House of Commons Hansard #168 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agency.
Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The Liberals spread rumours about privatization, leak polls and hold closed door meetings on the future of Devco, but do not have the guts to come to Cape Breton and tell the truth about their plans.
Will the minister today commit to stopping the backroom deals and pledge to visit Cape Breton before making any final decisions about the future? Yes or no? Will you come to Cape Breton?
DevcoOral Question Period
The Speaker
I remind hon. members to please address their questions through the Chair. The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, rather than hyperbole, insults and innuendo, what I am concerned with is a proper solution with respect to the future of Devco. In that respect I have been consulting very closely with the board of directors who are charged with the responsibility for managing Devco. I have had the opportunity on several occasions to meet with the premier. I have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the union. I will continue that close consultation in the interests of arriving at the proper result, not just a hysterical one.
Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
There are press reports that this minister will announce a short term funding formula for Devco. Will the minister confirm whether or not that funding is forthcoming? Will the minister tell us, does the government have a plan to end the uncertainty for the future of Devco and ensure its future as a crown corporation, or will it be another case of Liberal privatization?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, what we want is a solution that works.
In the first instance there are concerns about short term cash flow problems at Devco through the balance of this fiscal year. People may be assured that those issues, if they arise, will be addressed in such a way that the workers for example have no need to be concerned about their salary situation. For the longer term we are working with all interested parties to get a solution that does work and to alleviate the uncertainty for the people of Cape Breton.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, today the representatives from the shipbuilding industry from across Canada from coast to coast met with members of this House.
The industry is asking for a fair national shipbuilding policy. The low Canadian dollar is making it harder for this industry to compete. It costs more to build a ship in Canada because of our sagging Canadian dollar. The industry is at a competitive disadvantage with European countries that receive subsidies. Our people are not asking for a subsidy.
Will the Minister of Industry bring in a national shipbuilding policy and put these people back to work?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, if the low Canadian dollar is hurting Canadian exports, the hon. member must have been reading her question upside down.
There is a policy of a 33.3% straight line depreciation rate. Canadian built ships can be written off faster than any other asset. There is a 25% tariff on ships that are being imported into Canada. There is support for the shipbuilders from the Export Development Corporation. There is a government procurement policy on Canadian shipping.
The problem the hon. member for Saint John has is that she wants subsidies for the shipbuilding industry. We are not prepared to give them. A Tory government developed a deficit of $42 billion giving handouts like that.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, the shipbuilding industry in Saint John, New Brunswick bid on 54 contracts and could not compete with the European countries.
The minister is very much confused. The industry is asking for a policy that includes tax deferrals or loan guarantees, neither of which are subsidies.
The Liberal Party adopted a policy in 1993 and it was one of its priorities to bring in a national shipbuilding policy. It is five years later. When will the minister and the government bring in a shipbuilding policy?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I am forced to admit that the policy is the same as the one the previous Conservative government followed. However, let me say that does not mean it is all bad. In this case we have support for the shipbuilding industry. A straight line depreciation rate of 33.3% is faster than most other rates of depreciation. There is a 25% tariff.
What they want is something that will amount to nothing more than the kinds of subsidies the world is engaged in within this sector. We cannot afford it.
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The opposition wants us to believe that the minister is in favour of higher taxes as a way of boosting productivity. Can the minister tell this House where he really stands on this issue?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I saw my local paper on Saturday morning and there it was “High taxes benefit Canadian economy”. I thought, what a stupid idea. Imagine my dismay to discover that it was being attributed to me.
No, I do not favour high taxes. I know that lower taxes will benefit the Canadian economy. That is why I am proud of the hundreds of millions of dollars of tax reductions we brought in in the last budget. That is why I am convinced as we continue to gain control over the deficit, as we improve the health of our finances in Canada, that we are going to see more tax reductions to benefit all Canadians.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's slashing of the stamp commissions has resulted in 30 franchised outlets filing for closure. By next August, it is believed that 100%, all of the franchises in the urban centres will be closed.
Why is the minister systematically dismantling the franchise system across Canada? When will he get tough with Canada Post and save these urban outlets?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Public Works and Government Services
Mr. Speaker, in the past two months, Canada Post met with over 600 franchise operators, amended its commission plan and on December 1 implemented its new amended plan. Franchise operators that have $200,000 or $300,000 worth of sales are not losing any money. Those above $300,000 receive an annual fee of $25,000 that they never received before. Canada Post believes that is a good plan. Let us give it time to work and we will see what happens.
Paul Mercier Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, for some time now, an increasing number of airplane and helicopter accidents have been reported by the media.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada says that the aviation industry, Nav Canada, and the regulatory agency must take action before a collision involving a large passenger airliner occurs.
The public is worried. Can the Minister of Transport assure the House that deregulation and the privatization of Nav Canada, together with cuts in the number of employees responsible for safety, have no effect on—
Aviation SafetyOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport has the floor.
Stan Dromisky LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, to my honoured colleague, members of the House of Commons and to all Canadian citizens, we can guarantee that there is no threat to the safety of Canadians by the policies being implemented by this government.
Safety is top priority. I would like to point out to the House that the International Civil Aviation Organization of the United Nations just finished an oversight safety program and has declared in its interim report that Canada has one of the top, safest aviation programs in the world.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that he has the strongest balance sheet. On whose back? On the backs of the unemployed people. His government can deny it, but the UN specifically blamed the government's UI reform for the dramatic drop in the proportion of unemployed workers receiving benefits. In 1994, soon after the Liberals were elected, 61% of the unemployed got benefits. That number has dropped to 38%.
My question is for the deputy prime minister. Will the government do what the UN asks and provide adequate coverage for all the unemployed workers in this country?
Bonnie Brown LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the member refers to what is called the B/U rate and suggests that it is down around 40%. The correct number is 78%.
He fails to realize that not all Canadians are automatically meant to be covered by EI. For example, if people have never worked a day in their life they are not entitled to EI, but we do have other programs for them. If they decide to quit their jobs so that they can go back to school, they are not entitled to EI.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, this question of privilege arises from a situation that occurred on December 3 following question period. It was the same situation that occurred with the member next to me with regard to a question put through you to the Minister of Transport that involved a former member of the House, Doug Young, who is involved in a very controversial highway deal back in New Brunswick.
Yesterday I rose on a point of order, not on a question of privilege. I do not have to get into as much detail as the member from Nova Scotia who sits next to me did, but it was the same force of intimidation and innuendo that the member for Kenora—Rainy River used against the member from Nova Scotia. That same tactic was employed against me outside the Chamber in the parliamentary precincts.
It has gone beyond that. Not only has it happened to me and the member next to me from Nova Scotia, but it has happened to a number of members of parliament on the same issue through the same member and his staff.
This is where it becomes confusing. Yesterday I rose on a point of order and not a point of privilege. The issue is very serious. I will go through specific citations in Beauchesne's. Citation 92 reads:
A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a Member must relate to the Member's parliamentary duties—
It did. It related to a very sensitive question in the House to which the member opposite took offence. He used threats and intimidation to shut me up but it did not work. I will now read citation 93. I want the House to listen very carefully. It states:
It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a Member, is breach of privilege.
Reading on in Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 99, which is the important one for you to hear, Mr. Speaker, reads:
Direct threats which attempt to influence Members' actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege. They do, however, provide serious problems for the House. They are often made anonymously and it is rarely possible for the House to examine them satisfactorily.
This was not made anonymously. It was made in the flesh by the member for Kenora—Rainy River. Citation 99 concludes with the following:
The common practice today is to turn the responsibility for investigating them over to the ordinary forces of the law.
In his apology yesterday to one of the other members, which is inferring I guess an apology to me, the member was quoted as saying “if I really meant this threat, if it was a pure and honest threat and I carried through with the threat”, to quote the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River from yesterday's Hansard at page 10986, “I can assure you, he would not be sitting over there today”, pointing to our seats.
That is a threat. It is not ambiguous. It is direct and is not in any way made anonymously. It was made by that member sitting over there. I think this goes beyond an apology. It is a prima facie case of breach of privilege.
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River is in the House and I am going to give him the floor.
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, since this was supposed to be put to rest yesterday based on your ruling, I would like to get some guidance from the Chair. Standing Order 10 of the House regarding Speaker's rulings states:
No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
I am going to ask just a question, Mr. Speaker. If you are going to allow this debate to go on then I would like the opportunity to respond to the debate as it is now because it has become a debate, not a ruling—
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
Yesterday I ruled on a point of privilege. This is a different point of privilege and that is why I heard it today.
In this point of privilege specifically the member for New Brunswick Southwest mentioned the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River and I wanted to give the member for Kenora—Rainy River at least a chance to say, from his perspective, what transpired in the House.
This is not the point of privilege from yesterday. That is over with. I am dealing with the point of privilege for today. The hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River is here. If he wishes to intervene, I invite him to do so.
Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear to you, to all the members of the House and to the member who just spoke that we had a conversation below this place on the first floor. It was very much a debate thrust in a difference of opinion. I was making it very clear to the members, this member from New Brunswick particularly, that I thought their comments about a particular ex-member of the House were unbecoming of this place because they were throwing insults, allegations and slander when they would not do it outside the House.
That was the conversation. There was no intimidation. It was very much a debate that we have in this place all the time. I think it demeans the House when people say things like that about members, whether they are here or not, or whether they have gone on to another profession.
The only thing we have in this place is our name. Once we leave this place, if one slanders a person's name continuously in this place without any information to back it up—and I said to the member to say it outside and he refused to say it outside—
PrivilegeOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. I will hear the hon. member for Kenora—Rainy River.