I said, and I will repeat it, if they want an answer, yes, there is a strike because the Parliament of Canada has given the right to strike to this union. That is in the law and we have to respect the law of the land by giving the two parties a chance to find a negotiated solution.

Canada PostOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on CBC TV the Minister of Labour said he would not interfere with postal negotiations because 90% of all collective bargaining in government sectors is settled without a strike.

That may be so but Canada Post certainly is not one of them. This is the third strike in 10 years, the fourth if we count the two separate strikes we had in 1987. That brings Canada Post's 10 year average to less than 50%.

Will the minister admit that Canada Post is not one of his success stories and legislate an end to this disruption?

Canada PostOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalMinister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, the collective bargaining system has worked well in this country.

As my colleague indicated, over the last year in fact 94.5% of the businesses under federal jurisdiction have been settled without a work stoppage.

What we want to have here, and what the prime minister has indicated, is to let the process work. The strike is only a few hours old.

Canada PostOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks that an average of a strike every two and a half years is a good record, I hate to think what his bad record is.

Over 1,000 people in direct marketing were laid off prior to the strike actually starting. Tens of thousands more in direct marketing, charity organizations and businesses that depend on mail in the operation of their business will soon be joining them. Merry Christmas, Canada.

Can the minister tell this House how many people need to be laid off and how much suffering they and their families have to go through before he will act?

Canada PostOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Cardigan P.E.I.

Liberal

Lawrence MacAulay LiberalMinister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have little sympathy for a strike or a lockout at any time, particularly this time of year.

What we must do is follow the law. Under Part I of the Canada Labour Code they certainly have rights. This government is letting the process work.

What I urge my colleague to do is encourage the parties to get to the table, look in the whites of the eyes of each other, come up with a deal, a deal that is better for the people of Canada.

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in his report, the director general of elections in Quebec says precisely what the Minister of Canadian Heritage would never admit: Option Canada was indeed a gimmick through which the Council for Canadian Unity could get directly involved in the referendum.

In the light of this damning report, could the Minister of Canadian Heritage stand up and tell us in unequivocal terms what Option Canada did with the $4.8 million supposedly spent during the referendum campaign?

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, we did the same thing Mr. Duhaime did with his funds.

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec headed by Yves Duhaime submitted a report of its activities, thereby clearly acting within the law, while the same can unfortunately not be said of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is twisting the facts as she did with the GST.

Will the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the integrity of his government, state in this House that Option Canada did not violate in any way the Quebec referendum act, which was in effect at the time of the 1995 referendum?

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member should mention this act because I think it was declared unconstitutional and that it why there was no follow-up after the referendum.

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The federal government took close to $5 million from the budgets allocated to the promotion of the official languages and gave the money to Option Canada. This is six times the annual subsidy to the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.

What distorted logic did the minister use to divert funds from the official languages promotion budget to a phoney organization whose role was to spread federalist propaganda during the last referendum campaign?

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:20 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I will simply remind the hon. member and anyone else interested in this issue, that the amount of the funds allocated to Option Canada is exactly the same as the amount given by the Quebec government to Option souveraineté Québec.

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, we would like to see the minister table a report that would confirm the transparency of the process, as the Quebec government did in full compliance with the law. The same cannot be said of her and that is the problem.

The minister once said “If I am accused of fighting for my country, then I plead guilty”. In all likelihood, the money given to Option Canada was used to double the budget of the no side, which was in contempt of the Quebec referendum act in effect in 1995.

Are we to understand that, for this government, which has a holier-than-thou attitude and tries to lecture everyone, any—

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I have never made excuses for fighting for my country and I never will.

If the hon. member wants to talk about costs, let us talk about the real costs of the referendum, as reported in Le Soleil on December 2: “Government advertising aimed at Quebec's welfare recipients, $273,000; unveiling of the preamble at the Grand Théâtre de Québec, $175,000; hiring—”.

Option CanadaOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Halifax.

Financial InstitutionsOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

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

Banks have registered record profits over the past five years. Part of the reason for this is the service charges they require their customers to pay. It is easy for the banks to strangle their customers. This government does not require them to publish the figures that could explain such charges.

Why not set up a parliamentary inquiry to determine how much of these profits were made at the expense of Canadians?

Financial InstitutionsOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, if banks are making profits, the leader of the NDP can rest assured that we will tax them. This government, in fact, levied $100 million in taxes on banks in its second budget. This government has taxed major corporations, and this includes major financial institutions.

It is a good thing that the banks are stable, but we are ensuring for Canadian taxpayers that we are getting our share of the pie.

Financial InstitutionsOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the issue is why banks are making obscene profits while Canadians are paying obscene service charges. Bank service charges are user fees. They are regressive taxes feeding massive profits and they play a part in preventing over 400,000 low income Canadians from even having a bank account.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation requiring financial institutions to provide a lifeline account, assuring basic, affordable financial services to all Canadians?

Financial InstitutionsOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Willowdale Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, the banks have already published that and undertaken that in accordance with our instructions to them.

Let me quote from a press release of December 4, 1996, when the leader of the fourth party said: “We welcome bank profits if they are earned through good management, sound long term investment and progressive participation in the Canadian economy”.

Why is she changing her mind?

Drug PatentsOral Question Period

November 20th, 1997 / 2:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday, in the Town of Fleurimont, a Pharmacology Research Centre will be inaugurated at the University of Sherbrooke.

This project would not have been possible without Bill C-91, which was passed in this House. I would like today to ask the Prime Minister to clarify his government's position on this legislation.

Does the government intend, yes or no, to amend this act or its regulations? This was not made clear by the answers provided yesterday by one of his ministers?

Drug PatentsOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, it was rather clear, I think. We undertook to respect our commitments under international treaties, including with the World Trade Organization and also NAFTA.

We also received a report from a House committee suggesting that we review the regulations. We are proceeding with this, but we will be maintaining the 20-year period for patent protection.

Drug PatentsOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the minister today is confirming the doubts we had, because his answer is unclear. He speaks of the 20-year period, but he leaves the door wide open when it comes to the regulations.

The Prime Minister knows how important this bill is for Quebec and for investments. Can the Prime Minister tell us clearly today that he will not be changing the regulations to do through the back door what he cannot do through the front door?

Drug PatentsOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I said clearly that a House committee studied this issue and asked the government to review the regulations.

The legislation requires that we review the regulations in 1997. The legislation required that we review the regulations and also the act itself in 1997. So we are only doing today what the law as passed requires us to do for 1997-98.

Canada PostOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, this labour minister just said that the government follows the law. Well, guess what? This government writes the law. It is time that this government wrote some law that is going to help the Canadian public right across the land.

My question is for the labour minister. Why will this government not put its foot down and get legislation in place to get these postal workers back to work now?