House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

National RevenueOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Vancouver South—Burnaby B.C.

Liberal

Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, confidential tax information cannot be released outside of Revenue Canada unless authorized by the client or by the law.

The matter of which the member speaks is with Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Last year we looked at that particular issue and we have cleared up any ambiguity that may have existed.

CensusOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Reform

Deepak Obhrai Reform Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, two years ago StatsCanada asked Canadians who they were and being Canadian was not an option. It is reassuring to note that over 8.6 million defied the bureaucrats at StatsCanada and wrote “Canadian” as their heritage. Good for them.

Will the government stop conducting surveys which categorize us racially rather than as Canadians?

CensusOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Ottawa South Ontario

Liberal

John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I note that in the census results that have recently been published virtually all persons who reported Canadian origins had either English or French as a mother tongue and were born in Canada.

I point out to the hon. member that the information Statistics Canada tries to gather is important in order to provide a basis for policy making. Members may not be interested in the answer but I think they should be interested in the information that the census generates.

TradeOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, on February 12 I asked the Minister for International Trade if I was correct in saying that I had heard him state that unless he was able to get a complete carve out for culture within the MAI he would walk away from the table. He answered “Yes, you are”. The next day he told the Centre for Trade Policy and Law that if the pursuit of a total carve out was unsuccessful they would proceed by a country specific reservation.

I would like to ask the minister yet again which is it? Is it yes to a total carve out or depending on how the political winds are blowing a country specific reservation? The people of Canada want to know.

TradeOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, obviously the NDP is very confused. What I said to the member is that our first preference for Canadian culture would be that it be off the MAI table. In fact a number of countries would agree with us. Failing that we would take a country specific exemption.

What the hon. lady does not understand is that for Canadian culture the exact same thing is going to be applied. If you have a country specific exemption or if the issue is off the table it means that for Canadian culture MAI will have no impact.

Bill C-28Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Before the Deputy Prime Minister says much more about the finance committee's proceedings this morning, he should be aware that the ethics counsellor indicated to the committee that internal procedures normally used when the Minister of Finance's corporate interests are involved were not followed in this case.

Therefore my question for the Minister of Finance is the following. Recognizing that Bill C-28 has provisions that could very directly relate financially to his major holding company, does he believe it was appropriate that he introduced that legislation, that he sponsored that legislation as opposed to some other minister?

Bill C-28Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the counsellor on ethics made very clear that the allegations against the Minister of Finance were without any foundation. Therefore the Minister of Finance does not find himself in any conflict of interest, nor any appearance of conflict of interest.

It is very interesting that the hon. member does not ask a question about taxes. He does not ask a question about unemployment. He does not ask a question about debt. The critic for the NDP obviously is endorsing the policies of the Minister of Finance by the very question he has asked today.

QuebecOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend the Minister of Justice gave several interviews. I want to quote from one statement that she made. She said: “One would probably acknowledge the extraordinary nature and determine what process would be pursued at that point” in referring to the secession of Quebec. I want to know whether this is the government's position.

QuebecOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one more time for hon. members in this House. The government's position is clear. The fundamental principle of the rule of law will apply to any secession.

QuebecOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister said that because that is my next question.

In the same interview the hon. minister said that this is not comprehended, this scenario, within the existing constitutional framework, that there is no rule in law.

I would like to know two things. Is this the government's position? If it is the government's position, what is the point of making reference to the supreme court?

QuebecOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Edmonton West Alberta

Liberal

Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably aware, the rule of law is a fundamental principle enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of Canada.

This government's position has been absolutely clear throughout this reference procedure. The rule of law is a primary principle on which all processes in the future will be based. It is our belief that any secession in the future must be based on respect for the rule of law.

HempOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, farmers in southwestern Ontario have been waiting for years for regulations to permit the planting of industrial hemp. Why is the minister stalling on this? Can farmers plan now to plant industrial hemp this spring?

HempOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Eglinton—Lawrence Ontario

Liberal

Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that several members on this side of the House approached the minister last year. They asked him to present regulations to govern the commercial growing of hemp. The minister met with these members and listened to them. Subsequently he ordered his department to move posthaste in developing regulations for such activity.

An interparliamentary committee was struck and presented draft regulations. I am pleased to advise the House that on December 27, 1997 these were published in The Canada Gazette . Since then there have been a series of meetings including—

HempOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member of Calgary West.

Canadian Blood Bank CorporationOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, there is another scandal at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities agency. The Canadian Blood Bank Corporation received over a $1 million from ACOA and HRD. This money went to fund Rolex watches and expensive cars for the chief executives. Now the company is going down, the executives have resigned and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.

What is the minister going to do to get our money back?

Canadian Blood Bank CorporationOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Fred Mifflin LiberalMinister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the position of the Reform Party, particularly on ACOA. I know that Reform members are against TAGS and I know that they are against the infrastructure program. I gather the hon. member does not like TAGS. He does not like the infrastructure program and apparently he does not like ACOA.

Let me tell hon. members what one of the Reform members said. The hon. member for Medicine Hat, in the maritimes not long ago, in referring to the delivery of programs in ACOA said that spending money in this way is going to help Atlantic Canadians much better than anything else.

Multilateral Investment AgreementOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, we will try to dissipate the confusion somewhat.

On February 12, the Minister for International Trade assured us in this House that Canada would not sign the MIA without the cultural exemption clause. The next morning, this very minister said that the clause would be preferable, but that, if it proved impossible, Canada would be satisfied with a few stipulations.

My question is very simple: What is the minister saying in his speech? Is the cultural exemption clause an essential condition to the signing of the agreement, yes or no?

Multilateral Investment AgreementOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister for International Trade

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, there is no confusion. What the Canadian position has advocated is that culture not even be on the table. A number of countries support that.

Having said that, if some countries want it on the table, those other countries including Canada have said that they will take a country specific exemption. Therefore, the exemption for culture for Canada is very much on. Given our preference that we would rather not even have it debated, for Canadian culture either position is the same. It will not be affected.

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Mac Campbell, former director general of management review systems with DND in Goose Bay, has cashed in and is now working for SERCO, the British firm now handling the contract for alternative service delivery. It seems some people are getting rich off ASD, but it is not the front line workers in Goose Bay who will see their wages slashed from $13 to just over $6.

Will the government admit today that the savings from alternative service delivery are coming on the backs of everyday Canadians? Will it also admit that opportunities for Liberal policies are only open to those with Liberal politics?

National DefenceOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, obviously no. I find this very puzzling. For years the NDP has wanted to cut defence spending. Here is an opportunity to save the taxpayers $20 million a year and it wants the defence department to spend more money, not less.

We are out to save the taxpayers money, to provide support services to the Canadian military in a more efficient and effective way and to do it in a way that is fair and humane to our employees. We intend to do that.

QuebecOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister yesterday said that he does not want to roll the dice with the future of Canada. However that is exactly what his government did in 1995. The Prime Minister and his advisers threw together a plan at the last minute and it failed.

We deal with important issues in this House every day. The most important issue we deal with right now is the future of this country. It is my country.

After the legal opinion is given, what is the plan that this government has in place to make sure that we will continue to survive as a country?

QuebecOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader said the following, in English naturally, on January 29, 1996, and I quote:

“If separatists have the right to dissent, they cannot deny the right of dissent to others. It is far from being clear that Quebec is not divisible. I think the Crees and Inuit would have a very good case”.

My question to him is, is he speaking about the legal case, or is it only the political case of anarchy? We need to know.

BankingOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the secretary of state for financial institutions.

With reference to the announced statement by President's Choice, Loblaws will provide financial services throughout Canada. What assurance can the secretary of state give this House that these changes in services will be in the best interests of all Canadians?

BankingOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Willowdale Ontario

Liberal

Jim Peterson LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Durham not only for his question but also for his leadership on economic and financial sector questions in Parliament.

Banks with no service fees, free chequing and ready access are certainly welcome and good for Canada. More competition means more choices for consumers. Our government will continue to welcome and encourage even more innovation and more competition in the provision of financial services to Canadians.

The BudgetOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has stated that he will not announce whether Canadians will have a balanced budget until budget day. The heritage minister has already announced a $100 million, one year extension for the cable production fund, yet he will not say anything about health care, he will not tell us about research and development and he will not talk about tax relief.

Why was this announcement more important than talking about Canadians' health care—