Debates of Nov. 1st, 1996

Consumer Protection

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that both, and in many cases all three levels of government will have to work together. But he is also aware that a committee of this House has the right to draft a report, to conduct investigations and to examine what it believes is important, and it is the government's responsibility to respond to the committee. We intend to do so at the appropriate time.

Research And Development

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the most recent broken red book promises are in the area of research and development and jobs, particularly projects at Chalk River, Ontario and Pinawa, Manitoba. The internationally recognized cyclotron facility at Chalk River, TASCC, could be closed due to a lack of funds and the future of the Whiteshell Laboratory

in Manitoba remains in doubt while the government ignores its task force recommendation to privatize the facility.

Is the natural resources minister going to do anything to ensure these research initiatives and jobs remain in Canada?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question last week. An adequate answer was given by the Minister of Natural Resources.

I appreciate the respect the hon. member has in the House but he knows we are still talking about that. He knows we have had to cut back. Reform Party members talk about smaller government. I wonder what they would do if they were in our position.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific suggestion for what we would do if we were in the Liberal's position.

The U.S. Brookhaven Institute is in a position to pick up jobs that Spar Aerospace would otherwise give to the cyclotron in Chalk River. The same situation exists for Whiteshell where our scientists are leaving for the United States due to inaction on the part of the government.

I have this specific suggestion for the minister. Would the minister use $3 million of the $40 million in refund that is coming from the European Space Agency to keep the Chalk River facility open and start the process of privatizing Whiteshell as was called for in the task force report?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow the budget of the Reform Party, which is not a platform but a springboard into the swimming pool of disaster, there would not be any atomic energy in Canada or the world.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

The Economy

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

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

The minister recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to present his 1996 fiscal and economic update. Now that the minister is working on the 1997 budget, can he tell the House how Canadians can get involved and have their views represented in the content of the next budget?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very timely as we are now going into the prebudget mode.

As she knows, the prime focus for national consultation will be the House of Commons finance committee which has already had five weeks of hearings here in Ottawa and next week is to embark on the national consultation. The committee will be going from coast to coast to coast.

At the same time, there are other vehicles. We have invited Canadians to write to us directly. I will be meeting with individual groups. Because I am aware of the hon. member's interest, I would like to highlight the ability of individual members of Parliament to hold forums in their ridings. In past years those forums have proved to be of enormous benefit.

The main focus, which I am sure the hon. member is driving at, is that we have made the budget process open and transparent. That is one of the reasons we have been so successful in our budgets.

National Defence

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

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

Since his appointment, the new defence minister has kept rather mum about his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment. As we know, his predecessor had not ruled out buying new submarines and wanted to equip the next class of shipborne helicopters for anti-submarine warfare.

When is the minister going to make public his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment, and will he once and for all drop the idea of spending several hundreds of millions of dollars on submarines of dubious usefulness?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's role with regard to defence, not only its own, but in terms of its well known responsibilities towards its allies, requires that we proceed with extreme caution when deciding to purchase military equipment.

We are not ruling out anything, but I can assure my colleague that we do not intend to spend billions or hundreds of millions of dollars without taking into account all criteria that have a bearing on such a decision. I hope to come to a decision on the purchase of some of the elements the member mentioned in a not too distant future.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to having a debate in the House of Commons on his purchasing plans so that the urgency and usefulness of such purchases be publicly discussed, in view of our financial priorities and means?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, one of the wonderful things about Parliament is that all decisions made have to be accounted for to all of our peers.

The policies of the Government of Canada with respect to national defence, I think, have been articulated. They have been the result of unprecedented consultations. We have had the white paper and the joint parliamentary reports. We have had debates on our participation in various military activities around the world.

We will continue to function in an open and transparent way, always trying to balance the needs of domestic and international security with our capacity to pay the bills.

Canada Post

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review recommends that Canada Post be made subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to annual audits by the auditor general. To date the minister responsible has ignored these recommendations.

Canadians have a stake in how their crown corporations are run. They have a right to know what is going on and the Radwanski report makes it clear that Canadians have legitimate concerns regarding Canada Post.

My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. The Liberal government promised Canadians more open and transparent government. Will the minister deliver on that promise and make Canada Post open and transparent by making it subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to the scrutiny of the auditor general?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a very valuable corporation. It belongs to the people of Canada, but it also has a commercial mandate and, as such, one must respect commercial confidences.

That being said, I have asked Canada Post to look at establishing a plan to ensure that it operates with the most openness and transparency possible.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister.

This week CBC Radio is celebrating 60 years of service. Especially in remote areas, it is a vital link that holds our country together. For example, CBQ in Thunder Bay serves half the province of Ontario.

Despite all the rosy promises in the red book about stable multi-year financing for the CBC, when will the government deliver on one of its most important commitments to the Canadian people? What is the future of the CBC and stations like CBQ with the Liberal government?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has consistently spoken about the government's commitment to the CBC.

Let us not forget that the government continues to fund the CBC to the tune of almost $1 billion. There is $200 million which is going into a production fund and $100 million of that will be used by the CBC for specific programming which will enable local communities to produce Canadian programming, especially in British Columbia.

Interprovincial Trade

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the industry minister.

With one breath the government and the minister say they are committed to removing barriers to interprovincial trade. With the next breath the finance minister announces his GST harmonization plan, which in the words of the Retail Council of Canada "divides the Canadian economy into two separate entities".

If the industry minister is committed to removing interprovincial trade barriers, as he says he is, why is he supporting the finance minister's harmonization plan which is, in itself, a barrier which will hurt Atlantic Canadians?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, of course I support, without reservation, everything the finance minister does. I want him to know that.

I would also say that the issue of interprovincial trade barriers is a very important one. In fact what has been accomplished in Atlantic Canada is a demonstration of what could happen with the kind of co-operation we are trying to achieve. Instead of it being a barrier to interprovincial commerce, that there are rates that differ across these provincial barriers, what we have got there is the opportunity with a harmonized system to give consumers exactly what they want, which is the ability to go to the cash register and know that they are paying the price that they saw ticketed on the counter.

What we face in interprovincial trade barriers, as the hon. member knows, is very often the result of provincial governments exercising their constitutionally valid powers to favour businesses or citizens within their own jurisdiction without having a broader view of what could be done if they were to take down the barriers.

I hope he will join with us in supporting our efforts to encourage the provincial governments to operate on a consensus basis once and for all to create a truly harmonized federal national market in Canada.

Presence In Gallery

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in our gallery of Mrs. Kaba Saran Daraba, Minister of Social Affairs and the Promotion of Women and Children in Guinea.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Point Of Order

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order references are citation 64 of Beauchesne, reflections on members, and citation 417 which refers to replies to oral questions by ministers.

During question period the government House leader made what I call verbal physical threats to my colleague from Elk Island by the use of what he calls a rubber ruler. I think that provokes debate. I would appreciate asking the hon. government House leader to withdraw that threat from the floor.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should have been listening more carefully. The reference to the rubber ruler was made in the first place by his colleague the former school teacher.

I did not threaten to use the rubber ruler on my hon. friend. I said simply that the Canadian public in the next election was going to do it in a figurative and symbolic way. If this offends my hon. friend, I would be happy to withdraw the reference, but I cannot speak for what the Canadian people will ultimately do.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the Chair should rule that as a point of humour, rather than a point of order. The hon. member for Elk Island on the same point of humour.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since I was named I would like to simply say I thought that Liberal S and M meant smoke and mirrors.

Government Response To Petitions

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 15 petitions.