House of Commons Hansard #236 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was employment.

Topics

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In a secret document prepared by Industry Canada for the operation unity centre, we learn that Bombardier asked Ottawa for funding, as part of the defence industry productivity program, which, as Industry Canada itself

indicated, would be difficult to provide. The assistance sought concerned the joint Canadair-de Havilland global express airplane project.

How does the Prime Minister justify a request for financial assistance of this magnitude being in a strategy file intended for use in pressuring business in the referendum debate?

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer
Québec

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to have to explain this whole thing all over again. The Department of Industry document sets out clearly the position of the various industrial sectors. It indicates the effect separation would have on these sectors. It also indicates, in some cases, the amount of the financial assistance sought by certain firms.

This is common practice, and one the government is familiar with. Many companies follow this practice each year; that is, they apply for funding. We have to respond to these applications for assistance each year, and it is usual for this type of information to appear in an Industry Canada document.

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression we are not talking about the same document and that the minister does not even have access to the document we are talking about. Are we to understand that one of the new criteria Ottawa has established for obtaining federal assistance under DIPP is a favourable recommendation from the operation unity centre for services rendered?

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer
Québec

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the answer is no. Government funding is provided, once again, according to the contribution a firm or an industry makes to the Quebec economy. It is provided on the basis of job creation. It almost always is public and is therefore subject to the government's public accounts.

This funding must be approved by the members of Parliament and the House and is therefore granted objectively. Once again, the opposition's allegations are unfounded.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

October 3rd, 1995 / 2:35 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Beaver River, AB

Mr. Speaker, the negotiations on the harmonization of environmental management in Canada have been placed totally on hold. With each day the environment minister's version of events gets even more outlandish. She insists that Alberta scuttled the deal, but Alberta says that the minister's fear of decentralization is to blame. What is more disturbing is that Alberta's environment minister was practically called a racist in the House.

Why has the minister put this deal on hold and when will she apologize to Alberta Minister Ty Lund for her inflammatory comments?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Hamilton East
Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I merely repeated in the House what the minister said at the meeting in Haines Junction when he said that he would be very happy if Canada had environmental jurisdiction in Alberta in the area of parks, that we could have their parks and their Indians. That comment has not been refuted by the minister.

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Beaver River, AB

Mr. Speaker, what is more at issue here is the fact that these talks have been scuttled by the minister, regardless of reason. Whether it is the Irving Whale or whether it is the environmental harmonization agreement, the minister is always looking for new ways to pass the buck, and heaven help those who disagree with her. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources certainly knows what I am talking about. She is in favour of the provinces and supports their attempts by her sympathies with harmonization.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Natural Resources or the Deputy Prime Minister. What do they plan to do to get these talks back on track?

The Environment
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Hamilton East
Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the claim of the hon. member that somehow I have misrepresented what Ty Lund said is absolutely false.

She got up on her first question and made a statement and I answered that statement. I said that Mr. Lund has not denied making the comment, which was heard by at least 10 people, to the effect that Canada's role in environment in Alberta should be restricted to national parks and their Indians.

I would suggest that the hon. member, rather than trying to find another red herring, should stand in the House and apologize for her claim that I misrepresented Ty Lund's remarks.

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Trois-Rivières, QC

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

A secret document prepared by Industry Canada for Operation Unity says that, without the federal defence contract for the manufacture of ammunition, SNC-Lavalin subsidiary SNC-IT will have to close its doors.

Will the Prime Minister admit that linking the survival of a business to the awarding of a federal contract in an effort to put pressure on its leader amounts to blackmail?

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer
Québec

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the opposition's allegations are very close to being unparliamentary. They do this because they have no arguments to support their views.

Speaking of documents, our document is available under the Access to Information Act. But what about the Le Hir studies, the hidden studies? When the Parti Quebecois and its little brother, the Bloc Quebecois, conduct studies that are inconsistent with their conclusions, what do they do? The same thing they did with the Georges Mathews and Bernier studies: they hide them.

In this case, the information is available. This information helps us determine whether our subsidies can create jobs in Quebec. We have the public interest at heart. But in their case, the question is whether hiding the studies that are inconsistent with their conclusions is in the interest of Quebecers who will vote on October 30.

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, could we have answers that come not from an armchair quarterback but from someone who is well briefed on the issue?

How can the Prime Minister let Operation Unity take 680 SNC-IT employees hostage by linking the awarding of a defence contract for the manufacture of ammunition to the referendum position of SNC bosses?

Industry Canada
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Saint-Maurice
Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the allegation is totally false, and everyone knows that this industry is dependent on a Canadian government contract. That is the way it is. This industry has been in existence since the end of the second world war, since the war.

Of course, if the Canadian government does not buy ammunition from an ammunition producer, I wonder who will.

It is quite normal for us to know this. If, in analyzing Quebec industries, the minister realizes that a business is completely dependent on the Canadian defence budget, I think it is quite normal for him to know this so that we can find out exactly what role the Canadian government plays in Quebec. In this case, it is fundamental.

Without the Canadian government, without a defence department that buys ammunition from this industry, it would have to close its doors. But, since there is a Canadian government that has Quebecers' interests at heart, we continue to buy ammunition from this business.

Land Mines
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Alex Shepherd Durham, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The subject of banning land mines was recently discussed at an international conference in Vienna. In view of the fact that land mines that are now being discovered in Bosnia have a similar design and technology as those manufactured here in Canada, will the minister give the House his assurance that no land mines are now manufactured in Canada? More important, will he assure this House that this technology has not been exported outside of our borders?

Land Mines
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Michel
Québec

Liberal

André Ouellet Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I can give this assurance to the hon. member. Indeed, I have been informed that no such mines have been manufactured in Canada since 1992. In fact, none have been allowed to be exported since 1987.

I can give the member the assurance, since I am the minister and am looking at all of these export permits, that I have not authorized and will not authorize any of these exports.

Immigration
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Reform

Val Meredith Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, in 1981 Tejinderpal Singh and four accomplices attacked and hijacked an Indian airlines flight out of Delhi and forced it to land in Pakistan. Tried and convicted for air piracy in Pakistan, they received life sentences. After being paroled, Singh made his way to Canada where he lied about his background when he claimed refugee status. However, his true identity was uncovered and he was arrested but has since been released.

When in opposition the Liberals criticized the previous Tory government for its handling of the Muhammad Issa Muhammad case. I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will this Liberal government handle the Tejinderpal Singh case differently?