The hon. member for Perth—Middlesex.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.)

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

The opposition has been questioning the quality of our military equipment that is being sent to the area of former Yugoslavia. The auditor general also commented on this in his annual report.

Would the minister tell the members of the House of Commons about this equipment.

Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question because the opposition does not seem to have it right.

We do have the best possible equipment. It is all recent vintage and all purchased within the last nine years. People are being authorized to use it for peacekeeping. We have the Coyote, the Griffon helicopter, the Eryx system and the Bison vehicles. All of them are down at the Cartier Drill Hall right now.

I invite all hon. members to go from this House after question period, board the buses and go down and have a look at the equipment we are giving to our fine, dedicated men and women to use on this peacekeeping mission.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.)

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of Indian affairs continues to try and persuade us that provincial laws will apply when it comes to the rights of Nisga'a women.

I want to read to him chapter 2, section 13(a) which states:

in the event of an inconsistency or conflict between this Agreement and the provisions of any federal or provincial law, this Agreement will prevail—

I ask the parliamentary secretary again, why has the government abandoned the rights of Nisga'a women when it negotiated this historic treaty?

Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, the Family Relations Act of British Columbia continues to apply and will apply to those relations in British Columbia.

The member is correct when he suggests for example that the real property division as a question of matrimonial rights is not expressly written in this act. We tried to deal with that in Bill C-49, protecting those women's rights in this case in British Columbia, and he voted against them.

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, this morning, an article in La Presse , whose heading I cannot repeat in the House, explained that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage erred—and that is putting it mildly—on the issue of the shocking dismissal of Danièle Sauvageau.

How can the parliamentary secretary explain that, according to him, the government cannot and must not get involved, out of respect for the autonomy of the Canadian Hockey Association, when his colleague from Bourassa, the former future minister responsible for sports, would like the government to take vigorous action?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, some team members disagree with the hon. member.

I would like to quote Thérèse Brison, who was team captain in 1998-99, and chairs the high level committee on women's sports. She supported the approach by the Canadian Hockey Association, pointing out that it was part of a master plan for the development of some of our high level trainers.

Nathalie Drolet, another member of the team, voiced a similar opinion. While recognizing Ms. Sauvageau's strengths, she added “She must give up her position for the advancement of our sport”.

The government has no business selecting trainers.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have always been lukewarm in the support of Bill C-55, believing it did not go far enough in providing sufficient protection for the Canadian magazine industry. We now know that it has been on the negotiating table with the American trade representatives, a very precarious place to protect Canadian culture.

The government says it is respecting the spirit of the bill, but we are afraid that there is nothing left but the ghost.

Can the minister explain how relaxing Canadian content requirements and encouraging foreign ownership protects Canadian culture?

Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the government certainly supports the bill that is currently in the other place.

The meeting that concluded yesterday was the eighth meeting among American and Canadian officials to try to look at a number of the concerns. I would have to say there is good faith on both sides and there has been progress. Now the work of these officials will go to individual ministers and individual governments. At the end of the day, I think there is every possibility of doing the right thing for the magazine industry as well as protecting all of our important sectors.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask the government House leader about the nature of the business for the remainder of this week and the business for next week, and whether or not that business will include some legislation or some change in the standing orders relating to televised committees.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, on the last item, about an hour ago I offered to the hon. member to have a meeting on this subject. House leaders will be getting together. Our staff are already working to arrange that.

Getting back to the actual government business, this afternoon we shall continue with report stage of Bill C-66, the housing legislation. We hope we will be able to complete that bill.

Tomorrow the business of the House will be Bill S-22, respecting preclearance. In order to do that, there will have to be a consent motion which I intend to propose to the House immediately after this statement.

On Monday we will have an allotted day.

On Tuesday we hope to begin report stage of Bill C-71, the budget bill.

The items that we will deal with after that would include the following: Bill C-66, which again is the housing legislation and we hope by then it will be at third reading; Bill C-56, Manitoba land claims; and Bill C-68, the youth justice legislation. The exact timing is to be determined as events unfold, that is, how quickly we can pass the bills in question.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual consultations with all the parties and I believe that you would find unanimous consent for the following, that Bill S-22—

If the government House leader could wait until I have read the message from the Senate bringing the bill to the House, which has not yet happened.

Are we concluded with the questions? The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.

Mr. Bill Blaikie

Mr. Speaker, with respect to House business and the conduct of House business, I just want to say that I was in Toronto with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on WTO hearings. I was very disappointed to notice that in my absence the government moved closure on the public service pensions bill after only four hours of debate. That is a shameless way to conduct House business as far as I am concerned.

I thought the hon. member had a question but perhaps not. The hon. House leader for the official opposition on a point of order.

Mr. Randy White

Mr. Speaker, why not? If my colleague from the NDP wishes to take House time on this issue, we too would like to say that the government is yet again calling time allocation on such an important bill. In particular—

This is not a point of order. The hon. member rose on a question which turned out not to be a question. Frankly it was out of order. I think we ought to move on. This is business question time and it was not a business question so we will move on.

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I will have to explain what I am rising on. Apparently some people I consulted with may not have transmitted the message.

The bill that you just reported from the Senate was to have been reported yesterday. Apparently there was an error at some point and the message from the Senate only arrived at this House now. This means that we could not deal with Bill S-22 tomorrow and it would be delayed until Monday. This would force us to have the allotted day tomorrow, which I do not imagine many members would want.

Therefore I seek unanimous consent for the following:

That Bill S-22, an act authorizing the United States to preclear travellers and goods in Canada for entry into the United States for the purposes of customs, immigration, public health, food inspection and plant and animal health, as reported earlier this day from the Senate, be deemed read a first time and placed on the Order Paper for consideration at the next sitting of the House.

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Agreed.