House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was session.
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, the minister did a good job answering questions concerning Davis Inlet, and I hope that the member opposite will show as much interest regarding aboriginal issues in his own province.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the justice minister. I am glad to see he has moved to the front bench, closer to the Reform Party. At least I can see the whites of his eyes now. Of course, the converse of that is true.
The information I have is that licensing by firearm owners will not begin until January 1, 1997, a one-year delay. The registration of long guns will not begin until January 1, 1999, another one-year delay.
Is this true? Are these two key components of his gun legislation to be delayed?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, may I first speak to geography. I assure my hon. colleague that my move was lateral and that the gulf that separates us remains just as wide.
On the subject of timing, when the firearms legislation was tabled in February 1995, which now seems like a very long time ago, our projection was for licensing to begin on January 1, 1996.
Through the very skilful and elaborate means my hon. colleague used in his vain attempt to impede and defeat the legislation, much time was taken in the parliamentary process. It was not until December 1995 that the legislation obtained royal assent.
Naturally the hon. member would want us to take all the time necessary in order to produce a user friendly, efficient and effective system of registration and licensing in order to be fair to the firearm owners of Canada. That is what we intend to do.
We shall bring the registration and licensing systems on line and into effect when we can do so, when they are fully ready, when they are easy and reliable to use for firearms owners, and when we are certain they will achieve the many worthwhile objectives for which they are intended.
Jack Ramsay Reform Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, when I first came to the House I used to respect the statesman like manner with which the justice minister answered questions head on, but he has learned to dance and juggle like the rest of them over there.
This party and I had nothing whatever to do with determining the timetable of Bill C-68. The government invoked closure in the House, set the timetable in the standing committee and invoked closure on third reading.
If the justice minister claims lives are being lost in the absence of licensing and registration, if he truly believes this, why the deliberate delay?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the licensing and registration systems are being designed with the help of a users committee comprised of police officers, police chiefs, farmers, hunters, aboriginal persons, gun collectors.
We are putting this system together in a way that will work properly for Canadians. We will take the time required to do that and get it right.
This legislation was not given royal assent until December of 1995. That is a simple fact. The registration and the licensing systems will be brought on stream when they are ready and not a day sooner.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, whom I want to congratulate on his recent appointment, incidentally.
As of yesterday, federal public servants are now invited to submit privatization and commercialization projects. Could the minister indicate to the House whether the government employees submitting such projects will be able to do so confidentially and without fear of reprisals from their managers or from their peers?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, because he has done an outstanding job in the community of the national capital region.
Now I want to inform him that the policy made public yesterday allows employees with initiative to take over many government services. Those are services they know well, services in which they have become competent and services that they can better deliver for the benefit of taxpayers.
In order to make the process fair and equitable, we have appointed an independent group to review all the proposals to ensure that contracts are awarded to those best able to serve the public. Finally, should action be taken against employees, I would encourage the hon. member to advise the minister concerned right away so that he can take the necessary corrective action.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We gather from the throne speech that the Liberal government has finally understood that the way to go, for Canada, is the way of dialogue and, in particular, partnership with Quebec.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the only real partnership, the viable and working partnership between Canada and Quebec, is a partnership between two peoples?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, there are many partnership opportunities all the time. In the throne speech, we have shown we are open-minded by our statements on the restructuring of the federation, on federal expenditures, on areas of jurisdiction, and on the entrenchment in the Constitution of the distinct society clause. All we need is the co-operation of our partner, the premier of Quebec.
Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, the throne speech states very clearly: "The government will announce measures to double the number of federal summer student jobs this summer". While I applaud this in principle, what the students in this country want more than ever is affordable
post-secondary education. However, the government has gutted this program by ripping out over $7 billion in transfer payments.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: How is this government going to pay for these summer student jobs, short of mortgaging the future of this country's students?
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I am dismayed that the hon. gentleman would raise the spectre of gutting post-secondary education in this country as a result of the actions of the federal government.
The hon. member knows that the student community, having heard the news that the Government of Canada is doubling the amount of money thereby doubling the number of jobs that will be available next summer, knows this is a very good news story. I believe it is something that young people across the country were looking forward to.
To suggest in the same breath that Canada, compared to practically any other nation in the world, and the Canadian taxpayers are not shouldering their burden in terms of making a contribution to post-secondary education in this country is to say the least very misleading. Canada's educational system at the post-secondary level in terms of funding is at the top of the list on any criteria.
Any increase in tuition is very difficult for students and we recognize that. One of the ways we have attempted to try to allow young people to cope with that is by confirming early in the game, in the throne speech and the Prime Minister's speech, that this summer young people can look forward to twice as many job opportunities as a direct result of the actions of the Government of Canada. At the same time we are challenging the private sector and other governments at all levels to do the same thing.
Dianne Brushett Liberal Cumberland—Colchester, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In recent town hall meetings discussing the proposed changes to the UI system there has been a lot of wrong information and misunderstanding. Could the minister tell this House exactly how the intensity rule of the proposed employment insurance system will affect claimants with an existing history of repeat use?
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member's deep concern, which is shared by many people across the country, with respect to the legislation that is going to be brought back before the House and considered by committee as it relates to the intensity rule.
Perhaps the safest thing for me to say at this point is that we recognize in the existing legislation the need to go back and recognize that people who have been out of the employment insurance scheme for a few years, who have been unable to find work and who have had to resort to welfare or whatever, have a legitimate right to have access to training programs and so forth. We will recognize past history back three years and will try to find ways to include them in whatever new process is determined upon.
I would think that all of us are looking forward to next week when hon. members on both sides of the House from all parties will again be asked to sit on the committee that will consider the legislation that is going to reform the employment insurance situation in this country.
We will together, as a result of the very massive consultation that has gone on over the past few months, address the question of continuous weeks of work and the question of the intensity rule. I have no doubt, having been made aware of the goodwill that exists in this House and the questions that have been brought forward by interested parties across the country, that in its wisdom the committee will find a solution to a very difficult problem.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 18 clearly states that it is not permitted to reflect on any vote in the House. In response to a question from our immigration critic, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of immigration referred specifically to a vote of that member and the Minister of Justice reviewed at length the voting which took place in this House with respect to some of the bills he went through. This violates Standing Order 18.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to scold them and to remind them not to do it again.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, there is of course a reference in the Standing Orders with regard to reflection upon a vote in the House. However, the section in question has more to do with people criticizing others in the House individually as to whether or not they were absent for a vote.
In terms of how a record of a particular party deals with a vote has often been referred to on both sides of the House both in questions and answers. As a matter of fact, virtually every day people ask why a party voted for or against a particular initiative.
Point Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
I thank both hon. members for bringing this forward. Yes, I do scold the House.
I would ask you, my colleagues, to please refrain from mentioning votes like that. We got into that a little bit last fall. We are just getting back into shape right now and I am sure this is somewhat of an oversight and that all hon. members will come right back to the rules as we have been adhering to them since the beginning.
I do thank both members for their interventions.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary 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 eight petitions presented during the first session.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, concerning the debate on government Motion No. 1, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House, I will move that debate be not further adjourned.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the first report later this day.
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another act.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.)
Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-211, an act to amend the Access to Information Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to inform the House that the member for Calgary Centre is not here to second the bill, but the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will.
It is a pleasure to present my private member's bill, an act to amend the Access to Information Act. This will bring the Canadian Wheat Board under the jurisdiction of the Access to Information Act.
Privacy Commissioner John Grace appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice in 1986. At that time the committee reviewed the operation of the act and recommended that it be expanded to include all crown agencies.
The committee felt that the exemptions contained in the law provided protection from potential competitive harm. The Wheat Board has no legitimate claims that it would suffer competitive harm.
Western farmers will support this change of the act very strongly and I hope that the House will also.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit).
Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in this House and introduce this private member's bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act audit.
Currently the auditor general does not have the authority to audit the Canadian Wheat Board. Over the years the auditor general has provided a valuable service to Canadians by pointing out waste in federal government as well as showing where Canadians have received value for their money.
This change to the act would not only provide for more trust but would also make the wheat board more accountable and acceptable to producers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
Fundy Royal New Brunswick
Liberal
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier this day, be in concurred in.
Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is there unanimous consent?