Debates of Dec. 12th, 1994

Trade

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.

My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Two years ago when the Prime Minister was speaking about NAFTA he said: "This crazy trade deal is a disaster for Canada". Now he appears to be a born again free trader.

How can the Prime Minister have any credibility in negotiating an extension to NAFTA when it comes from this kind of contradiction?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the very first policy statement of the Prime Minister when he became leader of our party was that he would vigorously pursue a hemispheric trade agreement and that is exactly what he is in the process of doing.

Bill C-62

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that the changes proposed in Bill C-62 will not apply to the Fisheries Act nor any other legislation which protects the environment?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-62 is not to compromise on any of the protection to the environment that is provided in the acts of Parliament that have that purpose in mind.

It is to deal with inefficiencies in the regulations so that we can help a process that will create more jobs and more growth opportunities.

Thanks to the Minister of the Environment we have made it even clearer in the act that sustainable development is an objective to be met. With respect to the environmental protection issues and regulations thereto, it is up to each minister, and in this case the Minister of the Environment, as to which one should apply or should not apply.

I can assure the member that in consultations with the minister, the protection of the environment, the protection of health and safety of all Canadians are of paramount importance.

Canada Council

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In the context of the budget cuts it is asked to make, the Canada Council is holding a phony three week consultation on its own mandate with concerned groups. The arts community is seriously questioning the legitimacy of the whole process. Background documents are provided at the last minute and questionnaires are simplistic and biased. In short, the artists refuse to support this process.

Does the minister recognize that the Council's consultation process is dubious and hasty? How can he justify that the arts community being dealt with in such a cavalier fashion?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard for me to oppose consultations between the Canada Council and the artists. Our colleague would perhaps prefer longer and more complex consultations. But it is normal, I think, that the Canada Council develop a business plan and this is what it is doing in co-operation with the people and groups concerned.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that the strategic plan which the Canada Council will adopt following these phony consultations will have little credibility at best, since several organizations have simply boycotted this whole process they consider absolutely-frankly, where do these members think

they are? In a school yard? As I was saying, this whole process they consider absolutely illegitimate and botched?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps our colleague is also criticizing the Canada Council for having no school.

The council is doing what it can to get some co-operation. I hope it will get some, since it cannot develop a good business plan without comments from the public and the people it serves.

Royal Roads Military College

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

In my riding personnel at Royal Roads military college have received their termination notices. At St. Jean, Quebec, the government offered a deal to postpone closure of CMR, are committed to making it a post-secondary institution.

Why is the government giving preferential treatment to CMR? Will the government give the same deal to postpone closure of Royal Roads as it has just given CMR?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning we have offered exactly the same deal to Royal Roads as we have offered to the Collège militaire royal. We have made it a point to be absolutely fair in the agreements that we were negotiating; in fact, most of the clauses in the Royal Roads proposal are exactly the same as in the Quebec proposal.

The arrangement with Mayor Smereka, if it ever leads to a full implementation of the deal, is merely a process of implementation and in that process whatever is offered to Quebec will be offered to Royal Roads.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, fairness and equality are what this deal is about but are not occurring at Royal Roads.

If this is an example of regional fairness let us talk about it. The government is now making acceptance of a settlement package of the military base in Masset as a condition of its settlement of Royal Roads. They have nothing to do with each other.

Why is acceptance of the compensation package for Masset linked to the resolution of Royal Roads when no such example exists with CMR.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in both cases the military colleges are being closed and in both cases there have been economic activity consequences as a result of the closures of bases. In the two cases the amount that is offered over five years is $25 million, of which $5 million is taken from the Department of National Defence in order to compensate for decreased military activity.

This has been a part of the Quebec deal. This is a part of the British Columbia deal. It is exactly the same deal on the same basis.

Post-Secondary Education

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[An hon. member]

Welcome home.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

This cannot be the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Prime Minister or the person talking for the Prime Minister today. It concerns a statement made by the Minister of Human Resources Development in reaction to the protests of his colleague from Ontario on the issue of the cuts being proposed for post-secondary education.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is quoted as indicating that his anger in reaction to the position taken by the Government of Ontario could influence his thinking on changes to the Canada assistance plan.

What does one have to do with the other? Since when can a minister of the crown take it upon himself to wreak vengeance on a government because of a position it is taking on behalf of the people in a quite different file?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member for Sherbrooke uses the rare occasion when he rises to his feet to repeat an allegation which has absolutely no substance.

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development who has introduced proposals to change funding to post-secondary education. He recently said, and I quote: "These wild allegations about closing universities and huge increases in tuition are simply scare mongering". However, in a submission to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development,

the Association of Universities and Colleges predicted that tuition fees would double under these proposals.

I ask the minister to come clean with Canadians. Will he in his proposals and in his view increase tuition fees or not?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member as I said in a response to an earlier question that the federal transfer accounts today for over 50 per cent of the cost of higher education in this country. The province of Ontario over the next 10 years will gain well over $1 billion in additional revenue as a result of federal transfer payments. If one looks down the road, the actual amount going to Ontario in terms of those additional revenues exceeds what presently goes in the combination of tax transfers and direct transfers.

Therefore the real question is: Is the Government of Ontario prepared to fully transfer and turn over to higher education the full benefit of those federal transfers or does it have another reason and another agenda?

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Licia Kokocinski, MLC, Parliament of Victoria, Australia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order I want to bring to your attention.

The first point of order I wish to raise while the Minister of Human Resources Development is still around. It concerns his comments about my presence in the House of Commons, a very well known rule that I think you would want to have respected.

[The Speaker]

I of course will refer to the blues to be absolutely certain. However, it was my recollection that there was no mention about the hon. member being in the House. I believe the statement was that the hon. member was not on his feet, which has nothing to do with his being in the House. However, I will review the blues.

I take it this is the second point of order.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wise on our part to check the blues because I can assure you that my understanding of the exchange was quite clear.

Mr. Speaker, the other point of order I want to raise concerns the functioning of question period itself and the fact that I was not allowed to ask a supplementary question.

[The Speaker]

I am sure all hon. members will understand that there are times when the Chair, if you can say in its wisdom, for the better functioning of question period has single questions rather than double questions. This was one of those days.