House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was countries.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, this must be made very clear. The rebate will be offered to all airlines under the same conditions. In return, a company will have to give up substantial tax write-offs.
In other words, this could amount to payment of higher taxes to the federal and provincial governments in the future. Let me be very clear: this is an offer that will be made to all airlines.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see such a medley of answers. I hope that the minister who feels moved to reply to the next question will give me the right answer, because we are moving along with the specific information given us first by the Minister of Industry and then by the Minister of Finance.
By changing the rules of the market, by subsidizing fuel, as it seems prepared to do, is the government not contravening one of the NAFTA rules, and will it not leave itself open to economic reprisals from the United States, and even from other competing companies in Canada?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the member that a tax rebate is not a subsidy according to NAFTA.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health presented us with the main thrust of the tobacco legislation he plans to introduce shortly. This was a vague and fuzzy list of the measures he is planning, particularly with respect to the sponsorship of sports and cultural events on which he intends to pass regulations.
Can the minister indicate more clearly what he intends to impose in the way of restrictions on promotional material at sports and cultural events? In other words, can the Players Grand Prix, for instance, still be called that?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we outlined the strategy of the Government of Canada to deal with tobacco consumption in the country. Seven major elements were outlined to the public in terms of what action we will be taking.
We have put in place some restrictions with regard to sponsorship promotion that companies will have to abide by. However, I want to indicate to my colleague opposite that we are not banning sponsorship in this country. Not at all. We have restrictions on that promotion. The details will be contained in the bill. I hope to give notice later this afternoon, with the tabling of the bill on Monday.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC
Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that his bill will be more specific than his speech, and that he will not try to slip past us, as regulations, and therefore without debate, more stringent measures concerning sponsorships?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, 11,000 Quebecers die each and every year as a result of tobacco consumption. As the ministry of health, we have had to show some leadership on this particular file. There is leadership but it has consequences. The consequences are that there are restrictions on sponsorship promotion. It will be regulated. We will consult with
the industry. We will consult with the various cultural groups to make sure there are workable solutions.
Make no mistake about it, there are restrictions and there are restrictions on sponsorship promotion.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I found the Bloc's questions rather curious. It wants only one airline per country but it wants to make this into two countries.
The government has now followed the lead of B.C. and Alberta in offering Canadian Airlines some relief on oppressive fuel taxes, but the offer may be meaningless. It is good only if Canadian's employees vote to accept the restructuring package and the government will not do anything to ensure that those employees get that chance to vote.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the government's convoluted tax rebate offer is worthless if the employees are not allowed to vote on it, when will the government take action to protect the democratic rights of Canadian's employees?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I am certain that he is aware of section 108 of the Canadian Labour Code. It precludes the Minister of Labour from ordering a vote in circumstances such as he has referred to.
The hon. member knows full well that the best way to ensure that workers at Canadian Airlines have the right to vote is that we continue to put public pressure on the union leadership.
However, if the hon. member is suggesting that the Government of Canada intervene in terms of legislation in order to effectuate a settlement there, he is away out of line in terms of what the collective bargaining process is all about.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting the minister should raise section 108.1. Yesterday the Reform labour critic placed a motion before the human resources committee asking for an immediate review of section 108.1 of the Canadian Labour Code in order to ensure the democratic rights of Canadian Airlines employees. The response to that by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour was: "Giving Canadian employees the right to vote is a waste of time for this committee". The Liberal and Bloc members then proceeded to vote against the motion.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. In the cold light of day, and after a good night's sleep, is he prepared to withdraw those unacceptable comments and support the democratic rights of Canadian employees who may lose their jobs if this government does not act?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the context of the words which the hon. member makes reference to, but I do not think there is a member on either side of this House who does not want the members of the CAW to exercise their right to vote on a particular package.
What the hon. member must understand is that we have the Canadian Labour Code which outlines the procedures that employers as well as workers must follow.
I would encourage the hon. member as well as his party to continue to put pressure on the various unions which are involved here in order that that right may be exercised.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government's response to a plea by Canadian's employees to be allowed to vote on the company restructuring program has been that it is up to their elected union representatives. Those union officials are supposed to be like MPs, and I say supposed to be; that is representatives, not rulers.
It is both clear and democratic that Canadian's employees whose jobs are on the line should have the right to decide on their own future. It should not be left in the hands of Buzz Hargrove whose job is not at stake, who will still have his job even if Canadian folds.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The choice is democracy or dictatorship. Buzz Hargrove has chosen dictatorship. Is this government willing to choose democracy by protecting the democratic rights of the union workers of Canadian Airlines?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the hon. member's questions I concur wholeheartedly. Union members should have that right in terms of the package before them.
But in view of the restrictions we have within the law, it is incumbent on the leadership to provide that right to their members. That is an internal thing they will have to deal with in the weeks and the months ahead.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Health said that he considered that he had no responsibility whatsoever to assume in connection with any repercussions of his bill on the sponsorship of sports and cultural events.
Last week, the Toronto Star reports that the Minister of Canadian Heritage also declined any responsibility in this area.
My question is for the heritage minister. Does she intend to shoulder responsibility in connection with the organizations affected, and will she propose alternative solutions when sponsorships are reduced?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Let us be clear. The first objective of the legislation and the proposals we outlined yesterday is health. When 11,000 Quebecers are dying each and every year as a result of tobacco consumption it behoves the government to take action.
There is no need for a replacement fund because we have not banned sponsorship across the country. It will be a corporate decision of those individual companies concerning what they do and the amount of money they provide to various sponsorships across the country.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister said earlier that there will be restrictions, there will be repercussions on sponsorships, we are assured of this.
Departmental employees stated before the heritage committee this past March that they were working on a report to assess the impact of the Minister of Health's policy on cultural and sports events, as well as a draft recommendation and suggested timeframes.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. As we speak, has the minister received these recommendations, which are aimed at offsetting the effects of the Minister of Health's policy on cultural and sports events, given that the government has always sent a message to the organizers of cultural and sports events that they should link up with the private sector?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is this: sponsorships are still legal. No one needs funds to replace sponsorships which have not been banned.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister who is answering for the Minister of Labour.
The minister said very clearly in response to the transport critic for the Reform Party that the government wants the workers to be able to vote on this legislation. As the minister said, the government knows that the present provisions of the Canada Labour Code do not allow that.
The government is here to pass legislation for the benefit of Canadians. If it wants the workers to be able to vote on this, why will the government not give the workers the ability to do so?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, two reasons. First, we respect the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
Second, as we speak, the Minister of Transport is in the province of British Columbia having consultations and discussions with various representatives of different unions to impress on them the need to allow workers of the CAW to have the right to vote on this restructuring package which is not a part of the collective bargaining process.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the government, despite the fact it says that it wants the workers to vote, is hiding behind the provision of the labour code that Mr. Hargrove is using to prevent a vote.
Yesterday I was at the human resources committee meeting. The parliamentary secretary suggested this is a temporary solution and may not be a profitable solution in the long run. That is not what the company, most of the workers or provincial governments say, and it is not what the federal government has said.
Is the federal government refusing to allow a vote to occur because it really does not believe in the future of Canadian Airlines?
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I have been a long time supporter of Canadian Airlines. Many in this caucus and many members in this cabinet are very supportive of Canadians Airlines.
The hon. member has it wrong. It is not the Government of Canada, it is not the Government of British Columbia and it is not the Government of Alberta. It is the union leadership of the CAW, namely one individual who is at fault here. The pressure must apply to him and his cohorts in order to give union members the opportunity to vote.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The government's attempt to save its plan in Zaire will have lasted only 24 hours. The agreement on the food drop mission announced yesterday was seriously questioned today. Zaire is opposed to the agreement, humanitarian organizations are sceptical
and even General Baril does not seem convinced, since he would use this option only as a last resort.
Since the Canadian government's proposal to drop food has met with strong local opposition, are we to understand that the minister submitted this proposal without considering all the consequences? In other words, was the minister making a last-ditch attempt to save the plan?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
No, Mr. Speaker. After the meeting on the weekend with representatives of the countries concerned, especially the military group, we carefully assessed all recommendations. We consulted many countries on the level of consensus for international initiatives and especially to assess the information on conditions in Zaire.
In the process, we received the support of 20 countries. We have the support of major humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross committee and other international groups. Granted, there are some people, especially those in the Reform Party, who are critical. But the major humanitarian organizations agree on the need to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees.
There is an international consensus among the 20 countries which will be meeting in Ottawa today to confirm this mission and guarantee the capability of the international community to distribute humanitarian aid in Zaire.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently sees opposition coming from only a few groups. However, according to our information, that is not the case.
Does the minister realize, as a number of intervenors in the field have pointed out, that a food drop in a region where there are still groups of armed rebels may threaten the safety and even the lives of refugees who are now without protection?
That being said, and although we do not question the minister's good intentions, could he tell us whether he intends to obtain the agreement of the main partners in the field or propose another option? Could the minister tell us, considering all the opposition, whether other alternatives have been considered?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I make it very clear that we consulted with the major humanitarian organizations before we put the proposal forward. As I said before, the media can find the odd individual because there are always critics everywhere, but we first established that there should be a headquarters at Entebbe so that there is a multilateral force on the ground able to make evaluations and responses.
Second, they would be given a mandate to undertake reconnaissance missions to develop good information in Zaire to determine where food assistance would be most appropriate, where the refugees are and how they can be most effectively delivered.
At the present time that there is no access for convoys to go in. That access has not been given by the countries but we do have the opportunity to provide air assistance.
The comment was made by one minister of one of the governments of Zaire. I would like to point out to the member that there is total confusion in Zaire. There are two premiers. No one is sure who is in control. The fact is that we have received the full approval of the President of Zaire in discussions with Ambassador Chrétien.
Those are the conditions we are working under. I am not saying it is a panacea, that it is a full answer. However, I do believe most Canadians, with the exclusion of some of my friends opposite, want this country to continue to provide leadership to mobilize whatever efforts are possible by the international community to support humanitarian aid. That is our mission and we are fulfilling that mission.