John English

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the request by the hon. member for Chicoutimi that the minister personally call upon Cabinet to enforce section 28(1) of the Broadcast Act and to change the CRTC's decision, I would like to inform the hon. member that when the CRTC refuses to grant a broadcasting license, the government cannot invoke the provisions of the legislation.

However, I would like to indicate that the refusal of the two pay-per-view television proposals does not mean that the CRTC has no intention of encouraging French language television services. On the contrary, I am pleased to note that the francophone market will have the benefit of two new French language services.

In addition, the CRTC has clearly let it be known that it is ready to receive and consider new applications to offer French language television services and specifically French language pay-per-view services.

However, when an application has been refused, as was the case with the applications submitted by Canal Première and Chapiteau, the government has no authority to cancel or overturn the CRTC's decision.

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond in greater detail to the concerns raised by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake that aboriginal veterans have not been treated the same as other war veterans.

When the National Aboriginal Veterans Association first raised allegations of unfair treatment in the early 1980s Veterans Affairs Canada asked it to bring forward any case in which a veteran believed that unfair discriminatory treatment had been received.

Several hundred cases have been put forward since that time. All were thoroughly reviewed and not one provided any evidence to suggest that there had been any unfair or discriminatory treatment.

In addition to these file reviews the National Aboriginal Veterans Association was provided office space and administrative help by Veterans Affairs to assist it with the development of its report to the royal commission on aboriginal peoples.

Notwithstanding the association's extensive research and file reviews, no evidence of maladministration was cited by the National Aboriginal Veterans Association in its report to the royal commission.

Turning to the legislation itself, if hon. members review any of the veterans legislation they will find that the definition of veteran makes no distinction between aboriginal and non-aboriginal veterans. Simply put, a veteran is anyone who has served in the armed forces or the merchant navy during wartime.

The one instance in which it was necessary to make special reference to aboriginal veterans was in the Veterans Land Act. The purpose of that reference was to ensure that Indian veterans living on Indian reserves were able to obtain benefits under that act.

The fact is that no allegation of discrimination has any basis in veterans legislation. There is no discrimination in the law and again the report submitted by the National Aboriginal Veterans Association to the royal commission confirmed the conclusion that veterans legislation does not discriminate against aboriginal veterans.

In view of this background and in view of the comments of the hon. member, the position taken by the Secretary of State for Veterans in response to the hon. member's question earlier and today is the best possible approach.

If the hon. member is aware of any veteran's case as he suggested that he is today, aboriginal or non-aboriginal, any case in which discrimination or unfair treatment is alleged, bring that case to the secretary's attention and it will be, I assure members, thoroughly reviewed and any appropriate action taken without delay.

[Recall Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the concept of a bilingual officers corps was adopted by the Armed Forces Council on June 28, 1988, to meet the needs of senior officials who had to be able to lead their subordinates in both official languages.

The "working language" remains the main pillar of the official languages program, set up to allow French speaking soldiers to work in French and English speaking soldiers to work in English.

Job and operational requirements of all units must be respected. There are three distinct types of units: the French language units, the English language units and the bilingual units.

A departmental committee studied the matter of language of work in 1992 and concluded that in the case of bilingual units, civilian and military personnel must be able to communicate with their subordinates in whichever official language those subordinates prefer.

The most recent report of the Commissioner of Official Languages acknowledges that progress has been made over the past year in the three pillars of the official languages program, even though according to Commissioner Goldbloom this progress has sometimes been slow, no doubt because of the complexity of the organization involved.

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 1992 there were two separate referendums, one in Quebec and one in the other provinces and the two territories.

Quebec held its own referendum under provincial laws while a referendum was held in the rest of the country under the federal Referendum Act. It was Quebec's own decision to hold a separate referendum subject to provincial not federal laws.

You will remember that, with Bill 150 and after the demise of the Meech Lake Accord, the Quebec government had pledged to hold a referendum on Quebec's sovereignty before October 25, 1992. Following the Charlottetown accord, Quebec changed its own bill in order to hold a referendum on the Charlottetown accord rather than on Quebec sovereignty.

Parliament has also adopted its own rules to permit the holding of a referendum under federal laws. On June 23, 1992 the federal Referendum Act received royal assent.

On September 10, 1992 after a debate the House of Commons approved the text of the referendum and the referendum question which read as follows: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?

On September 17, 1992 the governor in council issued by order in council an order that a proclamation do be issued directing that the opinion of the electors of nine provinces-except Quebec-and the territories be obtained on the referendum question.

The federal government did consult the electors of nine provinces and two territories on the Charlottetown accord according to the federal Referendum Act.

As for the Quebec government, it decided to hold a separate referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Quebec followed its own rules on the referendum question, the referendum process and the voting.

On October 26, 1992 there were two separate referendums subject to two different sets of rules. The question of reimbursement of the Quebec referendum costs by the federal government is now being discussed bilaterally with Quebec.

[Technology Triangle, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph, known as Canada's Technology Triangle, had the honour yesterday to host the federal Minister of Industry.

During his visit the minister announced a new government program to help the economy's engine of growth, small business. As a result of an ongoing dialogue with this sector, the minister announced a $50 million program providing financing in addition to bank loans.

It is appropriate that the minister should discuss small and medium sized business in Canada's Technology Triangle since this area is one of the country's success stories in the new knowledge based economy in which this sector is key.

I join with the members for Cambridge, Guelph and Waterloo in thanking the minister for his recognition of the needs of small and medium sized business.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest as well to the hon. member's speech. I would like to remind the hon. member that Canadian grain exports were really not subsidized except through transportation until the late 1970s and to some degree in the 1960s. We responded to international pressures which created subsidies.

In terms of the figures, the subsidies for grain exports are highest in the European Community and second highest in the United States. There was one country which did not compete in subsidies. That was Argentina which is an example the hon. member did not choose, choosing New Zealand which approached this more recently.

Given the fact that the subsidization of grain exports in Canada apart from the transportation subsidy occurred after the 1980s would the hon. member have taken a different course? If we had not subsidized grain at that point, is it not quite likely that Canadian grain exports would have diminished to the level of Argentina's during that period?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too welcome the suggestions made by the hon. member, but I recall that during the debate on the GATT we talked about subsidization of grain exports in many countries including Canada, United States and the European Community.

In the case of those countries we recalled that Canadian subsidization of grain exports amounted roughly to somewhere between 30 and 35 per cent; less than the Europeans and probably a little less than the Americans but considerably more than the Australians and the Argentinians. In the case of the Australians it is almost nil. In the case of the Argentinians it costs them to export because they subsidize their manufacturers.

Having said that, what would the hon. member think would be an appropriate figure for our subsidization agreement?

[The Budget, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo on his excellent speech.

I remind him that the neighbouring riding of Kitchener is also encompassed within the model community cited by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

The hon. member is well known in the area for his interest in and knowledge of environmental matters. I was wondering how the budget would affect the Waterloo riding and community. He referred to the Friends of the Earth comment about the finance minister and this particular budget. Waterloo is an area where environmental related businesses are most prominent. Is it likely that those businesses will be assisted by this budget?

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I too have waited for ferries and have waited to cross bridges. However, studies in this case have indicated that it is more efficient.

On the question of tourism, while it may be true that in specific places there may be some thought that a ferry crossing is a tourist event of some significance, one does not, to quote the hon. member's words, feel like a sack of potatoes on a ferry. I would think the majority of tourists would dissent from that view.

It certainly seems to be true that the people of Prince Edward Island dissent from that view. There will be more tourism. There will be more economic activity. All of the studies seem to confirm that view. The people of Prince Edward Island expressed that view in the plebiscite.

In that respect the hon. member may have a particular case, but it is not the general case.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have not done any studies but I am aware that water transportation is much cheaper for much longer distances. However I would say that anyone who has waited for a ferry as opposed to crossing a bridge knows one is a great deal easier and more efficient than the other.

We heard personal accounts from some hon. members who have had to wait for ferries. We heard about the three to five hour waits and other complaints about the ferry service. Currently it is not efficient. I do not think we are living up to our obligation that was first made in 1873 and has been made several times since then.