Debates of April 9th, 1997

Pearson Airport

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my one and only question is directed to the Minister of Transport.

Yesterday, in his answer to a question asked by the Bloc Quebecois, the Minister of Transport said, and I quote:

The decision made by the local authority in Toronto, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, to purchase the T-3 terminal was its decision. It will be funding that through a bond issue. This is not a government decision but one of the authority itself.

However, on March 25, a cabinet decision stated that the Minister of Transport wished to provide financial assistance to the Greater Toronto Airport Authority for carrying out a number of projects designed to expand the airport's capacity.

Who is telling the truth? The minister in his answer yesterday or the cabinet decision made on March 25?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the response I gave to the hon. member yesterday was entirely accurate. There is an agreement between the T-3 consortium and the Greater Toronto Airport Authority to purchase the T-3 building and ancillary services for a total of $719 million. That was a decision made by the parties.

If I could quote Mr. Turpen, the chief executive officer of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority: "Purely and simply, this was my deal and this was a deal I wanted badly. The government was not involved, didn't encourage, didn't cheer lead". That was a quote from the Globe and Mail , April 2, 1997.

The hon. member raised another matter, the forgone rent over the next nine years for the Toronto authority. We have put that in place, in keeping with the policy for all the other local airport authorities which was set up by the previous government. Therefore, we put it in to assist them in rebuilding the two firehalls and creating a new

$40 million de-icing facility, completing the second north-south runway, the cross wind runway-

Fisheries

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister and his department knew or should have known that the Digby scallop fleet could not possibly survive on the scallop beds in the Bay of Fundy alone. Corralling the inshore fleet into this confined area would result in over harvesting and depleted scallop beds. Atlantic groundfish, Pacific salmon and now scallops-DFO's management record is a litany of failure.

Will the minister take immediate steps to ensure that a proper management plan is put in place which will provide a long term, sustainable fishery for the inshore scallop fleet.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two scallop fleets in the area of which he talks in the Bay of Fundy, inshore and offshore.

[An hon. member]

He would know them well.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Yes, he would know them well. In 1986 an arrangement was made and negotiated between these two fleets that a line would be drawn from Yarmouth across the Bay of Fundy. Each fleet would fish inside or outside the line, produce their own conservation harvesting plan and their own fleet rationalization, which was basically to have the right number of resources to match the fish that are there and the boats.

This was actually held by the federal court 10 years later, last year, to be legitimate when the inshore made an application to fish offshore.

He spoke about the management plan. Last year, as a result of the condition of the inshore fishermen, the management plan made an allocation of 100 tonnes outside the line for inshore scallop fishery on the basis that it was a one-time agreement and that the two fleets would get together and sort it out in the future.

As we speak, the inshore scallop advisory committee is meeting this week with a hope of perhaps meeting with the offshore fishermen to come up with a plan that has always been good and will continue to be good in the future.

Points Of Order

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with respect to an answer given by the Minister of Finance to a question.

I draw your attention to citations 348 to 352 of Beauchesne which has to do with statements by ministers. What he gave was primarily a statement by a minister and should have been so directed.

Second, I draw to your attention citation 408 of Beauchesne in which it states explicitly that questions should not require a lengthy and detailed answer. Answers to questions should be as brief as possible. Citation 410 states: "Time is scarce" and "Brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance".

It is quite obvious that the member asking the question and the minister had communicated beforehand. This could have been done in another venue and I object strongly to this.

[The Speaker]

Your objection is noted. I try as best I can in question period to keep both the questions and the answers to a reasonable length of time. I am sure all hon. members will want to do that in the future.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order is somewhat similar to the point of order by the member for Elk Island.

My reference is to Beauchesne citations 348 to 350 as well. There is no opportunity during question period for either a House leader or a member of this assembly to stand on a point of order or raise a question at the point of time when what we felt was a violation of principle occurred. That was very difficult. We were in your hands at that point in time. We felt that the Minister of Finance may have had a very important answer.

I know some of my colleagues reacted very strenuously and we are not in character when doing that kind of thing. But under the circumstances there was no other way that we could react to the situation than to-

[The Speaker]

What am I going to say, that the answer was too short? It was not. It got away and that is my fault. It was your Speaker's fault. I am going to try to keep those questions and the answers a bit shorter.

I would remind all hon. members that the question is the question, whatever way you want to put it. As long as it is in order, of course we are going to let the minister answer. But I would ask you again, please, when you are putting the question, in the preamble and in the question itself and also in the giving of the answer that you give some consideration to the length of the questions and the answers and I will try to be more vigilant. Today it got away from me and that is the way it is. I am sorry.

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 34 petitions.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the joint meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly's Defence, Security, Economic and Political Committees held in Brussels, Belgium, February 16 to 18, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I have another report. Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada at the 1996 annual session of the North Atlantic Assembly of NATO Parliamentarians held in Paris, France, November 17 to 21, 1996.

Committees Of The House

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 24, 1996, your committee has considered Bill C-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Copyright Act (profit from authorship respecting a crime) and your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Application Rules and another act related to the Income Tax Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Budget Implementation Act, 1997

[Doug Peters, Liberal, for Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 18, 1997.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

I wish to advise the House that the government intends to move that both of the bills just introduced be referred to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House do now proceed to the Orders of Day.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I heard two motions by the minister. First he said that the government was going to move that the two bills that have just been introduced be referred to committee before second reading. Then he went into the second motion which you have just read. Can you give us some clarification on the disposition of the first motion that he read?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for St. Albert has raised the question of what happened to the first motion put by the minister. The minister was just expressing an intent to refer the bill to committee. If I heard correctly it was not a motion.

The second point raised by the member by implication was why he was raising it here rather than as some other matter under the daily routine. I am informed that this can be done. It has been done in the past under all sorts of rubrics including the tabling of documents and statements by ministers. There is no difficulty with that.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

It is not often that I am confused but I am confused now. I recall the minister's words quite clearly. He moved that the two bills be referred to committee under a section of the standing orders. I want to ask a question of clarification.

Were the words of the minister an actual motion, or was he just saying that under the standing orders the bill would be automatically referred? I just did not quite understand. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you could clarify that for me.

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the minister stood after the other motions were dealt with, he indicated he had an intent to refer them to the committee. Therefore it was not a second motion. It was a notice of motion.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding the wording that the hon. member from the government side used was that he moved

seconded by, which made it in the form of a motion whether appropriate or not.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is essentially repeating the point made by his colleague. If the member does not approve of the matter he is certainly at liberty to vote against it.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.