Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who have concerns about the Liberals' proposed endangered species protection act. The Canadian Cattleman's Association oppose this bill because their land will be devalued without providing necessary compensation.

The government plans to bring down its own despotic recovery agenda instead of listening to the individual stakeholders. A Reform government would have created this legislation from the ground up by consulting with the individual stakeholders. We would have spelled out the recovery plan process and provided a greater understanding of what is expected of the individual landowner. We would have addressed the issue of compensation for land devaluation before introducing legislation. A private and government operated fund would have been set up.

In all areas Canadians need a fresh start, including a meaningful process in the area of environmental protection. The Liberals have failed us again and it is Liberal cabinet ministers who will be added to the endangered species list following the next election.

* * *

COST RECOVERY PROGRAMS

Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr. Speaker, delegates who attended the recent Canadian Federation of Agriculture annual meeting had one important message on cost recovery to make very clear. From potato growers in Prince Edward Island through wheat growers on the prairies to apple growers in British Columbia, the message was the same. The government has this issue all wrong.

Farmers from coast to coast will have a smaller net income this year because of other government policy decisions. On top of lower incomes and higher input costs, the government is heaping additional increased costs on everything from inspection fees to marine steerage fees on to the backs of farmers. It seems like this very unsympathetic Liberal government has decided to turn user fees into a source of revenue for the government.

It is time to re-evaluate the cumulative effect of what has been done, and in consultation with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm groups, revisit the whole issue of cost recovery programming.

* * *

TORONTO

Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday the citizens of six Toronto area municipalities rejected the Ontario government's proposal for megacity amalgamation. One understands the results of this vote when one considers the substance of these proposals and the fundamentally undemocratic process that accompanied them.

Toronto voters have said no to a proposal which, while purporting to address problems of governance in the Toronto area, ignores the best advice of all municipal government experts. They have said no to a proposal which creates a mega monster, unable to respond to the real needs of the region and too far removed from its citizens for local accountability. They have said no to a fundamentally ill-conceived proposal to finance welfare and housing from the municipal tax base.

Mike Harris and his government should heed the message. The best interests of the Toronto region, which represents 25 per cent of the GDP of this country, is at stake. Now is the time to abandon political partisanship and to work together to find practical solutions to this very important issue.

8648

[Translation]

CITY OF CHâTEAUGUAY

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last year, in January 1996, the City of Châteauguay suffered severe flooding because the Canadian Coast Guard hovercraft was not available to clear the mouth of the river, as it was being repaired.

This absurd situation prompted me to ask on several occasions that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make sure to change the maintenance schedule of this craft so that, in future, it would be available, if needed, during the months of January, February and March.

This year, when we had this spell of milder weather on February 21, the hovercraft was able to respond. As Bruno Dufour, the hovercraft captain, indicated, this year, they did not want to take any chances, and the craft was overhauled in November in order to be ready to respond to any emergency come January.

I am very happy that the citizens of Châteauguay did not have to contend with more flooding this year.

* * *

[English]

DON MCKINNON

Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Don McKinnon from northwestern Ontario recently became a member of the Order of Canada. Mr. McKinnon received this very high honour because he identified, staked and promoted Hemlo, one of the largest gold deposits in the world. Hemlo is in northwestern Ontario, about 25 miles east of Marathon. The Hemlo discovery has led to the Williams, David Bell and Golden Giant gold mines.

From 1985 to the present, those operations have produced in excess of $4.5 billion in wealth for the area. This discovery has led to great economic development in northwestern Ontario. I can attest to that. When I was a lawyer for the firm of Weiler, Maloney, Nelson of Thunder Bay, I helped to open the first law office in Marathon and I saw first hand what a development like this means to an area.

(1405)

I guess I could tell other stories, but not today, about the opening of that law office. As the MP for this area all citizens I am sure join with-

The Speaker: The hon. member for Lincoln.

WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Women's Institute, a world-wide organization, which was founded in Stoney Creek, is celebrating its centennial year in 1997.

As the first organization of its kind in rural Ontario, the institute provided a social and educational forum for rural women at a time when they had few opportunities to learn about the world that existed beyond their daily routines.

The institute created opportunities for women to learn about medicine, architecture and the legislative process, just to name a few.

One hundred years later the Women's Institute organization is represented world wide with a membership of over six million women in more than 80 countries. Dedicating themselves to community service and leadership, institute members have generously donated their time to a wide variety of projects and causes.

Stoney Creek, a community with strong historical roots, has benefited immensely because of the work of institute members who acted as volunteers, fund raisers and supporters of Battlefield House, Erland Lee Home and the Westfield Heritage Centre.

Along with countless other Canadians, I pay tribute to the-

The Speaker: The hon. member for Erie.

* * *

CUSTOMS OFFICERS

Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1996 Canada's customs officers seized almost $700 million worth of drugs, contraband, alcohol and tobacco, as well as more than 2,000 firearms.

Revenue Canada currently employs approximately 3,200 customs officers at border points and ports of entry across our vast country. These capable and competent public servants do everything from collecting duties, to enforcing health regulations, to investigating drug smuggling.

In our war against smuggling and all its adverse ramifications, Canada's customs officers represent very much the first line of defence. Working in co-operation with the RCMP and other domestic and international law enforcement agencies, the men and women of Revenue Canada's customs operation have contributed greatly to keeping our communities, our streets and our houses safe and secure.

8649

I salute these dedicated workers across Canada and especially those in my riding who work at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie. Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen, on a job very well done.

* * *

[Translation]

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to salute the agricultural producers of the riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, who, through their work, help feed the people of Quebec and Canada.

Like many other workers, agricultural producers of eastern Canada have seen their working conditions deteriorate and their income go into a serious dive these past few years.

To maintain their level of production, they have no choice but to go into debt and work ever harder. Their hard work and perseverance mean plentiful supplies in our grocery stores. From our ancestors, these men and women inherited a taste for hard work and success.

This Liberal government must take the necessary steps to promote agricultural production, a sector essential to our economy and population.

We, in the Bloc, want to commend agricultural producers for their perseverance, hard work and quality products.

* * *

[English]

LIBERAL PARTY

Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I had a hair-raising experience the other day. Yes, indeed, I hear the Liberals want to win the next election and the Conservatives even think they have a hope of coming back.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you that just because the upper echelon of who's who in this country thinks that, I do not believe the average hard working Canadian, or student or senior citizen can hear them.

Now hear me out. I am hearing that these old parties are out of touch. They no longer represent the average Canadian. This could be just hearsay, but I clearly suspect the truth of the matter is that these Liberals will be here today and gone tomorrow.

The Speaker: I would remind you, my colleagues, that we do not allow props in the House. I did not know whether or not this was going to be a permanent addition to the member's head so I permitted it this time.

(1410)

CANADA PENSION PLAN

Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in February when the federal and provincial finance ministers reached an agreement to modify the Canada pension plan they solved a problem that should have been tackled 10 years ago.

They responded to the priorities expressed by Canadians during the consultations and as a result all retired CPP pensioners and those over 65 as of December 31, 1997 are not affected by any of the changes. Those currently receiving disability benefits, survivor benefits or combined benefits also are not affected. All benefits under the CPP will remain fully indexed to inflation and the age of retirement remains the same.

Canadians have had their confidence in the CPP restored. Now all Canadians can count on the CPP to be part of their retirement income in future. This is another example of a successful federation at work.

* * *

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we approach International Women's Day I look around and see many women who are practising as physicians when in the past many said that women could not do that.

I see women who are legislators when in the past many said that women should not vote. I see women who have become engineers when the world said that only men were allowed to build bridges. Indeed, the minister of public works is building the biggest bridge in the world. I am proud of these women for taking the challenge, for following their dreams and listening to their hearts.

More than 40 per cent of Canada's small businesses are operated by women and the number of women entrepreneurs is growing at a rate far greater than any forecaster had ever dreamed. Women have raised their voices because of the serious lack of research on women's health issues and they have been heard. The government established five centres of excellence for women's health, one in Halifax at Dalhousie, to address the lack of research on women's health in Canada.

* * *

[Translation]

WOMEN'S HEALTH

Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, International Women's Week gives us an opportunity to honour all those who work to promote equality for Canadian women. It is also a time to reflect on the challenges that were met in the past, and to face current ones, such as women's health.

8650

[English]

Breast cancer claims the lives of 5,000 Canadian women each year. Thousands more are diagnosed with the sickness and have to endure countless hours of radiation therapy if they are to survive. Let us not forget the economic and emotional toll on their families.

I wish to salute the Hellenic Friends of the Auxiliary of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal who through donations and activities, such as their annual tea which I had the pleasure of attending, are doing their part to ease the suffering of cancer victims. Through their efforts a patient immobilization system was purchased for the hospital to help cancer patients with their radiation treatment, and particularly women with breast cancer.

[Translation]

During International Women's Week, let us show our support to this cause by wearing a pink ribbon.

* * *

TOBACCO

Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the same goes for Bill C-71. Indeed, the government's intention to fight tobacco use is a good and even excellent idea.

But what a useless and disastrous mistake it is making by seeking to essentially prevent tobacco companies, which are the only ones willing to do so, from sponsoring sports and cultural events which are part of Quebec's heritage and which are vital to its economy. The major rallies held yesterday, including in Montreal, conclusively show that the public is opposed to the bill.

To be sure, the Minister of Health is ill-inspired when he gets it in his head to protect our health. A few months ago, he wanted to prevent us from eating camembert cheese. Today, he is targeting our merchants, our athletes, our artists, and our cities' finances. What can we do to bring the minister to his senses?

* * *

[English]

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, beginning next month the RCMP will be posting its 10 most wanted list on the Internet. But when the premier edition hits the net, only 2 of the 10 most wanted are Canadians, with the majority being American. That is not really surprising, given the government's pathetic record in dealing with illegal immigrants and bogus refugees with criminal records.

Is there any other country that would allow an escaped dangerous offender from another country to claim refugee status and then release him pending his next hearing? Does it really come as a surprise that this escaped convict failed to show up for his hearing? No wonder American fugitives want to get into Canada.

(1415)

I suggest that maybe the Minister of Canadian Heritage should get involved. She cannot be pleased with only 20 per cent Canadian content. I can assure her that there is no shortage of Canadian criminals, which requires us to import them from the United States.

* * *

SEAL HUNTING

Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

[English]

Last month the International Fund for Animal Welfare released a disturbing video depicting incidents alleged to have occurred during the 1996 Newfoundland seal harvest.

The tape is currently under investigation. Where there is sufficient evidence, violators will be prosecuted.

Inuit and other responsible seal hunters were shocked and disgusted by the video. It was repugnant to see animals treated in such an insensitive and wasteful manner. The Inuit method of seal harvesting entails complete utilization.

I urge Canadians and the international community to avoid stereotyping all seal hunters because of the alleged actions of a few. The great majority of sealers harvest responsibly and humanely.

This video sensationalism of animal rights organizations threatens Inuit and Newfoundland communities who are just trying to survive.

[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]

* * *

[Translation]

IRAN

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in recent days, major earthquakes have hit northwestern Iran. It is estimated that close to 1,000 people have died, with 2,500 more injured and 40,000 homeless, and the number of casualties keeps increasing.

On my behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to offer our most sincere sympathies to all the bereaved families. We cannot remain insensitive to the hurt and confusion of these people, and to the tragic sights left by these terrible earthquakes.

We deeply sympathize with the Iranian population afflicted by this tragedy. To make things worse, research operations to help victims must be conducted in extremely difficult situations, in snow and intense cold.

8651

We are asking the Canadian government to take the necessary measures to help the victims of this earthquake.

_____________________________________________

8651

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Translation]

TOBACCO

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all the media in Quebec are commenting on the government's anti-tobacco bill, and the majority are definitely in favour of a more flexible approach to sponsorship and the broadcasting of sports and cultural events associated with tobacco companies. Every one is amazed at the unnecessarily rigid stand the government has taken.

Does the Prime Minister not realize he has a perfectly good issue and that this government, because of its unwillingness to compromise, is spoiling everything and even alienating thousands of citizens who are recent recruits to the anti-smoking movement? Does he not understand?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker the government's main concern is the health of our young people. Everyone knows that tobacco advertising has a tremendous influence on young people who start smoking when they are 13, 14 or 15, and it is worse in Quebec than anywhere else.

When we introduced this bill a few months ago, the Quebec Minister of Health criticized us for not going far enough. I read one of Mr. Rochon's draft bills on tobacco, and I want to quote a passage from clause 22, which goes much further than our proposal. It says that all funding of sports, cultural or social activities or facilities, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of promoting tobacco in any manner whatsoever, is prohibited. Perhaps our friends opposite should stop playing politics with this issue and take a serious look at the problem.

We have shown some flexibility. The companies asked for a three-year moratorium, and we agreed to a two-year period of adjustment. However, the problem is still there.

We did not do this because we felt like it, but because it is our duty to take steps to protect the health of young Quebecers. I know, the Bloc Quebecois is always more intent on political gain than on protecting the interests of Quebec's young people.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

(1420)

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not very brave of the Prime Minister to use what other people are doing as a shield to justify his own actions. This is hardly a sign of bravery. He is the one on the stand here, not Jean Rochon in Quebec City. The question was put to the Prime Minister.

And the question is this: Why is the Prime Minister being so intransigent, why is he doing such a poor job? Why is he getting everybody up in arms against him and, in the process, undoing any progress made in the fight against tobacco? He does not realize he is sabotaging his own cause.

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition tries to please everyone. We act responsibly, and these are very serious responsibilities. When the Quebec Minister of Health speaks, he does so as the person responsible for people who need medical care.

I will read you a letter sent to me by Mario Laurin in Val-d'Or. Mr. Laurin is fighting lung cancer caused by smoking. Here is his letter: ``Our children's health is surely the most precious thing in the world; you must protect it, with legislation if necessary. Mr. Prime Minister, I urge you to stand up to the tobacco companies and get Bill C-71, the anti-tobacco bill, through Parliament''.

I could quote other people suffering from cancer caused by smoking. As I said this morning, we can tolerate advertising directed at adults who smoke, but not when it goes after young people in their early teens. Those who represent the tobacco companies know that if a person has not started to smoke by the age of 19, he probably never will.

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the following term is parliamentary. May I use the term demagoguery in this House?

Some hon. members: Sure.

The Speaker: No, you may not.

Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in that case I am at a loss for words that can express what I think of the Prime Minister. But I can tell you that everyone in Canada agrees with the need to reduce our consumption of cigarettes.

However, there are various ways to achieve that objective. Some are more acceptable than others, and some are less effective.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada realize that a young person who goes to the Du Maurier tennis open is far more likely to buy a tennis racket than a package of cigarettes when he goes home?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suppose Du Maurier is spending money to help Spalding. Come on. A tobacco company spends money on advertising because it get results.

8652

Like everybody else, we want to keep the Grand Prix and other events in Canada, but we are not stricter than other countries. France has similar rules, and Grand Prix events are still being held there; we see the same in Australia, where a race will be held on the weekend. They have passed some very strict laws, but the Grand Prix will be held next Sunday.

We want to keep the competition. In fact, the companies will have the right to do on-site sponsorship. Furthermore, the bill gives them another two years to adjust to the new rules. However, we decided that we would take steps in Canada to prevent tobacco advertising from affecting young people of 13, 14 and 15, and we will continue to do so. The tobacco companies can advertise on the site but no advertising may be directed to young people of 13, 14 or 15.

(1425)

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in France they have companies like Renault and Ligier, and despite the stringent legislation in Australia, they have made an exception for the Australian Grand Prix. That is why the Grand Prix will be held. The Prime Minister is barking up the wrong tree with the wrong strategy.

Does the Prime Minister admit that, in wishing to attack tobacco consumption, he is placing a number of festivals and sporting events in real danger, particularly in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?

[English]

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member opposite, the former president of the Grand Prix organizing committee in Quebec said the following: ``I find the blackmail efforts that are presently occurring surrounding the Grand Prix very embarrassing. I know what I have been talking about, since I was the president of the 1991 Grand Prix organizing committee''.

I can well understand the need for the members of the Bloc Quebecois to huff and puff on both sides of the issue, but I want to inform the hon. member that children, les enfants du Québec, are a lot more important than any of those events that the hon. member has made reference to.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the children of Quebec are so important that I devoted 35 years of my life to educating, not coercing, them.

Since the Prime Minister refuses to understand, I shall be very clear. Clause 31 of the bill has three paragraphs: (a) and (c), which say the same thing, and (b), which contradicts the other two. Can the Prime Minister make a commitment in this House to do everything in his power to ensure that paragraph (b) is deleted from clause 31, so that people like me, who love the Grand Prix, can watch it on weekends?

[English]

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member has spent 35 years in the teaching profession. I hope the hon. member would continue in that role of teaching young people in the province of Quebec the hazards of smoking

It should be noted that the National Cancer Institute of Canada said this about advertising: ``There is substantial evidence that young people are aware of and respond to cigarette advertising''.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said: ``Image based advertising is particularly effective with young people in that the information conveyed by imagery is likely to be more significant to young people than information conveyed by any other means of advertising''.

I want to say to the hon. member that members of the Bloc Quebecois can throw that aside and accuse the government of being unreasonable, but the hon. member knows full well that this government has been prudent and has been reasonable. We have provided an implementation period for all those involved. Notwithstanding that, we are different from the province of Quebec because we are not banning sponsorship-

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

* * *

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government brought in medicare in 1965 it promised to pay 50 per cent of the approved cost. That was a condition on which provinces like Alberta and Ontario joined the plan.

Thirty-two years later federal funding of medicare has dropped to 16 per cent. This Prime Minister, who claims to be a defender of medicare, has cut health care by 40 per cent since coming to power.

(1430)

The Prime Minister can cry crocodile tears about the Montfort hospital. He can blame Mike Harris. He can pretend it is a national unity issue. But he is the one who is primarily responsible for hospital closures across the country.

How can the Prime Minister continue to blame others for hospital closures and waiting lines when he is the one who has cut health care funding by 40 per cent?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the leader of the third party has the wrong figure. We

8653

have not cut transfer payments by 40 per cent. The Minister of Finance can reply to that in detail.

We just had to put the finances of the nation in good order. This is the same leader of a party who was telling us that we were not going fast enough. Remember when we said to the Canadian people we would do that in three years, go to 3 per cent. He wanted to go to 0 per cent in three years. We took three years. Now we have the lowest interest level that we have known in 35 years. All the provincial governments are benefiting from the fact that they pay less on their debts because of the action of this government to put the finances of this country in good order.

By the way, perhaps the leader of the third party should report on the success of his campaign in Alberta against Ralph Klein.

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government had some choices to make in the federal budget. They chose to cut health by 40 per cent since 1993. The Prime Minister can find $2 billion a year in subsidies for CMHC. He can find $850 million to $1 billion in subsidies for the CBC. He can find $300 million in subsidies for Via Rail. He can find over $2 billion in subsidies for corporations like Bombardier and others that receive corporate subsidies. But the Prime Minister cuts health care by almost $4 billion a year.

Are crown corporation subsidies and business subsidies a higher priority with the Prime Minister's government than the health care of Canadians?

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing in politics as the flip-flopper of all time. This is the same member who in March 1995 stood in his place and condemned the Minister of Finance who gave notice, gave predictable funding to the provinces with the cash floor for the purposes of health care, thereby providing $25.1 billion.

The leader of that party in March 1995, in an amendment to a non-confidence motion, condemned the government for its failure to eliminate the deficit quickly and decisively within one year.

This is the flip-flopper of all time. He says one thing on Monday and another thing on Friday.

Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in Reform Party proposals, our fresh start, we proposed cutting in virtually everything else in order to increase federal health care funding by over $4 billion a year. There are some ministers in this House who are experts on cutting health care. They are the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health.

Look at their record. Here is what they have cut in health care: Newfoundland, $85 million; little P.E.I., $20 million; slashing health care expenditures in New Brunswick by $103 million; Quebec, $1.2 billion; Ontario $1.3 billion.

(1435 )

How can the government possibly maintain that it is the defender of medicare when the Prime Minister and the finance minister have hacked, gouged and slashed health care by almost $4 billion a year?

Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time we took office, transfers to the provinces had been declining for nearly a decade. When we took office we put in place a series of cuts in our own spending that allowed us in the last budget to commit to the provinces that not only were the transfer cuts at an end but that the transfers were now put on a formula that would allow them to increase in the years ahead.

The leader of the Reform Party used words like gouge, scrape and cut. Let me quote from ``A Fresh Start for Canadians'', Reform's most recent program. The Reform Party has said: ``On top of the existing reductions in transfers, the Reform Party, on taking office, will immediately cut three and a half billion dollars from the Canadian health and social transfer''. What do you call that?

* * *

[Translation]

U.S. HELMS-BURTON LAW

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yesterday, in Washington, the Minister of Foreign Affairs met for the first time with the new U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. One purpose of the minister's visit was to make preparations for the next meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

Could the minister report on the discussions he had with his American counterpart concerning the Helms-Burton law?

Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had a good exchange on a number of topics. We reached agreement on numerous matters involving co-operation, such as on Haiti, the expansion of NATO, and other issues.

But we certainly had an opportunity to express once again our opposition to the Helms-Burton law and we will continue to lobby against this legislation.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for months now, the government has talked, expressed its point of view and taken various steps, but it has done little of a concrete nature.

I will address my supplementary to the Minister for International Trade. Late last week, in order to comply with the U.S. anti-Cuban legislation, Wal-Mart withdrew Cuban-made pyjamas from its Canadian shelves.

8654

Does the minister agree that the credibility of the government's action is seriously compromised and that the only way to restore it is to rigorously enforce Canadian law?

[English]

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matter concerning Wal-Mart, it is being looked at by justice officials. We expect that Canadian companies will abide by Canadian law. That was the intention of our amendments under the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated, we are continuing in our opposition to the Helms-Burton law and its extraterritorial application of American law. We believe it is fundamentally wrong in terms of international trading law.

* * *

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, hospital closures are hanging like an albatross around the Liberal government's neck.

I would like to go into health minister's backyard real close. In Nova Scotia over the past year hospital bed closures have totalled 25 per cent. It is interesting to note that waiting lists in the province of Nova Scotia in the same period have climbed 25 per cent. They are longer.

Will the health minister simply stand up and admit that his government's policies of cutting health care transfers by 40 per cent are directly responsible for the increasing waiting lists in his home province?

(1440 )

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as many reputable organizations have said with regard to health care spending, no less than the National Forum, Canada has the second most expensive system of the OECD countries.

The hon. member, in his selective memory with reference to the facts, forgets to inform the House that under this government and this Minister of Finance in this fiscal year alone we are providing to the provinces in terms of equalization payments in excess of $8.6 billion. In addition, the interest reductions we have been able to do on our fiscal side provide an additional $1.6 billion for the provinces.

The issue is not one of funding. The issue in provinces across the country has to do with the management of the health care system.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we have heard it is just a management problem that is at heart here.

What did the Liberals do with the money that should be going to the hospitals? The first thing is the health minister tried to divert funds in his own province. The second thing he has done is he gave $33,000 to the Cape Breton Yacht Association.

Reform would simply take those funds and put them into the hospitals, which is quite a contrast, I should think.

Will the health minister simply stand and admit that his government policies are responsible for longer waiting lines in his own province?

Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what an interesting day it is. The hon. member on October 17, 1995 said: ``Medicare is bad for everyone''. On November 23 he changed his mind. He said that medicare was important to all Canadians. Then in March 1996 the very distinguished, the eloquent, the very colourful leader of that party said: ``There is going to have to be continued reductions in social transfers''.

I know the Bloc Quebecois is huffing and puffing, but I did not think the Reform Party would be puffing and huffing too.

* * *

[Translation]

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

For over a year now, the federal government has refused to renew the framework agreement on regional economic development with Quebec. In the meantime, sectoral agreements have expired, and the regions of Quebec are now suffering as a result.

Is the federal government prepared now to show its good intentions and conclude agreements on regional development with Quebec, as it did recently in ratifying agreements with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my predecessor at the Federal Office of Regional Development wrote on two or three occasions to the Government of Quebec precisely to conclude a harmonization agreement on intervention in regional development in the province.

Unfortunately, at the time, the two or three attempts were declined by the Government of Quebec, which was not interested in reaching a harmonization agreement. This was in the period before the referendum, and the provincial government certainly did not want to show that the federal system worked well.

8655

What we did then was to set up a new program under which the Federal Office of Regional Development intervenes where it can do the most within its areas of jurisdiction.

We are now prepared to go ahead and discuss harmonization with the Province of Quebec, even if harmonization is a fact, because we were farsighted and wanted to look after the public's interest.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is profitable federalism, effective federalism, but when the Liberals formed the government in 1993, nearly two thirds of the money spent by the federal government in Quebec on regional development passed through the economic and regional development agreement. Today, three years later, it is less than a third. The federal government prefers to operate directly, over the heads of Quebec and the regions.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to put a stop immediately to his circuitous strategies and to negotiate in good faith with Quebec in the best interest of the regions of Quebec?

(1445)

Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards the investment of money in regional development, the funds invested in Quebec compare favourably with those invested in all the other regions of Canada.

What upsets the members of the opposition is that, because they refused a year and a half ago to sign a harmonization agreement with the Government of Canada, we set up a regional development structure, which suits the public and meets their needs. There are 13 regional offices within the federal office, and there are 55 community futures development corporations. Why are they so upset that we have understood and that the public is now beginning to understand? Because even if the Government of Quebec is not interested in it, the process of harmonization is being carried out by the organizations themselves locally. That is what profitable federalism is all about.

* * *

[English]

NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has received some interesting documents and I would be prepared to table them.

An hon. member: They finally got some mail after three and a half years.

The Speaker: I would prefer if we did not wave papers around.

Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I was just doing what some of the ministers do.

The document I have proves the Prime Minister's friend and political appointee, Bob Fowler, broke the Privacy Act when he improperly issued documents in an attempt to destroy the reputation of Colonel Michel Drapeau. Unbelievably he did this to try to prevent Colonel Drapeau from legally submitting access to information requests at the Department of National Defence.

Will the Prime Minister finally hold Mr. Fowler accountable for his actions and recall him immediately to Ottawa?

Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has indicated that he is prepared to make the documents to which he refers available to members of the House.

We will be very pleased to look at them and to consider what is actually in them, because I have learned from experience that what they wave in the House and refer to is often quite different from what we find if they get around to tabling anything.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my goodness it is hard to believe that minister about waving documents around when he fails even to put them up the same day he waves them.

Submitting information requests is the legal right of every Canadian but Colonel Drapeau got too close to the truth. That is when Mr. Fowler decided to take him down. Mr. Fowler even sent his illegal poison pen letter about Colonel Drapeau to CSIS, the Department of Justice, and the Department of National Revenue. He broke the Privacy Act by issuing this illegal letter and that is unacceptable.

How could the government justify a person like this representing Canada to the international community at the UN?

Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a number of comments in his question including illegal poison pen letters.

The hon. member is well aware of the rules of the House. Making allegations that people have committed illegal acts is something members who are often considered honourable can do in the House. I have again learned from experience. They have great reluctance expressing those kind of views outside where the protection of the House does not prevail.

8656

[Translation]

FOOD INSPECTION

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

Agriculture Canada recently notified the meat and poultry industry, as well as the processed fruit and vegetable industry, of its intention of doing away with the mandatory registration and approval of labels and recipes for these products.

Since the industry is prepared to pay a fair and equitable share of the costs to continue to have access to the services his department has been providing since 1959, will the minister maintain these services and not eliminate them anytime soon?

(1450)

[English]

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, under the business alignment plan of our food production and protection branch we are pursuing a five-part approach to the issue of cost recovery and user fees. The notion of imposing a user fee is the last of the options after we have explored and exhausted the four previous alternatives.

The hon. gentleman makes an interesting suggestion with respect to certain fees for certain services. Our department has always been willing to be flexible and reasonable in considering these suggestions. I will examine the proposal the hon. gentleman makes to see if it is viable.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of Agriculture that the industry is prepared to pay a fair price for the services currently provided.

Does the minister recognize that he is off beam with this recommendation to abolish these services in the short term, when a study commissioned by his own department concluded that it would result in reduced compliance with the standards respecting labelling and recipes for the products in question and, in addition, may jeopardize the health of our fellow citizens, and of young people in particular?

[English]

Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House, the hon. gentleman and all Canadians that as we work our way through any changes that pertain to the Canadian food inspection system the health and safety of Canadians is, has always been and will always be the number one priority.

HOUSING

Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing.

Social housing is important to thousands of Canadians. In Ontario the Harris government plans to pass responsibility for housing down to the municipalities. This has left many families living with fear and insecurity.

What assurance could the minister give residents of social housing in Ontario that the Government of Canada will not abandon them and that they will continue to have the access to affordable homes they deserve? Will the minister put their fears to rest?

Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of signing the first agreement with one of the provinces on the transfer of the administration of social housing. I invite everyone to look very closely at the agreement and to recognize there are six principles and a very strict accountability framework.

We want to have the provinces do more with the money we spend by combining their administration with ours.

As for Ontario, I have written to the minister responsible advising him that the onus is on the province to show us how its proposed plan would fit with these principles and with our accountability framework. If it does not fit we will not transfer it.

* * *

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, less than two weeks ago when the government tabled its part III estimates, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration indicated that it would be spending $40 million less than last year.

However efforts of fiscal responsibility appear to have only a two-week life span with the government as the minister is now requesting an additional $88 million in the supplementary estimates.

Could the minister explain to the House why she has increased her department's spending by more than 15 per cent in less than two weeks?

Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department is responsible for the settlement of immigrants as they come to this country.

For some time there have been a great deal of discussions back and forth with the provinces with respect to settlement programs. That is where the majority of the increase has been coming from with respect to provincial allocations on settlement programs.

8657

(1455)

Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this discussion has been going on for a number of years. While this pre-election goodie is nothing more than an effort by the government to buy its re-election with taxpayers' money it still does not treat the provinces equally.

For example, Quebec receives $3,294 per immigrant from the government for settlement. Even with a $20 million increase in federal spending British Columbia will only receive $1,035 per immigrant.

If the minister is not prepared to fund all the provinces equally, is she at least prepared to give B.C., Ontario and Alberta the same guarantees found in the Canada-Quebec accord?

Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been requesting this kind of assistance for quite some time. There have been all kinds of requests.

All provinces have settlement programs. If the hon. member is suggesting we should not be increasing the settlement program to halt immigrants who come to this country to settle that is not acceptable.

The government is basically acceding to the demands of the provinces over the last several years. This is a positive thing for immigrants. The programs are needed and they will be implemented.

* * *

[Translation]

CRAB FISHING

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last week, the minister released the results of his most recent spring exercise in improvisation, the snow crab plan. Indeed, for the third consecutive year, the minister reduced the harvest rates allocated to Quebec fishers. In total, the minister reduced the quotas for snow crab by 928 tons, which amounts to a loss of $15 million for the industry.

In order to put a stop to the constant transfer of jobs and resources from one province to another, will the minister pledge that Quebec will get its usual share, instead of reducing its quotas as he has been doing for the last three years?

[English]

Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about the most lucrative fishing industry in Atlantic Canada on the east coast.

He is talking about an industry that contains one resource and two main factions: the traditional crabbers and the non-crabbers. We are also dealing with the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec. Each year the negotiations start and go on for a long time.

Since June 19, 1996 negotiations have been ongoing with the various industries, with the various unions, with the traditional crabbers, with the non-traditional crabbers and with the provinces.

Two weeks ago there was an agreement by all parties, each side compromising to do as much as possible to come up with a crab plan that satisfied as many as possible in the case that each party had to put water in their wine.

As the plan pertains to Quebec, every accommodation was made for the province of Quebec, the province of New Brunswick, the province of Prince Edward Island and all fishermen involved to come up with the best possible plan.

* * *

HEALTH CARE

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said in the House about 45 minutes ago that his government had not cut health care.

Let me quote from the government's own document ``Getting Government Right'' dated February 20, 1997. On major transfers to other levels of government, the actual Canada health and social transfer for 1993-94 was $16.8 billion, down to $12.5 billion in 1997-98 and going down again next year to $11.8 billion.

In light of that irrefutable evidence, will the Prime Minister withdraw his assertion that he has not cut health care and admit that he has misled the House?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

(1500 )

The Speaker: I am going to permit that question if the right hon. Prime Minister wants to answer it.

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said yes. I admitted that we have cut, but I said that we have not cut by 40 per cent. Of course we have cut.

The Reform Party is telling us that we are not cutting enough. As the Minister of Finance said a few minutes ago, the Reform Party would cut $3.5 billion if it ever formed the government. But I can assure the people of Canada: don't worry, it will not form the government.

* * *

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

8658

The Minister of Health said yesterday that the 20 year drug patent protection under Bill C-91 cannot be changed because of Canada's international trade obligations. Afterward, international law exports said that Canada can change Bill C-91 to allow for cheaper prescription drugs for Canadians under the NAFTA article ``ordre public, section 1709(2) and article 27(2) of the WTO code.

Can the minister tell us if there are any public interest exceptions permitted under these or any articles of the NAFTA and the WTO as they pertain to drug patents or any other intellectual property?

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our reading of section 1709(2) of the NAFTA and the WTO intellectual property clauses is that there are very limited provisions in terms of changing our present laws in any respect. It covers very urgent types of circumstances and does not allow for us to return to the pre-1993 compulsory licensing provisions.

* * *

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Vehicle emissions are a major source of air pollution. Canadians do not want to put their lives into danger every time they leave the house. What has been done to ensure that in future Canadians will breathe more safely, and has the minister been able to secure the co-operation of the provinces in this effort?

Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. friend and colleague for raising that question.

The number one culprit, when we speak of air pollution in our cities, is caused by car emissions. That is why the government has announced, starting with next year's car models, that the standard emissions in Canada will be the tightest anywhere in the world.

Along with the new generation of car emission standards, we need to usher in a new generation of cleaner fuels. That is why the government has moved boldly on MMT, on benzene and on sulphur.

When the cars hit the road, that is provincial jurisdiction. Older cars pollute 10 times more than new cars. That is why the province of Ontario, for instance, should stop paying lip service to this issue and begin to walk the talk by putting an inspection and maintenance program for cars in place so that all of us can breathe a sigh of relief.

PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY

The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Hennadii Udovenko, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

(1505 )

The Speaker: First I am going to deal with a point of order of which I have received notice. It arises from question period. Then I will go on to a response to the question of privilege that was raised yesterday.

* * *

[Translation]

POINT OF ORDER

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during oral question period, when the leader of the opposition used the word demagoguery, you rose and said you did not want him to use that term again. I would like you to take a look at the blues, because at the end of his speech the health minister probably got carried away by calling me a hypocrite.

The Speaker: I will look at the blues, as we call them. I will check to see what was said and I will get back to the House if necessary.

[English]

I have another point of order. Does this come from question period today?

TABLING OF DOCUMENT

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I referred to a document during my question. I would like to table that document now.

The Speaker: This request can be granted if the House agrees unanimously. Does the hon. member have permission to put the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to table the document to which he referred?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

[Translation]

PRIVILEGE

HEALTH CANADA ADVERTISEMENT

The Speaker: Yesterday, the hon, member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie raised the question of privilege. He has been notified that we

8659

shall be getting, if not a response, at least an explanation or a brief speech explaining what occurred. I therefore give the floor to our friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[English]

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bloc House leader, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, rose on a question of privilege. I would like to reply to some of the points he raised, as they referred to a document he tabled in the House yesterday.

In the course of his intervention the hon. member referred to an advertisement in a Quebec newspaper and said that it was similar to the GST advertising in 1989. By analogy he claimed that it was inappropriate, just as the advertising was in 1989, because it implied that specific legislation was in place, that it referred to specific provisions it purported were already law when the bill still was not passed. That was the reference the hon. member gave the House when he raised his question of privilege.

While I acknowledge the precedent exists, the matter before us today is in clear and stark contrast because the advertisement now in question does not refer to any provisions of any law or any proposed law.

The advertisements that were placed in the Canadian media present a number of facts about conditions that relate to the use of tobacco. The advertisements do not claim that the provisions of any bill are already enacted. Mr. Speaker, on careful reflection of both the English and the French versions you will see that is the case. The French version of the advertisements call on the readers to support la loi anti-tabac. In English it refers to anti-tobacco legislation. If one wanted to be an absolute purist one might argue that the French Translation ought to say ``le projet de loi'' and in English it ought to say ``bill''.

(1510)

However, one must bear in mind that we are dealing with advertisements. It is common in such cases to use colloquialisms that may not, in the strictest sense, be precise. To the layman, however, the meaning is very clear. In French one frequently hears the phrase ``le projet de loi'' referred to merely as ``la loi'' even though it has not yet passed, just as in English one often refers to a bill as legislation, even though in the strict sense of the word it is not legislation until enacted.

There is very substantial proof that these advertisements do not in any way represent Bill C-71, which is still before the House, as having been enacted.

Clause 1 of the bill gives us some very important information on this matter of privilege. Clause 1 of the bill gives it a short title, namely the tobacco law, or in French la loi sur le tabac. The advertisements refer to anti-tobacco legislation, la loi anti-tabac, which is not the short title, the long title or in fact any title of the bill before the House.

In conclusion, the advertisements do not in any way interfere with the ability of the House to consider the legislation before it. They do not refer to the number or the title of any bill before the House and they do not describe the provisions of any bill before the House. They describe a reprehensible public problem and urge citizens to support unspecified legislation to deal with these problems. This does not in any way impair the ability of the House to do its duty. Respectfully, I would submit, it is not a breach of privilege. It does not encroach on the privileges of the members of the House.

Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Laurier-Saint Marie. There is certainly a violation here that should be noted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you back to a decision and comments made by Mr. Speaker Fraser in this assembly with regard to the debate on the GST, the goods and services tax, and a debate that went on at that time. As I understand it, prior to the passing of the GST legislation, the government of the day put advertisements in the paper to the effect that the legislation had been passed by Parliament and was the law of the country. Certainly on that basis that was a violation.

The advertisement we have before us today does that again. It says: ``I support the anti-tobacco law,'' which is not on the books as of this moment in time. Again, that is the same violation which was noted by the hon. member, the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

I would like to refresh your mind, Mr. Speaker, of comments made by the hon. member who is now the House leader for the government, Mr. Herb Gray, who said at that time with regard-

(1515)

The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to refrain from using names. The title of the minister is enough.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize that. I was making an attempt to be clear in my definition of which House leader I was referring to and I understand the ruling as such.

The then House leader of the opposition party is now the House leader of the Liberal Party which is in government. Referencing the GST advertisement of the day he said that in effect there would be a new tax on January 1, 1991. The advertisement was intended to convey the idea that Parliament had acted on it because that was the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this one was finally adopted and put into effect. That being the case, it was

8660

clearly a contempt of Parliament because it amounted to a misrepresentation of the role of the House.

Speaker Fraser of the day said the following with regard to those comments and the advertisement:

This advertisement may not be a contempt of this House in the narrow confines of a procedural definition, but it is in my opinion ill-conceived and it does a great disservice to the great traditions of this place. If we do not preserve these great traditions, our freedoms are at peril and our conventions become a mockery of modern and responsible members on both sides of the House. That ad is objectionable and should never be repeated.

That was said clearly to members who are now sitting in the House and were present for Speaker Fraser's comments at that time.

It has happened again. It is unacceptable. It has been a violation of privilege and I recommend, Mr. Speaker, that you rule accordingly.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was here during that time. Those ads were very different from what appeared in publications yesterday.

In the substance of the ad there is nothing that says the legislation is passed or that it would become effective on a certain date. It does not refer to the result or the consequences of the legislation as the GST ads did.

There is no point even considering the content of these ads compared to the GST ads that caused the ruling by Speaker Fraser, which was a good ruling and one I supported.

In terms of this question of privilege I see nothing in the ads that violates the privilege of any member vis-à-vis the piece of legislation which was before the House yesterday and will be back in the not too distant future.

I simply leave for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that in comparing the two issues you find there is no question of privilege.

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health makes a very persuasive argument about the devastating impact of cigarette smoking. I noticed an ad in a newspaper today entitled ``Let's Sponsor the Health of Our Kid'' which went on to state a number of facts.

It said that in Canada each year 256,000 young people start smoking on average at age 14. Half of these young people will smoke all their lives. One in every five deaths is caused by smoking. Smoking related diseases cost the Canadian health care system $3.5 billion. As many as three million Canadians alive today will die from tobacco related causes.

If that in fact is the case, if that is the impact of cigarette smoking in Canada and if the minister is being sincere, surely cigarettes ought to be banned. The importation and sale of cigarettes should be illegal.

The ad goes on to ask the reader to support anti-tobacco legislation. That is misleading. Bill C-71 is not anti-tobacco. It does not ban or prohibit the importation and sale of cigarettes, cigars or any other form of tobacco.

(1520)

If the government and the Minister of Health were making this case in terms of the devastating impact of cigarette smoking, if one in every five deaths is caused by smoking and smoking related diseases cost the Canadian health care system $3.5 billion, to be consistent they have a legal and moral responsibility to ban tobacco. By simply banning advertising on sport cars and at cultural events is not good enough.

The Minister of Health is either sincere or, as he said earlier today, he should go all the way as opposed to huffing and puffing.

The Speaker: We are getting more into debate. I would like you to speak to the particular question of privilege.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the matter is fairly simple. In the question of privilege which we raised, we did not accuse government representatives responsible for placing this advertising message of any malicious intent. We are not saying that they were trying to make any false representations, not in the least.

Today, instead of just admitting the mistake, the parliamentary secretary is trying to argue that a document can be referred to as both a bill and an act.

If it is true that the same document can be called both an act and a bill, in future the two expressions could be used interchangeably all the time, and we will never know where we stand. No one is saying that the government had wrong intentions, we are saying that the government made a mistake. Please acknowledge your mistake and make the necessary apologies.

[English]

The Speaker: I will hear one more intervention on this question of privilege.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I refute the arguments put forth by the government whip who suggests the matter is not that relevant. He would lead us to think that the vote in the House was assumed by the government. If we ever find that the government of day can assume the outcome of a vote in the House, democracy in this country is in extreme peril.

I draw attention to page 4460 of Debates when the Speaker ruled regarding the GST issue on October 9, 1989. He said:

Under these conditions, the Chair feels it must exercise extreme caution against unduly restricting the authority of the House to deal with a perceived contempt, especially given the arguments which have been presented.

He went on to say:

8661

I must confess that I have certain doubts regarding this case. Normally in cases of doubt, it has been the practice for Speakers to allow an appropriate motion to go forward for a decision of the House.

Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider in your ruling the fact that democracy is assumed by the government and to allow this motion to go forward.

The Speaker: This question of privilege was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. Today I received opinions from eminent colleagues in the House, opinions which I am sure you will give me some time to consider.

I do not know at this point if I have the documents in English and in French. I saw the hon. parliamentary secretary referring to a document in English. I would ask him to table it so that I can see it.

I will take all the representations of today including the precedence of my predecessor, Mr. Speaker Frazer, a very highly regarded Speaker of the House, and other Speakers who have ruled on matters such as these. As we know, no two matters are virtually always alike. It is for that reason I will take my time in making a decision. I will get back to the House if it is necessary.

_____________________________________________

8661

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

(1525)

[Translation]

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 9 petitions.

* * *

[English]

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

FINANCE

Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

It deals with Bill C-70 which does two things. It makes a number of changes, clarifications and amendments to the GST. Much more important, it is the first step in creating a national harmonized sales tax replacing all 10 existing sales taxes with one. This is a first step in that direction.

I thank the many witnesses who appeared before us and made presentations. I thank members of all three parties, including the member of Beaver River who is giving me all her attention right now, who worked in an assiduous and constructive way with us. I thank, as always, the staff of the House of Commons who again has been exemplary. I have the honour to table this report, in both official languages.

Mr. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During his submissions the hon. member said that this report represented the beginning of a harmonized GST across the country.

That is a misstatement of fact, given that several provinces have made it very clear they do not intend to harmonize their provincial tax with the GST.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member knows that is debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to the comments by the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I would like to add a few comments on the Bloc Quebecois' dissenting opinion.

I would like to add that the Bloc Quebecois supports the concept of harmonizing sales taxes, but cannot support the Liberal government's wasting everybody's time and energy with a half-baked and unfair scheme.

In the current state of affairs, there is no proof that Bill C-70 simplifies and improves things. On the contrary, as regards the rules governing the display of prices, consumers may find an item bearing four different prices in a catalogue or on a retailer's shelves.

Bill C-70 will considerably complicate the lives of individuals and businesses. So the big questions remained unanswered, because the Liberals are putting their electoral interests before the interests of the taxpayers. We also think that the government should redo its homework and go over Bill C-70.

[English]

JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, October 7, 1996 the committee has considered Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

Thanks to all the witnesses who provided some excellent testimony that enabled us to make these terrific amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I wonder if we could revert to tabling of documents. I would like to file a report on behalf of the Speaker.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

8662

[Translation]

REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to table, pursuant to the Standing Orders concerning the auditor general, the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons for the year 1997.

[English]

The report is permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

CONTENTS

HOUSE OF COMMONS

_______________

Prayers

_______________

_____________________________________________

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

_____________________________________________

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

* * *

_____________________________________________

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

* * *