Debates of Oct. 19th, 1998

Multilateral Agreement On Investment

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

France withdrew from the OECD negotiations on the MIA, for the same reasons as were used by the Bloc Quebecois during the debate on this matter in Canada: that it is being negotiated in the wrong forum; that it does not respond to the legitimate concerns raised in relation to social, labour and environmental standards; and that it does not have any provision for cultural exemptions.

Does the government intend to withdraw immediately from MAI negotiations and to propose that they be resumed under the WTO?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I suggested six months ago—and I am happy the Bloc Quebecois shares in that—that the ultimate end game of putting in place rules for investment in the way we have rules for trade is that they need to take place at the World Trade Organization. We said very clearly to the OECD that this was just the beginning of the road.

We should attempt to go as far as we possibly can and then we should pass on the baton to the World Trade Organization. That is where the rules of trade are and that is where the family of nations is. I am happy to have the Bloc Quebecois support the government's position.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development kept telling those who were criticizing the employment insurance reform to wait for the report.

Well, the minister can no longer hide behind the report because 58% of unemployed Canadians are not eligible for benefits. Entire families are suffering today because of the Liberals' reform.

With a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund, what is the minister waiting for to make employment insurance more accessible?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly do not want to make unemployment more accessible to Canadian workers; on the contrary, we want to make the job market more accessible to Canadians.

What the study that was made public this morning showed very clearly is that 78% of workers who have some sort of connection to the labour force and who have not left their jobs without just cause are covered by the employment insurance system.

As for those who are not covered, it is because they have not worked long enough, or maybe because they have never worked and have never paid EI premiums.

Taxation

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, payroll taxes are a barrier to jobs. They raise the cost of labour and create a disincentive for firms to create jobs. These are the past words of the finance minister who knew that due to the law of supply and demand high payroll taxes killed jobs.

Despite this the minister is now prepared to change the EI law to maintain artificially high payroll taxes. Will the minister also be repealing the law of supply and demand or will the Canadian jobless have to wait?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I said that increasing payroll taxes would cost jobs. That is exactly what the previous Conservative government did, which is why when we took office instead of allowing them to go to $3.30 as the Conservatives wanted we froze them. Then every year after we took office we brought those premiums down.

Trade

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. In October 1997 the Prime Minister expressed an interest in extending our free trade arrangements to include the four countries that belonged to the European Free Trade Association.

Would the minister please advise the House of the status of those negotiations?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. It is true that after the Prime Minister announced it last year Canada began official negotiations with the European Free Trade Association last Wednesday. This is a group of four European countries that has two-way trade of almost $6 billion with Canada.

After obtaining the thumbs up from consultations over the summer months with Canadians, this may be the first free trade agreement across the Atlantic. It is something we look forward to and that we embrace with full enthusiasm.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past week I had the opportunity to meet with dozens of police officers in my riding. Despite assurances from their superiors to the contrary, these front line police officers inform me that there will be an increased safety risk to British Columbians and to themselves caused by the budget cutbacks. These cuts are much more than fiscal restraint as the solicitor general indicated.

Will the solicitor general commit immediately that his government will provide the RCMP with the necessary funds to get the planes back in the air, get the boats patrolling offshore and get the police back on the streets?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House, there are no fewer RCMP officers on the streets as there have been before. The reality is I have been advised by the commissioner of the RCMP that there is no risk to public safety. We are talking about a period of restraint as many departments are going through. I have every confidence in the RCMP's capacity to give Canada the same police protection they have for 125 years.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I have received notice of a question of privilege.

Privilege

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege in regard to an issue which I thought was before you in a previous question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill on February 26, 1998. I contributed to that question of privilege and I have been awaiting a response. I have been informed that you will not rule because the issue of the question of privilege of February 26, 1998 was about the appointment of Mr. Landry to the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

While the member for Calgary—Nose Hill did bring up the matter of the appointment of Mr. Landry, her second point during her presentation was, and I quote from Hansard of February 26, 1998 “There is no legislation before the House setting up this foundation. Nor has the budget announcement allocating $2.5 billion in revenue to the foundation been allocated”.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that this second point would be enough for you to rule on, even though the first point was no longer an issue. However it appears that I need to bring up the second issue as a separate point which I am doing today. I would also like to address new evidence regarding this issue, which I will be putting on record and which will be tabled today.

In the recent auditor general's report to parliament, he confirmed that the government accounted for the $2.5 billion Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation in the 1997-98 year even though there was no legislation establishing that scholarship nor any recipients of funds. Doug Fisher's article in the Ottawa Sun of October 18 states:

The AG noted how the government, in defiance of normal accounting practices, charged the costs for harmonizing the GST and PST in the maritimes ($961 million), for the Canada Foundation for Innovation ($800 million), and for the Millennium Scholarship Foundation ($2.5 billion), to current years, when the actual spending would not take place until later. (In doing so, the government showed contempt for parliament, which had not yet voted for all the initiatives for which moneys were being set aside.)

The auditor general, the media and the public are all engaged in a discussion of this issue and are judging it as contempt. I am getting a little more than frustrated as this discussion continues without this House resolving the question of contempt. We cannot make a further mockery of this place by having this debated and judged by the public and the media as contempt. The place for that debate is in this House and nowhere else.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary—Nose Hill recounted all the sins of the government in her presentation on February 26, 1998 which I will only touch on very briefly here this afternoon because you have those facts before you. They are important because they establish a dangerous pattern that must be addressed by this House.

The member argued that the government and its departments are making a habit of mocking the parliamentary system. She pointed to a recent incident raised by the member for Prince George—Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. That member pointed out that the Speaker was asked to rule on a similar complaint on March 9, 1990 regarding a pamphlet put out by the government concerning the GST.

Again on March 25, 1991 another complaint was launched on a similar issue. The member for Fraser Valley made a progressively stronger case on October 28, 1997. This led to the Speaker's ruling which contained a strong statement and a very strong warning.

The Speaker of this House, you Mr. Speaker, said on November 6, 1997 “the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that”—and it continues—“this dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices”.

The member also pointed out that an earlier warning of the Speaker had been ignored since the ruling of November 6, 1997 additionally stated “I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the department and agencies will be guided by it”.

On February 26, 1998 the member for Calgary—Nose Hill asked you “How many times must we put up with this sort of mockery of our parliamentary system and disrespect for the Speaker before we take action?” Mr. Speaker, I am asking you again, how many times must we put up with this sort of mockery of our parliamentary system and disrespect for the Speaker before we take action?

As you said on November 6, the dismissive view of the legislative process repeated often enough makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices. The government by its actions has demonstrated its contempt for parliament. The auditor general has acknowledged these actions and the media has passed judgment on these actions.

It is time this House decided on the issue or it will arise time and time again I am sure. Mr. Speaker if you rule this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, without speaking on this too long, the Chair will recognize what was said some months ago on this very issue.

It will be remembered that at the time the government had made an announcement in the media to obtain input and participation from Canadians in what was hoped to be then at the legislative level, the millennium scholarship fund as an organization. Of course, no one was asked to actually function until the legislation was put in place and therefore no infringement occurred. I remember that the hon. member raised a similar question in regard to the Canada pension plan fund in that the government had prepared in advance for a structure to be created, which is only normal.

Finally, there is the whole question being asked by the hon. member about whether or not it is appropriate for the government to set aside funds for future expenditures. In business that principle is called encumbrance of funds. In other words there must be an assurance that an expenditure is not undertaken until it is ascertained that it can actually be funded.

Obviously, the disbursements pursuant to that fund have not been made yet. We have not arrived at the millennium scholarship fund period, but we have of course earmarked the funds to ensure that the moneys are available so that funding is not spent without our having the money. It is a prudent way to manage. We have a history of prudent management in this government. We have a history of doing things in the way that does not strangle the taxpayers or increase the burden upon the taxpayers. We are prudent managers.

I thought the hon. member should at least point out that the government is attempting to be wise in its handling of taxpayers' money and not to spend money it does not have. Were we to do the opposite, the member and others would be the first to remind us that we did not have money set aside for a planned future expenditure. Of course, we are planning and putting moneys aside. We are not spending first and then worrying later about how we will pay for it.

[The Speaker]

First, let me set the stage. There was a point brought up by the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill in February. A specific date was mentioned.

I took the two points as being part of one. That particular point, because of obvious reasons, because Mr. Landry has passed away, I consider to be a moot point.

Today the hon. member brings forth what I will consider to be a separate question of privilege that he wants me to look at. I have had advice from at least one member. Perhaps there are others who will want to give me advice on this specific question of privilege. I would be willing to entertain them for a little while. After that I will make a decision as to how I am going to handle it.

The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill on the specific question of privilege brought up by the House leader of the opposition.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was my intention and understanding that I raised that point as the most important element of the question of privilege I raised; that is, this government is moving ahead on the expectation that the House will make certain decisions which have in fact yet to be placed before the House. The point I was making is that that is a violation of the rights and privileges of members of the House and also, and perhaps even more importantly, a violation of the democratic process which we are all here to uphold.

I have heard nothing in response to the issue I raised, which I have just laid out, which the opposition House leader has just laid out and which you have identified as well. I think as Speaker you have let the House know how seriously you take this situation that government must not disrespect the process of this House and the democratic process in the way it operates.

Mr. Speaker, we look to you to make a ruling and to help government keep its decision making and its announcements in proper order in light of the process and the role of this House.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add two points to the points made by the House leader for the official opposition. First, it is important that we always maintain the supremacy of parliament in terms of initiatives taken by the government. We have seen in the past when government enthusiasm has surpassed the parliamentary process from time to time and I think we have to acknowledge that.

The second point is to differentiate between the budget process and the points raised by my hon. friend, the House leader for the official opposition. Often when budget initiatives are presented legislation and policy are announced, effective at that particular point, knowing full well that the appropriate legislation and bills will follow. This is not a similar situation and I think we have to distinguish between these two types of announcements.

[The Speaker]

I thank you for your advice. As I put it in place in the first section, that was a moot point. I consider this to be a different point that the hon. House leader for the opposition has brought forth. I take the information and I take the advice in the spirit in which it was given to help me to make a decision which is good for the House.

I am going to take this under advisement. I want to refresh my memory about everything that was said in this particular case and then I want to revisit this particular question of privilege and come back to the House.

Reform Party's Anti-Profiteering Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-442, an act to prohibit profiteering during emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to once again rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to introduce my private member's bill, an act initiated by the Reform Party to prohibit profiteering during emergencies.

The purpose of the bill is to prohibit persons from engaging in profiteering in respect of essential goods, services and resources during emergencies that seriously endanger the lives, health, safety and property of persons in Canada.

In British Columbia we know that the lower mainland is prone to earthquakes. Our nation may be facing a year 2000 computer breakdown crisis. We have seen tremendous floods in Manitoba. Ontario, Quebec and some parts of Atlantic Canada have most recently experienced a crippling ice storm.

During the ice storm we heard reports of increased prices for gasoline, diesel fuel, batteries, water, generators and so on.

I hope all members of this House will take note of what will be accomplished by this bill and find it in their hearts to abandon their political stripes and support my bill.

On behalf of my constituents I present this bill.

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

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

moved that Bill S-11, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion for which I seek the unanimous endorsement of the House. I move:

That this House call on the government to provide financial assistance for legal costs incurred by the protesters involved in the RCMP complaints commission hearings into the APEC affair.

I table that motion and seek unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House leader of the official opposition has requested unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Could he read the motion again, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There has been a request to read the motion again. It reads as follows:

That this House call on the government to provide financial assistance for legal costs incurred by the protesters involved in the RCMP complaints commission hearings into the APEC affair.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my hon. friend for bringing this motion forward at this rather appropriate and special moment.

I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we support this initiative and would give our unanimous consent.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I made a big mistake. We should have had the consent of the House to accept the motion before there was any debate on the motion. Therefore, we are going to take a step back now and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to accept the motion as presented. Is there unanimous consent?