Debates of March 4th, 1999

National Revenue

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

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

Revenue Canada made a preliminary decision yesterday that France, Romania, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic were dumping steel products into Canada.

Why was this decision made, and what does it mean to Algoma Steel and other Canadian steel producers?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House that on December 3, 1998, the department started a dumping investigation in response to a complaint of unfair trade filed by Stelco Incorporated of Hamilton, Ontario.

The investigation reveals significant dumping of the subject goods from France, Romania, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic. As a result, temporary duties will be levied where warranted. The investigation is continuing and a final decision will be made by June 1 of this year.

Immigration

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

Mr. Speaker, most people know today that Canada is a haven for drug dealers and organized crime.

Mark Applejohn, an RCMP officer, trying to crack the drug epidemic in British Columbia, is being threatened by immigration officials for pointing out that the immigration laws are lax and cumbersome.

Why does the immigration department focus its attack on an honest, hard working RCMP officer rather than on its own problems?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are working in very close co-operation with local and regional police forces, including the RCMP, precisely in order to eradicate certain problems in the Vancouver area.

This productive relationship means that we are able to take very concrete action against individuals who abuse our system and who have committed crimes in Canada, and deport them.

It is therefore very clear that we are continuing to work with the RCMP to improve the existing system.

Prostate Cancer

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Health announced the creation in Vancouver of a centre of excellence for prostate cancer.

How can the minister explain spending $15 million in British Columbia to create a prostate cancer research centre from scratch when there is already such a centre in existence in Quebec with an internationally reputed research team?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the announcement of the minister about the centre of excellence will build on the expertise at the Vancouver General and B.C. Cancer Agency in the area of prostate cancer.

The prostate clinic at the Vancouver General Hospital is considered to be a leader in prostate cancer research, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and education. It will benefit all Canadians.

Rather than quibbling about where the centre of excellence should be located, I would have thought the member opposite would have applauded the government's decision to establish a centre of excellence in prostate cancer.

Employment Insurance

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first the government makes it next to impossible to collect EI benefits. Now those who are lucky enough to collect are facing unprecedented delays in filing their claims or having their claims processed.

In Manitoba alone there is a backlog of 4,000 cases. Even the most—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first the government has made it next to impossible to collect EI benefits. Now they are facing unprecedented delays in having their claims processed.

In Manitoba there is a backlog of over 4,000 cases. Even the most straightforward claims are taking eight to twelve weeks to process. Workers cannot wait for two months or more for their first paycheque. They have rent to pay. They have families to feed.

What is the minister doing to relieve this backlog and to break the log jam of this unjustifiable delay in having claims processed?

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

Mr. Speaker, first allow me to correct the premise of the question that we made it next to impossible to collect EI. Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians workers who have lost their jobs or left them with just cause are covered by the EI system. Let us stop the fearmongering from the opposition backbenches.

In terms of the backlog, I will look into it. I will make sure that we continue to give the best possible service and that we have as little backlog as possible.

Employment

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the New Brunswick job corps program was a program designed to employ older workers. In fact there are about 1,000 older workers employed in the program and there is some concern that the program will be cancelled.

I point out to the House and to the minister that in all quarters and by any measurement, political measurement included, this program was a great success. We are concerned that it may not be renewed.

Could the minister give use some assurances that he is considering renewing the program for those older workers who otherwise would not have jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the point of view of the hon. member who thinks this is a very good program that our government put in place.

I am well aware of the situation. I know the financing of the program was to end at the end of March. However, this is a pilot project that we have found extremely useful. We have learned a lot of things about how we can best help older workers with that particular program. We are right now, with the provincial government, looking at how we can possibly use this program to help the older workers who participate in the program.

Taxation

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.

Today the opposition has suggested that income tax alone can solve all of the problems having to do with all family conditions for all the different choices they can make with regard to care for their children.

Does the secretary of state agree with that statement? If not, can she please clarify?

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

Mr. Speaker, again this points to the complexity of an issue for which hon. members opposite only see a simplistic answer.

There are many incentives which this party across the way voted against, such as the child tax benefit, the EI parental leave benefit, child support payments for children of divorce, the Canada pension plan and its child-rearing dropout, prenatal nutrition programs for children in low income families, and I could go on and on. It is too complex for hon. members across the way to understand.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, there is a question of privilege and three points of order that I am going to deal with.

Privilege

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

Mr. Speaker, during question period the finance minister attributed a quote to me which in fact is something I never said. It was one of those unfortunate misrepresentations from the media and, that being so, I would ask the finance minister if he is prepared to withdraw his statement.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my preamble the respect that I have for the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I certainly accept what the member says. If in fact the quote is not an accurate quote or out of context in any way, shape or form, I certainly withdraw my statement.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I would ask the government House leader the nature of the business for the remainder of this week and for next week.

I would also ask him, given that we have some victims of drunk drivers in the gallery, if there will be legislation eventually in the House, how soon and when, regarding drunk drivers.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I am going to give the business statement for the next week, not the projection of introduction of bills for the next while beyond that.

The agenda for the following week will be as follows.

Tomorrow we shall conclude third reading debate on Bill C-49, the native land claims bill.

On Monday, we shall resume consideration of the report stage of Bill C-55, the foreign publications legislation.

Likely on Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-65, the equalization bill to transfer moneys to the provinces. It is our hope to complete all remaining stages of both of these bills next week.

It is also our intention to call, probably next Thursday, the following legislation: Bill C-67, the foreign banks bill; Bill C-61, third reading of the veterans bill; and Bill C-66, the housing bill.

This is the legislation until the end of the following week.

Points Of Order

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my point of order was a point of privilege as well. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill actually attributed a quote to me during question period that I did not make at any time.

The member said that about a year ago the member for Mississauga West made a statement with regard to this government's tax policy. I did not and I would ask the member to correct the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I could have mixed up the member for Mississauga West with the member for Mississauga South, but I did and I regret that. I was referring to the member for Mississauga South.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to an incident that happened today at the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

The standing committee adopted a procedure restricting me from tabling a document because of the official language that I chose to use.

Moving motions and tabling documents in either official language is a right granted to members by the authority of the House and by law. Yet I was denied these rights today at the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Subsection 4(1) of the Official Languages Act reads as follows:

English and French are the official languages of Parliament, and everyone has the right to use either of those languages in any debates and any other proceedings of Parliament.

This subsection defines the right of members of parliament to speak and submit documents in the language of their choice in parliamentary proceedings.

The standing orders state:

All motions shall be in writing ... before being debated or put from the Chair ... it shall be read in English and in French by the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the Clerk of the Table to read it in the other—

Standing Order 116 states that “in a standing committee the Standing Orders shall apply”. Standing Order 116 lists some exceptions, such as the election of the Speaker, seconding of motions and times of speaking.

I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two important rulings in regards to committees on standing orders of the House. On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled that while it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

The committee, by adopting a procedure restricting members from introducing documents in the official language of their choice, has established a procedure which goes beyond the powers conferred upon it by the House. This committee is in breach of our standing orders and the law.

On May 5, 1998 the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca raised a similar case regarding the Standing Committee on Health. In his presentation he used similar arguments that I am putting forth today. Unfortunately this matter was not dealt with. The Speaker has not yet ruled on that point of order and the matter of our rights as members of parliament to operate in the language of our choice, as provided for in the rules of the House and in common law, still remains unresolved today.

The House should be aware that the Speaker on May 5, 1998 made the following statement:

It goes without saying that members of this House are free to operate in either of the official languages.

In conclusion, I remind the Speaker of the recommendation of the commissioner of official languages in his 1996 report to parliament:

The Commissioner recommended that the Speaker of the House advise committee chairs, referring particularly to Subsection 4(1) of the Official Languages Act, that language should not be an obstacle to Members of Parliament in the performance of their duties.

It is obvious that this warning from the Chair is overdue.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, for your information, at that particular committee it was voted unanimously by all five parties represented that any document or any motion be brought forward in both official languages. I find it strange that this is brought up today. As I said, it was voted unanimously that this be done.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am astonished that such a question should be raised.

The gentleman has been a member of this House for six years. I have always heard it said that committees worked in both official languages and that documents were tabled in both, unless there were outside witnesses. When that is the case, we accept tabling in one language, with a committee commitment to have it translated into the other, so that all committee members may have a document in both official languages.

If, however, the document is from an official government agency, such as CBC or the Canada Council, or from a committee member, we require them to be in both official languages.

In addition, the committees are totally autonomous in their rules of procedure, and to my knowledge—and I have a certain degree of overview of the procedures in all committees because of the position I hold within our party—it would appear that it is a universal rule that all documents be tabled in both official languages, unless they come from outside.

I do not, therefore, see any reason for raising this question today.