House of Commons Hansard #144 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was french.

Topics

National Transportation AgencyOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, we understand very well the concerns expressed by my hon. colleague. However, he certainly understands that a minister cannot easily bypass the decisions made by a quasi-judicial agency. That would not be acceptable.

In response to these concerns, we asked CN and CP, whenever the National Transportation Agency allows them to abandon rail lines, not to remove this infrastructure because we want to look for ways to maintain services in these regions. It is important not only in Quebec but across the country. We will try to maintain a moratorium on rail line removal until a national policy is in place.

National Transportation AgencyOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that he should review the National Transportation Agency's decisions on the basis not only of cost effectiveness but also of the impact of line abandonment on regional economic development? Should he not facilitate the takeover of some segments by local or regional organizations?

National Transportation AgencyOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the question posed and even the suggestions contained in the remarks of my hon. colleague are very valid. I believe it is very important to make sure that we all understand the contribution that rail makes to regional development. The work of the Nault commission in looking at the commercialization of CN, the decision of the government to reject the unsolicited bid from CP, and our commitment to announce a national rail policy in 1995 reflects the kinds of concerns that were raised by the hon. member.

We will attempt to make sure that by encouraging CN and CP to leave the rail infrastructure in place, even though they have had the right to abandon it on the basis of a decision from the National Transportation Agency, it will help to address the concerns that were raised.

I expect that all members on both sides of the House will want to make a contribution to the exercise that is under way now,

being led by the member for Kenora-Rainy River, looking at the future of CN, particularly commercialization with employee participation.

Aviation And Marine SafetyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, automated weather observation systems are being installed at airports across the country to replace human observers. This is the same technology that is being used with automated lighthouses. I would have no problem with this as a cost saving measure if the system worked, but it does not.

Why is the Minister of Transport prepared to jeopardize aviation and marine safety with unreliable technology that is being asked to do a job it was never designed for?

Aviation And Marine SafetyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for the hon. member to mix apples and oranges but the fact is that the destaffing of lighthouses is based on technology that has been used around the world. For example, in the United States of America there is one staffed lighthouse remaining and it is a historic site at Boston harbour.

With respect to the AWOS concern, which is a very legitimate concern, I reassure the member, members of the House, and the travelling public in general that Transport Canada has reacted to the concerns raised by the aviation community. We are making certain that services are adequate. We have to deal in the light of the fact that the Air Transportation Association of Canada, the Canadian Professional Airline Association, the airlines themselves, would never fly into airports where there was not an adequate level of safety available to them.

As important as the question is, I would not want to leave the impression raised by the hon. member's question that somehow there is an unsafe situation in the aviation industry in Canada.

Aviation And Marine SafetyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, it happens that several airlines now refuse to fly into airports as alternates that use the AWOS system.

Transport Canada recently agreed to put human weather observers back into Dorval and Edmonton municipal airports. This causes one to wonder why the safety of Canadians using those airports are more important than the safety of those using one of the 48 other AWOS sites and those of the coastal marine and aviation users.

Will the minister agree to cancel destaffing of aviation weather observers and light stations until AWOS systems can be proven to work and are accepted by marine and aviation users?

Aviation And Marine SafetyOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, the best measure is the support being provided by the aviation industry to the initiatives we are taking. I take exception to the hon. member's comment that some airlines are refusing to fly into specific areas where there are AWOS installations.

I hear the hon. member saying "speak to Canadian Airlines". The hon. member used to be an air traffic controller so we know the system is already working better because he is here.

The representative from Canadian Airlines who made the complaint about the AWOS happens to be a meteorologist. Again, we are trying to do the very best we can. I do not think it helps the situation in any way to suggest that the system in Canada is unsafe. We have the safest navigation system in the world.

Public Service Of CanadaOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal.

Almost daily there are rumours about thousands of cuts in the public service. These speculative reports leave the impression more of a demolition derby than a renewal of the public service.

What exactly is the minister doing to keep our government's commitments to improving moral in the public service, to treating the public service with respect, and to treating federal employees fairly? What is he doing for public service renewal?

Public Service Of CanadaOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and myself would agree that we had and we still have one of the finest public services in the world and that we have to maintain its quality in order for it to be able to perform well in the future.

The government has given a pledge that it would reduce involuntary layoffs to an absolute minimum and it will keep that pledge.

In the program review we are looking at all the programs to make government more efficient in order to cut costs. There is no doubt that government will have to be downsized. However in that process we are always keeping in mind that the public service has to be kept efficient and able to perform its job. It has to be kept in a spirit that will permit it to respond to the challenges that it faces. We will do that.

Department Of The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Sauvageau Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In his recent report, the Auditor General mentions that after spending $26.6 million, the federal government has still not solved an issue related to unproductive rent payments, this after 20 years. Those payments concern a Vancouver lot rented by the federal government, and more specifically by the Department of Environment, where an environmental centre was to be built. However, the project was abandoned in 1976.

Can the minister tell us what action plan her department has to solve this issue, since this useless lot costs taxpayers $4.4 million a year?

Department Of The EnvironmentOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the member has asked this question because on taking over the ministry I made arrangements to inform the band that future payments after this fiscal year should cease and desist.

We have begun negotiations and in fact expect to conclude an agreement very shortly where in fact there will be no further federal payments made for this land. In a year we have solved the problem.

Gun ControlOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Paul Forseth Reform New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

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

On November 29 he produced four orders in council concerning prohibited weapons. Two court decisions should require the minister to lay these orders before the House at least 30 sitting days before their effective date. His date of January 1 would not even be close.

Will the minister explain to the House why he has not complied with the law, section 116 of the Criminal Code?

Gun ControlOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, the orders in council to which the hon. member refers were made not under section 116 of the code, which does indeed require the procedure he has described, but rather under section 84 of the code which does not.

Although there is a judicial decision of a trial court which holds that it is necessary even under section 84 to lay the regulations before the House, that decision is under appeal to the appellate division of the court in Alberta. We have every confidence that judgment was wrong in that respect and that we will succeed in the appeal.

Interest RatesOral Question Period

December 14th, 1994 / 2:55 p.m.

NDP

Audrey McLaughlin NDP Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is with regard to the very unwelcome Christmas present that Canadians got with an increase in interest rates.

Increasing interest rates have affected, as the minister himself said today, charges on the debt and deficit. They influence consumer confidence, farmers and small business. The government has been telling Canadians what they must cut back on. Would the minister consider a public review of monetary policy in the country and a review of the mandate of the Bank of Canada?

Would the minister commit to undertaking such a public review before the budget of that mandate of the Bank of Canada and the interest rate policy?

Interest RatesOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec

Mr. Speaker, approximately one to two months after we first took office, the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada entered into an agreement whereby we set the inflation targets which is very important in terms of monetary policy in the country and in terms of keeping inflation low.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, keeping inflation low is a major asset toward the economic recovery of the country. What is crucial, if we are going to get interest rates low, is that we get the fundamentals right and that is job creation, investment in productivity, low inflation and the kinds of things we are now seeing within the Canadian economy.

We live in an interdependent world. No country is isolated from the effects of that. Getting the fundamentals right and the economy strong and cleaning up the finances of the country are by far the best ways of keeping interest rates low.

Occupational SafetyOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Don Valley North, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Every year on the job accidents cost the government and the economy about $10 billion. In these times of fiscal restraint it is important to find ways to cut costs.

What action is the minister taking to eliminate waste and cut on the job accidents which currently total about $10 billion a year?

Occupational SafetyOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a question which I think is both important and timely. We have noticed over the last several years there has been a trend line downward in the level of occupational accidents and the level of compensation claims. We recognize that with a whole new series

and new kinds of industrial and office based hazards growing, we are going to have to do more.

One thing we did immediately was establish a 1-800 number that works out of the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in the city of Hamilton to provide instantaneous information for all users of industrial kinds so they can find out what kinds of solutions and programs are necessary.

One of the most important initiatives under the new labour side agreement under NAFTA is that we have now started a series of major conferences on occupational safety dealing with petrochemicals, construction and electronics so we can begin to share the knowledge and information of the three countries and begin to provide new standards.

It is important, especially when we get into new office space hazards, ergonomics and other areas, that we begin to enlist the co-operation of business, labour and all levels of government to provide a new regime of occupational safety in the country.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, during his reply, at which time I expected a lot of rhetoric, the Minister of Transport made a particular remark stating that the air traffic control system was safer because I no longer work for it, because I am here in the House.

I would ask the minister to clarify this point. Is the air traffic control system safer because I am here in the House fighting against his unreasonable measures, or was it a direct personal attack on my abilities, in which case he must withdraw-

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I see where we might get into a little more repartee here. I wonder if the hon. member would give me a day to look at the blues to see precisely what was said. I will try to figure out what was meant. I will get back to the House if necessary.

Order In Council AppointmentsRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a nomination which was recently made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to a petition.

MulticulturalismRoutine Proceedings

3 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Sheila Finestone LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour today to present to the House, in both official languages, a letter conveying the government's position and decision on redress.

MulticulturalismRoutine Proceedings

3:05 p.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Sheila Finestone LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)

Mr. Speaker, I have just tabled the letter I sent to the following groups: the Chinese Canadian National Council, the German Canadian Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the National Association of Canadians of Origins in India, the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the National Congress of Italian Canadians, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canadian Ukrainian Civil Liberties Association.

The letter conveys the government's decision on redress. This is not a decision the government has taken easily, but it is one that after much discussion reflects a commitment to building a more fair and equitable society.

In the letter I wrote that as Canadians we are proud that our citizens trace their origins to every part of the world. Together we have built this country on the principles of fairness, generosity and compassion. Our history records the remarkable success we have achieved by applying those principles.

Our history also records that at times we have strayed from them. There have been episodes that have caused suffering to people.

In the crisis atmosphere of war, some Canadian ethnocultural communities found their loyalty questioned, their freedom restrained and their lives disrupted.

In the past Canada enforced some immigration practices that were at odds with our shared commitment to human justice. Canadians wish those episodes had never happened. We wish those practices had never occurred. We wish we could rewrite history. We wish we could relive the past. We cannot.

We can and we must learn from the past. We must ensure that future generations do not repeat the errors of the past.

Seeking to heal the wounds caused by the actions of previous governments, six ethnocultural communities have requested redress and compensation totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The government understands the strong feelings underlying these requests. We share the desire to heal those wounds.

The issue is whether the best way to do this is to attempt to address the past or to invest in the future. We believe our only choice lies in using limited government resources to create a more equitable society now and a better future for generations to come.

Therefore the government will not grant financial compensation for the requests made. We believe our obligation lies in acting to prevent these wrongs from recurring. The government will continue to take concrete measures to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life by combating racism, prejudice and discrimination through education, information and the promotion of the values of fairness.

We have already made progress. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms now guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, we are committed to the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in shaping Canada's destiny.

By passing the Canadian Human Rights Act and upholding the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, we have taken another step in entrenching the principle of equality.

The letter goes on to say a further major step forward is the establishment of the Canadian race relations foundation. The government will proclaim the act establishing the foundation in the spring of 1995. The foundation, first proposed a decade ago, will play a fundamental role in moving toward the elimination of racial discrimination in Canada.

We honour the contribution of all those communities whose members, often in the face of hardship, persevered in building our country.

Together we must ensure that all Canadians can face the future with pride in Canada, in our values and in their own heritage. We are a nation of inclusion. Our task is to strive together to guarantee that the actions of the country match the principles of its people.

MulticulturalismRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out to the secretary of state that we received a copy of her statement barely an hour and a half ago. We think that is unreasonably short notice and the government has a strange way of proceeding, to say the least.

Be that as it may, I am pleased to speak today on this important matter. Indeed, it is wrong to minimize the suffering of several Canadian cultural communities caused by Canada's reprehensible behaviour towards them, as was the case in the climate of crisis due to the war.

Canada shamefully deviated from the principles of justice, compassion and generosity which always guided its behaviour towards all its citizens from all over the world who have contributed greatly to its enrichment.

The government's decision not to pay financial compensation to the cultural communities that asked for redress is totally irresponsible. Instead of excusing the past, the government must face the truth. Some members of these communities were incarcerated in makeshift camps, the property of some was seized, others lost their jobs; in short, their most basic rights were literally violated.

What is the government's response to them? We are sorry for the past and we must now get on with the future. What a response.

Does the government realize that many people still live today with the scars from what happened then? What message is the government giving all those affected by what Canada did? That the country does not face up to its responsibilities and hides behind pious platitudes.

On the contrary, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that there should be fair financial compensation for all those citizens who were considered to be outright enemies of Canada. The government must make fair financial restitution to these people and communities. The desire of the leaders of these communities for real

restitution must be respected. The government must immediately go back on its decision.

On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to repeat how important we consider the cultural communities in Canada and Quebec to be; their contribution to our societies points the way to the collective development of us all.

MulticulturalismRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Jan Brown Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, this fall I had the privilege of speaking at a symposium in Banff hosted by the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Members of the association were asking the government to recognize injustices that had been taken against their group during World War I.

In the early 1900s thousands of people came to Canada from all over the world. Many of these settlers had come from Austria-Hungary, fleeing their oppressive government. When the first world war broke out these people were declared aliens and were made to report weekly to the government. Failure to do so resulted in arrest and deportation to labour camps.

Unfortunately this treatment was not limited to people from Austria-Hungary. As the minister explained, people from various ethnic backgrounds were treated in a similar fashion and the only reason they were treated so poorly was their membership in a group, in these cases an ethnic group.

I am elated to see the Liberals following the lead established by the Reform Party. They recognize as we do that Canada has never entered a war spontaneously or without great consideration. Canadians prefer peace and mediation to the horrors and atrocities of war. Further, Canadians cherish the equal rights of all individuals in society and recognize that they should not be compromised.

It is not possible to determine who has been negatively affected by these government decisions or exactly by how much. Giving money to these groups to redress the mistakes of the past would not fix those mistakes. We do need to look to today and to the future to ensure that the rights of Canadians are not unjustly compromised. The secretary of state has suggested that she will proclaim the Canadian race relations foundation in order for the government to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Unfortunately the Canadian race relations foundation will not meet this noble goal. The Canadian race relations foundation will cost $24 million just in an initial capital output and it is suggested that its yearly operating costs will be several millions of dollars.

However it is not just because of costs alone that we oppose the foundation. We have some of the same concerns expressed by the Liberals when they were in opposition. Let me remind the House of some of their earlier criticisms.

The member for Winnipeg North suggested that the foundation should not exist because the responsibility for the program could be accomplished elsewhere. He stated: "Social harmony cannot be created by posters, proclamations or literary contests or even by co-operation between business and government or direct government action. The real challenge is in the hearts and minds of each of us as individuals".

This foundation will have over 30 GIC appointments; yet another opportunity for patronage at its worst.

The member for Eglinton-Lawrence stated: "One of the most important questions is: How do we finance some of the philosophies the minister says this foundation addresses?"

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt when in opposition also criticized the foundation. He said the foundation "gives the minister a great impact on the direction taken by this organization and could lead to it becoming nothing more than a mouthpiece for government policy. It could lead to the assumption that the foundation is more of a political organization than one of a proactive association for the needs of the furtherance of race relations". He continued to say that "the funds available for this foundation will act only as a vehicle for the government of the day to put out its policies and to place into position people who are supporting it. Probably it will be the president of the foundation, somebody who has raised funds for the government".

This foundation is required by law to be housed in Toronto. The Liberals criticized this fact as well. Winnipeg is the most multicultural city in Canada yet it has been given no consideration as a possible site.

The motherhood ideology of multiculturalism and anti-racism is noble. However support for the programs caring for the policies is already in place. Consider the efforts and positive results accomplished by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This in conjunction with programs in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has taken Canada a long way toward reaching the goals of a tolerant society.