Canada long before this government took office. It was as a result of those tremendous increases in the tuition fees that the federal government, for example in its last budget, increased the tuition credits for students. We made it possible for single mothers, for instance, or custodial parents who require additional child care help to be able to go back to school.

I should point out to the hon. member that in his province the federal government contributes 65 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I would like to bring to members' attention the presence in the gallery of a delegation that will be involved in the choice of Expo 2005. As you know, Canada is involved in the bidding for Expo 2005.

We have with us the fact-finding mission of the International Exhibitions Bureau, headed by its president, His Excellency Ole Philippson.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I have notice of a point of privilege from the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I would ask the hon. member, before he puts his point of privilege: Does this point of privilege arise from the question period today?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it does arise from the question period today.

Privilege

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege which is consistent with Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , fourth edition, 1958, at page 95, section 104(4). This point of privilege refers to the matter which I want to raise today. It states:

Certain urgent matters, such as assaults upon or insults to Members if they should occur during a sitting of the House, may be raised at once in spite of the interruption of debate or other proceedings-

My point of personal privilege is in reference to a question put by the hon. member for Elk Island to the Prime Minister which was responded to by the minister in charge of the treasury board. I feel that members of the House, as well as Canadians, are insulted by the lack of action and response by the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister.

In question period the hon. member for Elk Island raised the point about the Secretary of State for Training and Youth misusing her expense account and she has not-

[The Speaker]

The question was put in question period. It was directed to the government and at that time the government responded to the question.

I fail to see how this would be a point of privilege for the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. Privilege is a very narrow area. I would ask, if the hon. member still wishes to proceed, that he go directly to the point of privilege which affects him.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just getting to that point.

The reason I rise on this issue is because I am insulted by the fact that the Secretary of State for Training and Youth has abused her position and has not accounted for her actions.

[The Speaker]

I do not have any evidence before me that there is any guilt of any member on any side. What I have in front of me, as your Speaker, is a question that was asked and a question that was answered. Outside of it being unparliamentary, which it was not, I judged it to be a parliamentary question and acceptable. I judged the answer to be parliamentary. Whether it is acceptable to one side or the other is neither here nor there. I judged it to be a normal response that the government gives.

At this point, at least, my dear colleague, I would rule, from what you have put before me, that there is no point of privilege.

Point Of Order

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I need your assistance on this point of order. I asked a question specifically of the Prime Minister in an area which is specifically his responsibility, that is the assignment of duties to ministers. He alone does that. Is that-

[The Speaker]

In the first two weeks I was in this House I was corrected by another hon. member because I thought just the same thing.

The fact is that a question is not technically put to any minister. A question is put to the government. At that point the government

may choose to answer or not to answer. Any member of the government may answer any question that is put to the government.

In response to your question, you can put a question to any minister or parliamentary secretary but they may or may not answer. Those are the rules of the House and that is how it works.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, 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 23 petitions.

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 41st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Industry.

If the House gives its consent I intend to move concurrence in the 41st report later this day.

Quebec Contingency Act (Referendum Conditions)

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to establish the terms and conditions that must apply to a referendum relating to the separation of Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper expression of the will of the people of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, this bill outlines a process for dealing with any future referendum on the issue of Quebec sovereignty. There are three main features of this bill. First, it allows the Government of Canada to determine whether a referendum question in Quebec is clear and unambiguous. If it is not, the Government of Canada is required to undertake a number of actions, including the holding of a parallel referendum in Quebec which asks a clear question on separation from Canada.

Second, in the event of a yes vote, the bill authorizes the negotiation of separation subject to consultation with the provinces. Any final settlement would be subject to approval in a national referendum.

Finally, the bill affirms that a unilateral declaration of independence is ineffective with respect to Canadian law and does not affect the functioning of the Canadian Parliament, government or courts with respect to Quebec.

These proposals avoid the mistakes of the past, ensure a respect for our legal order and ensure that all Canadians, including Quebecers, have a role in shaping their future.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Fiscal Responsibility Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-342, an act to establish principles of responsible fiscal management and to require regular publication of information by the Minister of Finance to demonstrate the government's adherence to those principles.

Mr. Speaker, this act would require, among other things, that the crown's financial reporting be in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices so the people of the country could see what the debts and assets of the country are.

In addition, it would require the government to publish before each general election an economic and fiscal update prepared by Treasury Board for the next three years and also to include forecasting of the estimated actual financial statements for the crown.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Citizen-Initiated Referendum Act

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to provide for the holding of citizen initiated referenda on specific questions.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be rising today to present this bill. It is 25 pages in length and was worked on by more than a dozen people over a two-year period. It is a workable initiative and referendum legislation that is based on working legislation in a similar parliamentary democracy. It includes new methods of voting such as electronic voting. It is very detailed and I urge all members to read it.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Criminal Code

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Criminal Code (no early parole for those who murder a peace officer).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill which would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code. It would deny early parole for anyone convicted of the first degree murder of a police officer.

Canadians are aware that the faint hope clause included in section 745 allows first degree murderers to apply for early parole after 15 years. My bill would make sure that those convicted of the first degree murder of police officers, which includes police, corrections officers and customs officers, would be denied the right to apply for parole and would have to serve at least 25 years rather than a possible 15 years of their life sentence.

Our police put their lives on the line every time they go to work. They deserve our support. We must give a clear message to those convicted of killing them that Canadian society does not tolerate those who murder them in the line of duty. My bill is an important first step in a strong message of support for our police and others who serve on our behalf.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Credit Card Interest Calculation Act

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-345, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to introduce my private member's bill today. This legislation is an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards. The purpose of this bill is to significantly reduce the excessive credit card interest rates that banks and department stores are currently charging.

I am sure that members in the House will agree that the major banks are making unprecedented profits. Indeed last year the major banks collectively raked in some $15 billion in profits. This year the third quarter reported profits are 20 per cent over last year for at least two of the major banks.

Industry Canada officials have recently stated that credit card rates are persistently high. The major banks countered that their low rate cards are now in the 11 per cent range.

My bill would ensure that any credit card issued by a financial institution or a department store could not have an interest rate exceeding more than four or five percentage points over the Bank of Canada's discount rate.

Our economy needs a boost. My bill will greatly assist in jump starting the economy. If more Canadians have access to credit cards at a lower interest rate then obviously their purchasing power will increase.

It is time for all parliamentarians to put an end to the fat cats at the lending institutions reaping fat profits out of the pockets of Canadians. I look forward to unanimous approval of this legislation from all members in this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a committee report.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.