House of Commons Hansard #145 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was heritage.

Topics

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

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

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion and I believe the hon. member for Roberval will second this motion. I move:

That the House shall not sit on December 16, 1994 provided that it shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned on that day for the purposes of Standing Order 28.

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the terms of the motion by the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

Department Of Canadian Heritage ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Louis-Hebert-Human Rights; the hon. member for Chicoutimi-Gliding school; the hon. member for Yukon-Social program review; the hon. member for Laval East-Draft bill on Quebec sovereignty.

Message From The SenateGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that act; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization.

Message From The SenateThe Royal Assent

4:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House Ottawa

December 15, 1994

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Ramon John Hnatyshyn, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 15th day of December, 1994 at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, His Excellency, the Governor General of Canada desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

Message From The SenateThe Royal Assent

4:50 p.m.

The Speaker

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-36, an act respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land-Chapter No. 42.

Bill C-38, an act to provide for the security of marine transportation-Chapter No. 40.

Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts (miscellaneous matters)-Chapter No. 44.

Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts-Chapter 41.

Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that act-Chapter 45.

Bill C-55, an act to establish a board having jurisdiction concerning disputes respecting surface rights in respect of land in the Yukon Territory and to amend other acts in relation thereto-Chapter 43.

Bill C-56, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act-Chapter 46.

Bill C-57, an act to implement the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization-Chapter 47.

Bill C-63, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1995-Chapter 48.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Message From The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 9, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister about the Prime Minister's timid stand on human rights and the Canadian government's inability to guarantee the security of Canadian business people travelling abroad.

I made particular reference to the case of Mr. Tran Trieu Quan, a citizen from the Quebec City area who has been held prisoner in Hanoi for over eight months by the Vietnamese authorities. Charges have yet to be laid against him, which leads us to conclude that Mr. Tran is being unjustly held and that the Canadian government should demand his unconditional release without delay.

In answer to the first part of the question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade said that "the Canadian government has raised the issue on several occasions". We in the Official Opposition cannot forget that during his Asian Tour with Team Canada, the Prime Minister never talked publicly about the important issue of human rights. To justify his cowardice, the Prime Minister said that he was afraid that Canada would be made fun of.

As regards the outrageous situation experienced by this Canadian who has been held prisoner in Hanoi for more than eight months now, the parliamentary secretary is merely taking note of the question.

Why is the Canadian government unable to impose the only possible solution, that is to say the release of Mr. Tran, who is being held illegally in a country where Canada just opened a chancellery in Hanoi and a trade office in Ho Chi Minh City, in addition to having been involved in the settlement of the arrears owed to the International Monetary Fund? Let us be frank: the Government of Canada is directly financing a government that is holding a Canadian prisoner. Some justice, Mr. Speaker!

The second part of my question dealt with the Canadian government's inability to ensure the security of Canadian business people abroad. In this regard, this whole affair has already taken its toll on the Quebec business community. For instance, the Sainte-Foy Chamber of Commerce recommended that its members stop trading with Vietnam. Last Friday, this organization also announced that it would recommend that chambers of commerce across Canada and Quebec adopt the same policy as long as Mr. Tran is held prisoner by the Vietnamese authorities.

How then are we to understand the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, and I quote: "I have personally reviewed every comment made by the Premier of Quebec when he was the host of the governor of a Chinese province and, each time, he adopted the same policy as the Government of Canada"? First, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister that Vietnam is a sovereign state and not a Chinese province. Second, I would remind her that if I want to question the Government of Quebec, I would not do it through the House of Commons.

Lastly, I am pleased to see that the Deputy Prime Minister admits that Quebec has the ability and the know-how to establish an international policy independent of the federal govern-

ment's. If that were not the case, I would really like to know why she would waste her time reading and studying the public statements made by the Premier of Quebec on various subjects relating to foreign affairs.

However, this partisan stand of the Deputy Prime Minister clearly shows the Canadian government's insensitivity to the fate of Mr. Tran, a Quebecer held prisoner in Vietnam.

Message From The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

4:55 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Jesse Flis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. member to know that this government is not at all insensitive to the situation of Mr. Quan. He might be happy to know that the Prime Minister raised the matter of Mr. Quan's continuing detention during his meeting in Hanoi with the Vietnamese Prime Minister Vo Van Kiet.

The Prime Minister received a full explanation of the details of the case and was assured that the matter would be handled fairly and in accordance with Vietnamese law.

Mr. Quan has both Canadian and Vietnamese citizenships. Vietnamese authorities, however, do not recognize dual nationality and deny access to Mr. Quan by Canadian officials.

However, as a result of repeated high level interventions from the Canadian government we have gained counsellor access to Mr. Quan. Canadian officials have visited Mr. Quan and confirmed he is not being mistreated.

This is a very complex case in which a Vietnamese corporation lost a considerable sum of money. We understand that the Vietnamese are investigating the possibility of fraud.

As part of its regular counsellor assistance Canadian officials are facilitating discussions between Mr. Quan and Vietnamese authorities with regard to the possibility of Mr. Quan's release. These discussions are private and confidential and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on them here.

The Canadian government will continue to provide all appropriate counsellor assistance to Mr. Quan and will monitor the situation with vigilance. It would not be appropriate for the Canadian government to demand that the Vietnamese set aside their own legal procedures and immediately release Mr. Quan, nor would it be appropriate for the government to support a business boycott of Vietnam because one of its citizens is being held in connection with a criminal investigation.

We have the right to insist upon counsellor access and due process. We are and will continue to do both.

Message From The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, On December 9, I rose in this House to ask the Prime Minister about the referendum process in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois wanted to know, and still wants to know, if the Prime Minister stands by what he wrote in his autobiography where he said: "If we lose the referendum, we will respect Quebecers' wishes and accept separation".

The Prime Minister answered my question by saying, first of all, that he wanted a clear question, adding that he would not answer any hypothetical question. The Prime Minister should realize that he is inconsistent in his statements. By not clarifying his stand on wishes democratically expressed by Quebecers, the Prime Minister is refusing to give an opinion on the right of the Quebec people to decide their future.

Before being sovereignists or federalists, we must all be democrats. I dare hope that nobody wants to make Quebec an independent country or to maintain it within the Canadian federation against Quebecers' will.

Moreover, the Prime Minister would do well by following the lead of his colleagues, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and the hon. member for Mount Royal, both of whom recently recognized that it is up to Quebecers to decide their future. The Prime Minister has shown partisan behaviour instead of political responsibility during Question Period last Friday. It is urgent that he display an attitude appropriate to his important responsibilities as a head of state.

Besides, during the same debate last week, the Prime Minister wrongly accused sovereignists of hiding their option by using a question referring to a draft bill containing 1,600 words. He said that many federalists were refusing to participate in those consultations because of this little trick. Those were terrible and very inconsiderate remarks.

Should we remind him of the consultations which surrounded the Charlottetown Agreement? Should we remind him that the Charlottetown Agreement contained not 1,600 words but well over 10,000 words? Yes, 10,000 words. The Prime Minister and his party were not at all shocked. On the contrary, they promoted the content of that agreement all across Canada.

You must admit that the qualms the Prime Minister has today are quite recent and his rationale seems one-sided. The federal government and its Quebec branch have to talk about the real options. Let them remind us that they have nothing else to offer but the status quo.

The truth of the matter is-and the Prime Minister should admit it-that federalists do not want to take part in consultations on the referendum because they have nothing to suggest but the old status quo. It may be Christmas and a time to eat traditional dishes, but that does not mean the federal government should serve us the same rehash.

In fact, the federal Liberals do not want to travel across Quebec and talk with citizens of every region. When you cannot argue for your political ideas with logical arguments, you use every kind of trick to divert the debate onto procedural details.

You cannot negotiate or manipulate the soul of a nation, nor can you put a price on it. No, the soul of a nation can only be seen if the people can democratically express their will. That is what the Government of Quebec is proposing and what the Prime Minister of Canada is rejecting. The Prime Minister must accept this inescapable fact and take part, with his colleagues, in particular the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, in the pre-referendum consultations the Government of Quebec will be holding.

Message From The SenateAdjournment Proceedings

5 p.m.

Kitchener Ontario

Liberal

John English LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, before debating the result of the vote, let us address the process. It should be democratic and it should be clear.

We are asking Mr. Parizeau to duly initiate the referendum process, to present his question to the National Assembly and to move on quickly to the Loi sur la consultation populaire.

As indicated by Mr. Johnson, we are asking the PQ to end this masquerade, this so-called consultation and to get a clear mandate from the population. In other words, hold a referendum as soon as possible and put an end to the uncertainty. Let the public decide.

The Bloc and the Government of Quebec claim that they are great believers in the democratic process. They talk solemnly about the need to respect this process, but their very first act is to attempt to pre-empt the referendum by introducing a draft declaration of sovereignty which will be voted on by the National Assembly before the people of Quebec have spoken.

There can be nothing less democratic than forcing the National Assembly to vote on a declaration of sovereignty before the people of Quebec have had an opportunity to express themselves at the ballot box.

The Bloc is asking, in the event that Quebecers vote yes to separation, to recognize the people of Quebec, to recognize the right to leave the Canadian federation. Will the Bloc agree that the decision to introduce the draft declaration of sovereignty and to have the National Assembly pass it before the people of Quebec have spoken through referendum is fundamentally undemocratic and against everything they claim to stand for?

Will the Bloc recognize that the people of Quebec have the right to stay in Canada when they vote no in the referendum?

Quebecers know that they live in one of the greatest countries in the world, a country that they built. This country is evolving and Quebecers have a part to play in this evolution. The burden of proof rests with the separatists.

We are confident, Mr. Speaker, that a strong case will be made for Canada.

Social Program ReviewAdjournment Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Audrey McLaughlin NDP Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, on October 17 of this year I asked the Minister of Finance to come clean with Canadians about what the government's intentions were in terms of reducing funding for social programs in this country.

Since that time there has been much speculation. One report indicates a potential cut of $7 billion contemplated by the government in our social programs envelope. Others, for example the Standing Committee on Finance which has just released a report, project that over the next two years there will be something like a $3.4 billion cut in social programs.

This discussion that is going on certainly does not take into account the reality of what social programs have contributed to this country. Certainly as a New Democrat I am not against changes to social programs, but clearly Canadians are beginning to realize that the social security review has been merely an attempt to cut expenditures rather than to really and truly change our programs.

If the intent was to change programs, to make them better, to make them more efficient, I think we would have seen a very different process. I think the government has to be clear with Canadians what the intent is around the reduction of revenues in the social program area.

I would remind the government that in 1991 Statistics Canada was very clear that only 6 per cent of our debt could be attributed to social programs. I would suggest to the government that we need equal debate, indeed more debate, on that 94 per cent of the cost of our debt and deficit.

One of the major costs of that is how we finance our programs, not simply what we do within the purview of those programs. Since October 17 when I first posed the question to the minister I continued to raise questions about the financing of the debt. For example, only yesterday I posed the question to the Minister of Finance suggesting that he should have a public inquiry into the role of the Bank of Canada in setting interest rates, because of course the amount of our foreign debt is certainly affecting the

interest rate policy, and to look seriously at how monetary policy in this country is formed and the role of the Bank of Canada in that.

The minister did not respond to that particular request. I would suggest again that the minister instead of just simply looking at cuts to expenditures should also look at why they are necessary. Part of the reason for that is the monetary policy that was pursued by the previous Mulroney government and has been continued if not with even more zeal by the current Liberal government.

There are several things that the minister should be looking at in this area. The minister might recall that before 1967 the Bank Act legislated a ceiling on interest rates that allowed for some control. Prior to 1991 the act ensured that the Bank of Canada had some control over interest on the national debt.

I would like to ask the question why it is that the government will not be clear about the reduction in expenditures it wants to make to the social programs envelope? In addition, why will the government not look at the way and the role of the Bank of Canada, which has become I might add not the bank for Canadians but the bank for chartered banks, and how the government by looking at that could return the controls of its monetary policy to the people of Canada and not simply to the chartered banks.

I would be very interested, Mr. Speaker, in again posing those two questions.

Social Program ReviewAdjournment Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Kitchener Ontario

Liberal

John English LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has embarked upon a significant reform of Canada's social security system in co-operation with provincial and territorial governments and with all Canadians. The social security review is allowing Canadians to consider options for structural reform of Canada's social programs. At the same time this review must respect fiscal realities and the government's deficit reduction targets.

The 1994 federal budget established fiscal parameters for social security reform. It announced measures that would reduce spending on unemployment insurance by $2.4 billion. It also indicated that further UI savings leading to lower UI premiums would result from social security reform.

The 1994 budget also announced that growth in social security transfers to the provinces would be curtailed by ensuring that Canada assistance plan transfers and the post-secondary education component of established programs financing are no higher in 1996-97 than in 1993-94. Savings of at least $1.5 billion will be realized from preventing the growth that would otherwise have occurred.

The social security discussion paper confirmed these parameters and makes sure that the entitlements under EPF-PSE and under CAP will be no higher in 1996-97 than they were for each program in 1993-94.

Beyond 1996-97, EPF-PSE funding will be at best kept stable at the 1996-97 level and no increase in funding for CAP or its successors should be anticipated beyond 1996-97.

If any additional savings are required to help meet the government's fiscal targets they will be announced in the 1995 budget.

In the meantime the government is listening attentively to the views of Canadians and of the parliamentary committees that are now engaged in discussions about social programs and fiscal issues.

Social Program ReviewAdjournment Proceedings

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, the eastern region gliding school at the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré airport in the Saguenay has been in operation since 1978.

Sixteen years of operation during which the school was assessed yearly by the authorities of the Royal Canadian Air Cadets and given full marks. Also sixteen years of operation at a location that is considered ideal. The Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré airport is located in a truly outstanding site, in a rural area offering numerous advantages in terms of room to maneuver and safety.

In September, authorities in charge of the cadets asked for a feasibility study with a view to moving the gliding school from Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré, in the Saguenay, to Saint-Jean.

Last Wednesday, socio-economic stakeholders in the region presented Major Dumontet and Lieutenant-Colonel Chartrand with an analysis of the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré site. Besides stating advantages of the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré site that were never disputed, the study emphasized major security problems at Saint-Jean. We have proof and aviation experts agree that our concerns are justified.

Nothing came out of the meeting with the people in charge of the cadets. Quite the contrary, the answers they gave us added to our concern. Therefore, because the decision appeared imminent, I asked the Minister of National Defence to impose a moratorium long enough to leave the Cadet headquarters sufficient time to address the concerns of the Chicoutimi-Saint-Honoré committee and, in particular, to make the best decision.

Since the survival of a school which has been operating in our area for 16 years and which has generated substantial economic spin-off is at stake, we repeat our request for the feasibility study to justify the move to Saint-Jean.

We also ask for a second evaluation by Transport Canada of both airport sites, mainly from a security point of view.

The evasive answer the minister gave us led us to believe that everything was done behind closed doors and that he was not even advised. My question enabled him to learn that this whole reorganization was being planned in dark back rooms, away from the scrutiny of those concerned, and, therefore, without any consultation.

The people of Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean do not want to have to put up with the same bungling as the people of Saint-Jean, when the military college was closed. There should be greater transparency when consulting with the committee, for the preservation of eastern region gliding school. Why rob Peter to pay Paul? This is the question.

Social Program ReviewAdjournment Proceedings

5:10 p.m.

Kitchener Ontario

Liberal

John English LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Region Gliding School was situated in St-Honoré in the early 1970s because suitable accommodations for the cadets were available and the airport was conducive to glider training operations.

However several factors have resulted in the recommendation of the eastern region cadet staff to relocate the summer cadet gliding operations from the civilian airfield in St-Honoré to the municipal airport in St-Jean. The reasons are several.

First, one has to consider the ongoing efforts to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of cadet training.

Second, there is a substantial commercial cost required to house and feed the cadets in Chicoutimi.

Third, there are operational inefficiencies involved in moving aircraft and personnel resources every summer from the home base at the St-Jean airport, where are located the hangar and the offices, to the training location in St-Honoré, which is located at a distance of approximately 350 miles.

Finally one must note the decrease in the usage of the St-Jean megaplex coupled with improvement to the St-Jean airport.

Prior to undertaking the operational and financial analysis, full support for the proposal was received from the city of St-Jean, subject to noise reduction concerns. In accordance with Canadian law an environmental impact analysis was conducted.

A comparison of operations and flight safety measures between the airfields at St-Honoré and St-Jean clearly indicated the following benefits: an annual saving of approximately $300,000 generated primarily by reduced costs of housing and feeding of staff and the air cadets at the CFB St-Jean megaplex.

Second is the availability of the main operating base hangar at the St-Jean airport to which the gliders and tow aircraft can be rapidly moved, thereby eliminating the possibility of environmental damage from the wind or hail compared to the situation at the St-Honoré base where the gliders and tow aircraft remain in the open over the entire summer training period.

Furthermore there is the non-restrictive glider takeoff and climb procedures at St-Jean compared to the restrictive ones imposed by the Chicoutimi airport authorities as a result of the noise concerns of St-Honoré residents.

In conclusion, flight safety is our number one consideration. This proposed move would not have been recommended if we had any concerns over flight safety.

Social Program ReviewAdjournment Proceedings

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Let me express season's greetings to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To all Canadians, from coast to coast, season's greetings.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38 the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 6, 1995 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28 and 24.

(The House adjourned at 5.18 p.m.)