Debates of May 6th, 1996

Penitentiaries

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Edmonton Institution for Women has been one disaster after another since it opened five months ago.

A quarter of the inmates have escaped. There has been a suicide and several slashings. There have been assaults on inmates and on guards. The list goes on and on.

Why did the government build a comfort cottage instead of a prison? When will it put the safety of Edmontonians ahead of the pleasures of inmates? Shut the place down.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as was reported to the House, the Solicitor General of Canada took active steps to make sure that the safety of those around the institution was addressed by transferring almost 20 inmates to provincial institutions.

We have looked at the security features of the institution. We announced concrete measures to make sure that safety was addressed, such as a fence and cameras. We are taking the necessary steps to address that. It is going to take six to eight weeks.

In the meantime we are looking at the security features. More important, we are reviewing the whole premise of medium and high risk offenders and whether they should be brought back to the institution. It is under review currently and we will make sure that is properly followed.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not interested in fixing the problem. It is not interested in punishment or deterrence. If it was, it would not be building comfort cottages like the Edmonton institution. It would be building prisons capable of keeping maximum security inmates inside the gates.

The Edmonton institution is a proven failure. When one-quarter of the inmates escape then there is no hope. Will the government sell the prison to the Holiday Inn-I am sure they can use it-and then build a prison that will ensure the safety of Edmontonians?

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is giving Canadians the false impression that inmates are getting a free ride.

I would like to quote from a recent article from the Ottawa Sun which states: What is clear though is that the Reform Party is misleading the public when it claims that convicts are having it good''. It goes on further to say:Credit for reducing costs must go the Corrections Canada managers who amazingly cut 15 per cent from their headquarters budget, instead of hitting the hard working guards''. It concludes: ``The bottom line is that, for the most part, the perception that Canada's inmates are getting a free ride is untrue. There will be horror stories to be sure but it's important to note that our prisons are well-managed and our governments are not soft on crime''.

I agree with that fully.

Vancouver International Airport

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recently Vancouver International Airport opened its new terminal which will accommodate international passengers and millions of people. This terminal is spacious, bright and efficient and all Vancouverites are proud of this addition to our city.

Buildings not only have to be architecturally beautiful but they also have to be functional and operate in an efficient way.

I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue to inform the House what steps customs have taken to serve users of this new, beautiful terminal.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, with the open skies agreement, Vancouver is strategically placed to become North America's premier gateway to the Pacific rim. Revenue Canada has planned well for the increased trans-border traffic.

The new terminal, which has the largest customs hall in Canada, has modern facilities, increased personnel, and both primary and secondary facilities have been increased.

The big thing is that 2,400 passengers per hour, a 40 per cent improvement, can be effectively and efficiently processed. This is good not only for travellers and good for Canadians, but it is good for the economy of Vancouver, the member's province of British Columbia and all of Canada.

International Trade

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, the then Minister of International Trade told this House that various details relating to the future free trade agreement between Canada and Israel had yet to be settled, including manufacturing, garment manufacturing for example and bathing suits and lingerie in particular.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Since Israeli companies, unlike Canadian companies, have free access to the European textile market, will the minister and his government make sure that measures are taken to prepare the Canadian textile industry to compete with Israeli companies in a free trade environment?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly relay the concerns of the hon. member to my colleague, the Minister for International Trade.

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that the initiation of discussions on a free trade agreement with Israel and a similar offer to other major countries in the Middle East is one of the most important ways we can help economic development in the area. It would help to stabilize the area. I believe it is a major contribution in seeking some kind of peaceful solution in the area. Therefore, we will pursue it.

I will most certainly take the hon. member's concerns to the minister and I will make sure he gets an answer.

Unemployment

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government was elected on a mandate of jobs, jobs, jobs. This is something the Prime Minister has promised time and time again. Let us look at Newfoundland, an area in great need of jobs. Newfoundland lost 11,000 full time jobs in the first three months of 1996 alone.

How does the Prime Minister square this huge loss of jobs in Newfoundland with his election promise?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that jobs have been created in many parts of the country.

In Newfoundland and Labrador at this stage there is no doubt there is a serious problem with the ratcheting down of the Hibernia project. There is no question that will have some impact on employment levels in Newfoundland.

We are suffering on the east coast from the moratorium on cod. It is a tremendous challenge for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a great challenge for the Government of Canada.

Those people who believe in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador can also look forward to the development of Voisey Bay as an alternative to some of the traditional employment we have seen in that province.

I am pleased to see the hon. member concerned about what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to the support of her party when we bring forward measures to support those people in their time of need.

Gasoline Pricing

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister.

Over the past 40 days gas prices have unjustifiably sky-rocketed eight cents to ten cents per litre across Canada. In the U.S. gas prices have risen only a fraction of Canadian increases, yet President Clinton has taken action by launching an investigation into price fixing to protect Americans.

Will the government now take action to protect Canadians from gas price gouging, or must Canadians wait for another act of God to get the government to act on behalf of Canadians?

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the Competition Act covers this. The government is vigilant in ensuring that prices are not set in contravention of the Competition Act.

The hon. member also knows the industry committee has been very active and is having before it tomorrow the director of competition to deal with this matter.

The hon. member should also be well informed that the question of prices and the prices of gasoline is not a matter necessarily regulated by the federal government. The hon. member should perhaps be looking at the provincial government in his province for some resolution of this matter.

1996 Census

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the UN world conference on women in Beijing it was recognized that unpaid work, which is mostly done by women, should be factored into the development of social and economic policies. For the first time, the 1996 census will ask Canadians about their unpaid work.

Will the Secretary of State for the Status of Women tell the House why the government is seeking this census information?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is very well recognized around the world as the leader in measuring and valuing unpaid work. It was decided at Beijing that we would strengthen that commitment and that all the other United Nations countries would more accurately examine the amount of unpaid work done by women, which means child rearing and housework.

It is interesting that in 1961 Statistics Canada measured unpaid work at $14 billion and in 1992 it was $234 billion. Using the census, we will be able to get small area demographics and reach every household so we can use this in future policy and planning of the government.

Privilege

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this question of privilege because I feel an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of my actions has been made in the House by the member for North Vancouver, as reported in Hansard , May 2, 1996, pages 2276 and 2277.

Never have I heard in the House a member identified by their riding and their colour.

In terms of the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, the member for North Vancouver identified me as the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who is black, portrayed me as being visibly very angry about the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, and portrayed me as yelling very loudly in the House, screaming and appearing hostile.

I did not scream or yell. I have had no occasion to speak with the member to show any hostility. I walked over to a member I identified as someone I thought might want to separate himself from the clipping that was circulating and said "have you seen this?" I then walked across the floor. Whatever shouting went on may have taken place by Reformers on the other side of the House or members on this side of the House.

[The Speaker]

Colleague, the hon. member for North Vancouver is not here now. You have named him in your point of privilege. I wonder if we might postpone this, taking full knowledge that you have raised a question of privilege, until such time as the member for North Vancouver is here in the House. Would you be in agreement?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

On April 24, 1996 the hon. member for St. Albert raised a point of privilege concerning questions he had placed on the Order Paper.

I thank the hon. member for his well reasoned arguments, and the deputy government House leader and the chief government whip for their contributions to the discussion.

In his submission the hon. member explained that on December 1, 1994, during the last session, he had placed a question on the Order Paper. At the time of prorogation on February 2, 1996 the question had not yet been answered.

On March 12, 1996, shortly after the start of this session, the hon. member resubmitted the question on notice as two questions, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 39(5)(a) requested the government reply to these questions within 45 days.

In his submission he argued the government had had almost two years to respond to his question and had failed to do so.

May I remind the House that proragation effectively clears the Order Paper, and as such, cancels the requests for information contained in Questions on the Order Paper. In other words, members who wish to pursue their requests for information from the Ministry must resubmit their questions for them to be reconsidered in a new session. May I also point out that the Standing Order states only that, and I quote: "a member may `request' that the Ministry respond to a specific question within 45 days". It is not, as such, an order of the House. However, the government must in all respects endeavour to respond to questions adhering to the spirit of the rule.

When raising his question of privilege on April 24, 1996, the hon. member had not yet allowed the 45 day response period to lapse. If after 45 days the hon. member's questions have not been answered, Standing Order 39(5)(b) provides him with the mechanism by which he can raise the subject matter in the House during the adjournment proceedings.

Of particular concern to the hon. member was not so much the delay in the delivery of the responses to his questions but rather comments about the questions allegedly made by an unnamed spokesperson for the government House leader's office. According to a newspaper article of April 21, cited by the hon. member, an official in the government House leader's office was quoted as having said that the request was outrageous and that the government had no intention of diverting personnel to answer the questions.

The member argued these comments showed contempt of Parliament and noted that if the government had no intention of responding to these questions he was being hindered in the performance of his duties. This is a very serious matter.

As Speaker Sauvé noted in a ruling given On December 16, 1980, at page 5797 of the Debates , if there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member, and if it could be shown that such action amounted to improper interference with the hon.

member's parliamentary work, then this could constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

In their interventions both the deputy House leader and the chief government whip explained that the questions posed by the hon. member were complicated and detailed in nature but assured him responses were being prepared and would be made available when ready.

Given the response of the deputy government House leader, it is very difficult to accept the veracity of the remarks allegedly made by an unidentified person in the government House leader's office. As such, I cannot find that the member has been obstructed in performing his duties and hence there is no question of privilege.

Let me point out to members and officials alike that the minister has indicated that responses to these questions are being prepared. Written questions posed by members are an important tool at the disposal of members of the House and are used to solicit information as well as to help hold the government accountable for its actions. It is precisely for this reason that the members of the ministry are responsible to the House for the actions taken regarding the preparation of the responses to these questions.

I thank all hon. members for their input.

Government Response To Petitions

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table on behalf of the government some responses to petitions.

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition. These petitioners believe privileges accorded to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships. They also believe the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the proposed human rights legislation could do just that.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from 49 of my constituents. The petitioners request that Parliament refrain from passing into law any bill extending family status or spousal benefits to same sex partners, and that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code or the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition comes from Saskatoon. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value in our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against traditional families who make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Sarnia, Ontario. The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 28 people from my riding. Based on biblical teaching they point out the prohibition against homosexuality. It is their humble request and prayer that no initiative to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the term sexual orientation be considered or allowed by this honourable House.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by people from my constituency and across Canada. They are members of religious faith communities of various denominations. They call upon Parliament to amend the

Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.