Benoît Sauvageau

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, before I forget, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Témiscamingue. We will each speak for ten minutes. My colleague will speak last.

I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. As members have seen from our previous speeches, we have several reasons to oppose this bill which, once again, interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I was flabbergasted, a few moments ago, when I heard the Liberal members automatically make a connection between the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois because we were talking about respecting areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like them to be honest. From the beginning, they have been talking even louder than us—they are always very grouchy when we speak—but I would like them to tell us frankly and honestly that they have absolutely no respect for areas of provincial jurisdiction and that they think the simple solution to Canada's problems would be to eliminate the provinces.

In the Canadian Constitution of 1867, there are areas of shared jurisdiction, including the environment. The federal government says it must interfere in areas such as the environment because there is a problem in Newfoundland or there is a problem in British Columbia, but let us look at what it has done on its own turf. Let us look at what it has done on northern native reserves.

The environment committee visited these reserves. What has the government done? It can all be found in the committee's proceedings. What has it done to protect the environment at airports and on Canadian forces bases? The Liberals, when and if they check in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, will see what the government's obligations are. They can read evidence given by federal employees and by other witnesses who have seen the federal government renege on its obligations on its own property.

It is easy to blame others and say “We must have the upper hand because we are better, more intelligent, more clever, more who knows what else, we must have the upper hand over the Government of Quebec and every other province. There are crooked trees in the provinces”.

If only the government looked at its own areas of jurisdiction, it might see it has problems too. It is a lot easier to shrug off its own problems and point to the problems of other governments, claiming it will take care of them.

Unfortunately they have not stopped to think about how they could improve things. What we see today is the result of this approach. The government and the bureaucrats, who are trying to justify their positions, come up with countless new ideas

Contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage suggested, we are not opposed to this kind of environmental protection. We are in favour of measures aimed at protecting the environment.

More specifically, the Bloc Quebecois would remind the government it supported legislation establishing Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Moreover the Bloc Quebecois knows the Quebec government is embarking on initiatives aimed at protecting the environment, particularly the sea floor.

Why did we support the establishment of Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park when we now object to this bill? It is very simple, really. On one hand, there was joint action and perhaps the parliamentary secretary—I read it in his speeches—did not understand this aspect or did not want to understand it. We agreed to determine a procedure for the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park, and if we were had been offered the same procedure, the same joint action and the same harmonization, perhaps we would be talking differently.

But no, today, Liberals say “The federal government, even to establish these marine parks, will have to be the owner of the seabed”. The Constitution does not allow the government to take such a direction, to own the seabed to establish a marine park. If the parliamentary secretary read his bill once again, he would probably find this clause.

Also, the problem is not only one of overlap between the federal and the provincial governments. Let us look within the federal government alone. There is a small problem. If only the federal and the provincial governments were involved, the bad separatists could be there to throw a monkey's wrench into the works.

We will find ourselves with three designations, three categories, namely who will take precedence, where and when. I will name them: the Department of Canadian Heritage, which was once again short on visibility, has decided, by forgetting or by intentionally omitting, to establish marine conservation areas.

At the same time, Fisheries and Oceans Canada had marine protection areas. At the same time, there were protected marine areas within a same department. We could ask this question. If there were a problem, would it be environment, heritage or fisheries and oceans that would deal with it? So, there will be discussions, task forces and probably consultations to determine who will deal with this problem.

First, leaving the provinces aside, they create a federal body to examine this problem so things can move forward once again. We are not alone in deploring this situation. I would like to quote a report from a group of officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who wrote the following: “There is still a great deal of confusion among stakeholders regarding the various federal programs on protected marine areas, marine protection zones, national marine conservation areas, wildlife marine preserves — The departments concerned should harmonize their actions and co-operate to create protected marine areas.”

These comments were not made by the Bloc Quebecois or the member for Rimouski—Mitis, but rather by DFO officials who were asked by a committee to write a report commenting on the creation of marine conservation areas across the country, including eight in Quebec.

We have heard time and time again that different groups had been asked to share their concerns or their views on the establishment of marine conservation areas in Canada. Actually, what happened is that Heritage Canada, very proud to be able to show that they were consulting Canadians, had 3,000 copies made of the document. They decided to go ahead and consult all the environmental groups, all the groups who were in any way concerned with the establishment of marine conservation areas. It was quite a consultation.

They apparently received 300 answers, which represent 10% of all the people who were consulted. Yet, when those answers are requested through access to information, one does not get 300 answers, but 73. Of these 73, one comes from Quebec and they want to create eight marine conservation areas in Quebec after telling us that there were extensive consultations.

At the same time, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was holding consultations in Quebec. They also—duplicating the efforts of Canadian Heritage—sent 650 documents to different groups about the creation of protected areas. Of 650 requests, they received 30 answers. This is less than 5% for Fisheries and Oceans Canada et 0.1% for Canadian Heritage.

How can we trust them when they say “We have consulted Canadians. We want to protect the environment. We know what is good for the country and we know that the provinces cannot honour their commitments under the Canadian Constitution.”

Those are other reasons why the Bloc Québécois must oppose this bill and prevent it from going any further. This bill should be withdrawn.

[Apec, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the next APEC summit is to be held in mid-November in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

We know that the former deputy prime minister and finance minister of that country has been detained. His imprisonment, which has been strongly condemned by Amnesty International, is a clear breach of human rights in every respect.

My question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Several countries have already expressed reservations about holding the APEC summit in Kuala Lumpur. Will the government show leadership and ask that the next APEC summit be held somewhere else?

[Personal Information And Electronic Documents Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me, first of all, to greet the great many people from my riding of Repentigny who are watching us.

Yesterday, a very important event took place in the riding of Repentigny in this busy and eventful month of November we are having in Quebec this year. This event was the convention to reconfirm our current MNA for L'Assomption, Jean-Claude St-André, as the official PQ candidate.

I can see that I have the unanimous consent of the House to extend our congratulations to him. Even the hon. member from northern Ontario agrees. There is therefore consent to allow me to extend our congratulations to the current and future member for the riding of L'Assomption.

Having said this, it is my pleasure to now turn to Bill C-54, that members of the Bloc Quebecois and others eloquently criticized, to show why the bill, as it stands, should be opposed.

As an introduction, I shall discuss the origin of the bill and why we must debate it today. I can see there are members who want to hear the rest of my speech and hear why Bill C-54 is before us today.

Let me read the title of the bill, which, as the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve pointed out, is quite convoluted. It reads as follows:

An act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act.

This is all one sentence: I did not omit anything. This is how the title of the bill reads. The title says it all: we are definitely facing a very convoluted bill, as I said.

But where does it come from? It is the government's response to requests from several groups across Canada. It is a commitment the federal government made to introduce legislation on the protection of personal information in the private sector. This commitment was first made by the Minister of Justice in 1996; he then promised a bill to protect privacy.

The Minister of Industry made that commitment his own—as they often do things twice over—when he responded to the recommendations of the information highway advisory committee.

Following these two commitments, documents were drafted. And last January, both ministers released a joint working paper entitled “The Protection of Personal Information: Building Canada's Information Economy and Society”.

In total, the working group created to examine the issue received 90 briefs. Almost all of these agreed that legislation was needed to protect privacy in the private sector. Thus, we were expecting good new when Bill C-54 was introduced.

Almost everybody stressed that the protection of personal information voluntary code developed by the Canadian Standards Association was a good start, but that it was a minimum and should be reinforced.

The protection of privacy is recognised as a fundamental right. Sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Constitution refer to it indirectly. Section 7 deals with the right of everyone to life, liberty and security of the person. Section 8 protects Canadians against unreasonable search.

As for the Quebec Charter for Human Rights and Freedoms enacted in 1975, it is very clear. Its references are not indirect. The Quebec 1975 Charter reads as follows: “Every person has a right to respect for his private life”. So, from a legal point of view, there are not too many problems with its interpretation. I repeat: “Every person has a right to respect for his private life”.

As you can see, Quebec has been a pioneer with regards to the protection of private life in this sector. It is the only jurisdiction in North America that has passed legislation to protect the private life of its people. For four years now, this legislation has been covering all aspects of human activities, commercial as well as others.

I want to remind you of an act protecting private life that was enacted in 1982, and of an act amending it that was passed in 1994. In 1982, an act for the protection of personal information in the public sector was introduced. The federal government and all provinces all passed legislation in this regard. Then, in 1994, an act extended the protection of personal information to the private sector. It already exists. In Quebec, we have been dealing with this protection of private life process for several years.

The Bloc believes the federal government should have used Quebec's experience as a model not only because it is recognized internationally, but also because it is essential that all laws passed in Canada and in the other provinces be compatible with one another for the greatest benefit of the citizens of Quebec and Canada.

Compatibility of federal and provincial legislation, or their harmonization, does not seem to be a priority for our friends across the way. One has only to look at the Young Offenders Act, at the Tobacco Act, and now at the Privacy Act. Compatibility of federal and provincial legislation probably comes in tenth place in the order of priority of our Liberal colleagues in the government.

Why harmonize legislation when one has the big end of the stick, as the Prime Minister of Canada would say? All we have to do is wave the stick, and the others will have to respect our opinion.

This bill, which was eagerly awaited by everybody, is too weak and too soft for us to accept as it now stands. What are theses weaknesses? I will mention a few.

Most of the measures concerning the protection of personal information are not in the bill itself, but in the schedule, where the Minister for Industry has decided to introduce word for word the standard personal information protection code developed by the Canadian Standards Association. This code was judged to be utterly inadequate by the federal and provincial personal information protection commissioners and by all consumers groups.

The Minister of Industry could have used the Quebec Act Respecting the Protection of Personal Information in the Private Sector as a model. I am sure that he could have followed the exact wording of that legislation without fear that Mrs. Louise Beaudoin, Quebec's minister of culture, would ever claim copyrights for the use of that sensible and reasonable act.

By choosing to apply without change the CSA standard, the government revealed that it was opting for permissiveness instead of the full protection of Quebeckers' and Canadians' privacy. Among this bill's several loopholes is the fact that the annex contains eight clauses using the conditional tense.

Clause 4.2.3, for example, reads: “The identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal information is collected—”

Clause 4.2.5 reads:

Persons collecting personal information should able to explain—

Clause 4.5.2 reads:

Organizations should develop—

Clause 4.5.3 reads:

Personal information that is no longer required to fulfil the identified purposes should be destroyed, erased, or made anonymous—

The worse is the default consent. In the area of personal information, informed consent is a basic principle where there should be no ambiguity. However, the voluntary code says that that consent can be obtained by default.

That means that if someone does not check the box indicating that he or she does not want his or her personal information to be transmitted, it will automatically be. That is what is called default consent.

In concluding, I will say that for these two reasons and all the others that my colleagues discussed so eloquently, we must oppose Bill C-54 as it was introduced in this House.

[Tax On Financial Transactions, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on his great idea of presenting Motion M-239, as amended to read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with the international community.

My colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I generally support in principle motions as presented. And my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean clearly demonstrated this. Wholesale unregulated globalization is a little scary.

So, as far as we are concerned, some regulating of international financial transactions, of shameless speculation, is good. Members will see why later in my remarks.

The meaning of “financial transactions” in general ought to be specified. This may be a simplistic example, but let us say I have $100 Canadian changed for American money because I will be travelling to the U.S. tomorrow morning. Is this kind of financial transaction likely to affect the Canadian or American dollar? I think not. Should there be a tax on this simple transaction? Again, I think not.

To sum up, yes, speculation should be taxed or regulated. Perhaps the meaning of the word “transaction” should be further defined, as we will see later.

Listening to the Reform member who spoke before me, it is clear that the Tobin tax can be interpreted any number of ways. People see what they want in it and it is blamed for many things.

When James Tobin—I want to make it clear that the premier of Newfoundland and former minister on the other side is not the one who came up with the idea of imposing such a tax, but rather an American economist named James Tobin—won the Nobel Prize in 1972, I am sure no member of the Reform Party sat on the jury, otherwise he would probably never have received this well deserved award.

Just because an idea is difficult to implement does not mean it should automatically be rejected. When my Reform Party colleague says it cannot be implemented and is unfeasible, and that a third issue could even be to consider reinventing Santa Claus, I think he is going a bit far.

When he says it is impossible to get all countries to agree to go along with a decision that would place legal limits on international financial speculation, he is perhaps forgetting that today, in 1998, we have the WTO, to which the very great majority of, if not all, countries belong. Only a few are missing.

Nonetheless, after several years of talks and negotiations—starting with the GATT, and moving on—we now have harmonized customs tariffs. Ten years before the first GATT rounds and before the WTO, various parliaments perhaps had debates in which they said that it would be impossible and unthinkably utopian to consider harmonizing customs tariffs internationally.

But this is what we have today. Why? Because countries realized that, if countries who engage in this sort of international trade wished to evolve in a constructive and secure manner, it would be a benefit to rich countries and poor countries alike to have a legal framework, a consensual framework for trade and tariffs, in order to increase international trade and revenues in countries that can benefit from such trade.

But there is a framework. How does it work? Who decides where meetings are held? The first ministerial meeting was held in Singapore, the second in Geneva, not too long ago, and amendments and improvements are being made. International institutions are capable of working in harmony. Why do people say that, if it is complicated, they will give up, abdicate their responsibilities and go home. I disagree completely.

The motion calls on us to move forward and give the matter more thought, in light of the new reality. Some will say that the idea was first put forward 20 years ago and that it has been discussed for just as long, but that it is not feasible.

Twenty years ago, Mexico had yet to go through a money crisis. Twenty years ago, Asia had yet to go through the crisis it is now facing. Twenty years ago, nobody had heard of George Soros who, with $10 billion, was able in only one day to make the pound sterling drop and make a billion dollars in profit.

The economic situation has evolved, why can our vision and our policies not do the same? Why stick to the idea—and I hope it is not shared by the majority—put forward by the Reform Party, that says “If it is too complicated, we give up and we will vote against it”.

We also have to use our head and say we sincerely do not believe that, with this tax, we want to tax everything. If I were to invest $1,000 on the stock market or put $1,000 in a mutual fund, I do not believe I would be a dangerous speculator with a lot of influence on the peso or the U.S. dollar.

However, people are playing Russian roulette with foreign currencies. People in Thailand and Mexico know full well that sometimes, and more often than not, it has a direct impact on their currency and hence on their national economy.

Let me give you an example. In the last edition of L'Actualité , we can read that Bill Gates, whose assets total $51 billion, could in one day restore the Russian economy. In today's economy, there are some people, some consortiums, some investment groups who can at any time use their money to influence and destroy whole national economies, and this will then trickle down to the regions.

This can have an impact at the international level. A few months or a few years down the road, unfortunately, Canada will be affected. In today's new economy, do we have to ask ourselves that question?

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and I was somewhat surprised. He also talked about the difficulties related to the implementation of such a tax. He made reference to the May 1995 report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled “From Bretton Woods to Halifax”. If I may, I will quote from page 57 of that report. It says:

At this point, the Committee's view is that the feasibility of the concept has yet to be proved but that an attitude of openness is warranted. The objectives of a tax on currency speculation at least have sufficient merit and promise to deserve serious longer term examination within a G-7 context. We are aware of some research that has already been done, including within the Canada's Department of Finance.

However, ideas of this sort are still only in the very preliminary stages of investigation, much less deliberation. As even supporters of the concept willingly acknowledge:

—an in-depth feasibility study is needed to analyse the highly complex mechanics of foreign exchange transactions.

That was written in 1995, three years ago, nearly four years ago. “An in-depth feasibility study is needed”. What did the government do with those recommendations? What did the government do since May 1995 with this idea of a study committee? We never saw such a committee.

In closing, I want to propose an amendment to Motion M-239. I move:

That the motion be amended by removing the words “enact a tax on financial transactions” and replacing them with the following:

“promote the implementation of a tax aimed at discouraging speculation on fluctuations in the exchange rate”

This amendment to Motion M-239 would stress the notion of transaction, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, and would make the motion consistent with the Tobin tax.

I hope all members of the House will support the amendment and then Motion M-239 as amended.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, October 19th, 1998]

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?

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, for several years now, the 29 OECD member countries have been trying to conclude a multilateral agreement on investment, known as the MAI. At the request of France, the negotiations, interrupted last April, will resume October 20.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot subscribe to MAI unless it includes certain protections, cultural ones in particular. In addition, the Bloc Quebecois believes that the agreement should be negotiated within the World Trade Organization.

Although it may be harder to conclude the agreement within the WTO, the Bloc Quebecois is convinced that the outcome, once signed, will be a better one, because it will represent the positions of both developed and developing countries.

The Bloc Quebecois is therefore committed to keeping a close eye on the minister in order to ensure that he does what he has said he will do, and that any agreement takes into account the interests of the entire population, not just those with money.

[Special Import Measures Act, September 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start out by thanking my Reform Party colleague for asking for a larger audience for my speech. He likely anticipated how very interesting it would be and I thank him warmly.

More seriously, I am pleased to speak today in the House to Bill C-35. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

A serious and exhaustive examination shows this to be a complex, technical bill. It is a very important bill because it will greatly simplify life for our companies, but particularly because it marks the first attempt by the government to tidy up a complex, technical bill, one which needs to be brought up to date quickly, because of the increasing number of free-trade agreements being negotiated with various countries and also because we now live in an era of globalization.

Quebeckers, Canadians and the Bloc Quebecois have long been calling for less bureaucracy and more efficiency for our companies, especially those engaged in exports.

Despite certain reservations, my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and I will be voting in favour of Bill C-35. We have noted these reservations in a report produced by the International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, tabled in the House in December 1996. Moreover, the government responded favourably to this report in a document tabled in the House on April 18, 1997.

This bill is therefore in response to the report. Current legislation governs the imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties on dumped or subsidized goods where this dumping or subsidizing has or may have an injurious effect on producers in Quebec and Canada.

Amendments have also been made to some provisions of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act dealing with inquiries related to this injury in antidumping and countervailing duty cases. These amendments should hopefully improve the Canadian trade remedy system so that it will better take into account the new economic context and the evolution of international trade rules.

Unlike our colleagues across the way, who changed their tune all of a sudden after they took office in 1993—just think of their anti-free trade rhetoric—we in the Bloc Quebecois have always been in favour of free trade. We can therefore only applaud any steps taken to help ensure businesses in Quebec and Canada are full participants in this globalization era, but in a well-structured context based on appropriate legislation. This is the intention behind Bill C-35. It contains marginal changes, which will nonetheless streamline the system.

An extensive review of the report has revealed a number of areas that we feel ought to be improved. Some of these changes have been included in the report. For example, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in improving access to the investigation process for small and medium size producers through recommendation no. 2, which reads as follows: “The subcommittees recommend first of all that Revenue Canada take concrete steps to ensure that small and medium size Canadian producers have fair and equitable access to the recourses set out in the Special Import Measures Act”.

The major industries, such as sugar, steel, aluminum or asbestos, are not the only ones that can make use of an act like the Special Measures Act. As well, increasing numbers of small and medium size businesses and producers require easier access to these laws, these privileges, which are sometimes a bit complex for new exporters. Like the other parties, the Bloc Quebecois has tried to simplify access for small and medium size producers, as well as making other changes in connection with the way the Canadian International Trade Tribunal operates.

The Bloc Quebecois also proposed that recommendation no. 10 make cumulation mandatory, when the tribunal is determining damages, and the government party agreed to this.

A section on avoidance was also included in the report, at our request. Finally, recommendation No. 12 reads as follows: “The subcommittees also recommend that section 76 of the Special Import Measures Act be amended, so as to compel the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to evaluate the cumulative adverse effects of dumping or subsidizing, during provisional reviews and at expiry”. That recommendation was improved following our representations.

The Bloc Quebecois succeeded in having major changes and improvements made. Unfortunately, several of our recommendations were rejected by the government, and it is regarding these that we disagree. A number of witnesses raised concerns when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

The Canadian Steel Producers Association was among those witnesses who were worried about certain provisions in the legislation. The Bloc Quebecois expressed these concerns in a dissenting opinion, during the review by the committee.

Let us go over the arguments put forward by the Canadian Steel Producers Association. The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the association, which is asking that Revenue Canada do not take into consideration the spontaneous presentations made by parties other than the complainant before an investigation.

This would mean that Revenue Canada would only take into account the information provided by the complainant, and would therefore not have to take unsolicited comments into consideration.

This seems reasonable to us, since it would only apply to the period preceding the opening of an investigation. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to care about our requests or those of such an important industry for the Quebec and Canadian economies as the steel industry. It rejected that proposal, which is therefore not reflected in the bill.

We feel that the definition of material harm also poses a problem. The Bloc Quebecois is asking that a definition of “material harm” be included in the Special Import Measures Act. Such a definition, along with the criteria suggested in the current regulations, would clarify this important notion for everyone.

Another Bloc Quebecois proposal ignored in this bill concerns the future or retroactive method of imposing duties. We want Revenue Canada to continue using the future method. However, we would, in cases where prices or costs are likely to fluctuate significantly, like to have Revenue Canada authorized to use the retroactive duty imposition method. This method would be used only exceptionally and only when Revenue Canada considered it necessary.

The Bloc Quebecois considers that Bill C-35 should not contain provision for the minimum duty. We think it is premature to include the concept of a minimum duty in the Special Import Measures Act. We think the government should stop approving policies that reduce the protection afforded Quebec and Canadian businesses when our main trading partners are not doing the same thing.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade recommends including the concept of a minimum duty in section 45 of the legislation on public interest.

As you can see, the Bloc Quebecois worked very hard to improve the bill. Nevertheless, certain conditions were not accepted. The Bloc Quebecois will, however, support Bill C-35.

[Multilateral Agreement On Investment, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Forum jeunesse of the Bloc Quebecois yesterday organized a day of reflection on globalization, which included an examination of the multilateral agreement on investment.

The Bloc Quebecois, in agreement with the governments of Quebec and a number of provinces, has already expressed serious reservations over some aspects of the agreement.

All these young people from Quebec and others from elsewhere in Canada are wondering and concerned about the effects of the MAI on economic and cultural development for example. In their opinion, the social responsibility of the multinationals in the community is important too and was regrettably put to one side in the MAI negotiations.

The Bloc Quebecois calls on the federal government to listen and respond to the concerns of these young people, since they will be taking over and building tomorrow's society.

[Nuclear Weapons Tests, May 11th, 1998]

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

This morning, we learned that India conducted three limited strength underground nuclear weapons tests on the weekend. These tests are the first conducted by India since May 1974 and are part of a strategy of confrontation with Pakistan.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House what concrete action he intends to take to show Canada's disapproval of this dangerous initiative?

[Asbestos Industry, May 5th, 1998]

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

On the subject of asbestos, the government is delaying lodging a complaint against France before the WTO. However, in less than a week, two new meetings with the French government have produced nothing.

When will the government finally admit it is high time it officially lodged a complaint before the WTO in the matter of asbestos?