Debates of May 2nd, 1994

Apple Growers

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I have met with representatives of the apple growers on two occasions, not just the apple growers in British Columbia but elsewhere in the country. The member failed to point out that the reason we face this problem is because the Canadian apple growers lost a case earlier. The result of this is that they must now show actual damage before we can again take up the case and come to what we hope will be a successful conclusion.

It is important for the member and the House to recognize that to rush in before we have adequate facts to prove our case, having lost the first case, would be extremely unwise. Therefore we are working with the apple growers to develop the best possible case so that the next time we go forward we will not in fact lose as we have before.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue will recall that at a recent Chamber of Commerce meeting in Penticton he expressed concerns for the apple producers of Canada. He will also recall that he stated that once proof of damage was supplied to his department, immediate action would take place. I remind the minister that that information was supplied early in April by the fruit growers.

Can the minister please tell this House today when Canadians will see his government take action?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is certainly correct in his premise. I and all members of this government are very concerned about the plight of Canadian fruit growers, particularly apple growers, faced with the American competition that is flooding across the border. He is also correct in stating that we will proceed as soon as we believe we have a case that can be won.

I ask the hon. member as I asked him on a previous occasion, in Kelowna, whether he wishes us to take the risk of a second loss or whether he would like to make sure that we have our case in hand and a case that can be won before we go to an international trade tribunal.

Overseas Employment Tax Credit

[Bernie Collins, Liberal, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, certain members opposite have stated that the Minister of National Revenue is retroactively disallowing the overseas employment tax credit to certain Canadians.

On page 3564 of Hansard the member for Calgary West stated: ``This is a shameful way for the Minister of National Revenue to accomplish his goal of closing so-called tax loopholes''.

What assurances can the minister offer us that he is not making retroactive tax grabs?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain for his question which allows me to state unequivocally that there have been absolutely no legislative changes, retroactive or otherwise, to the overseas employment tax credit.

The statement he quoted by another member is in fact incorrect. This credit was introduced to make Canadian companies more competitive when bidding on foreign contacts. The object is to ensure that Canadian companies bidding on foreign contracts have every incentive to hire Canadians and provide jobs to this country. It was never intended to give anyone a tax holiday because they happen to work for a foreign parented corporation with a branch in this country.

What is happening is that there is a disallowance of ineligible tax credit claims and a normal reassessment in accordance with the law.

National Defence

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, lands used by the armed forces, that is the bases, the training sites and

the ranges, are likely to be contaminated by specific substances relating to military uses, which is affecting the quality of our environment.

My question is for the Minister of Defence. Can the minister tell us whether his department has a specific policy dealing with military land decontamination?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member has raised this question because he states the problem accurately.

As the Department of National Defence extricates itself from certain facilities across the country where there have been target practices there is considerable environmental damage. In the case of Ipperwash we are discussing the cleanup procedure with the natives who have claim in the area and we will be spending a lot of money trying to bring that particular site back to its original form.

We also have a problem in Calgary. We moved the Lord Strathconas to Edmonton. One of the reasons was to get off the native lands there but there will be some cleanup that will have to be done.

We did make an announcement a couple of weeks ago in the expansion of the supply depot in Montreal for a $26 million state of the art cleanup of the soil contaminated in Montreal because this government is totally committed to proper care of our environment.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for his answer. I would like the minister to inform us about the number and the type of interventions that are being made necessary by the cleanup of military lands on Canadian territory. And I would also like the minister to table, if possible, the policy on environmental protection for military lands.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make available to the hon. member all kinds of information on how the department follows this cleanup to ensure that we leave the land environmentally safe.

In effect I think we have demonstrated by the previous answer that we have an ongoing program of trying to ensure that any lands the department has used over the years that have been contaminated are returned to their original state.

Justice

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The figures released last week by Elections Canada proved once again big spenders cannot buy Canadian voters.

Now that the Charlottetown accord outcome has been reinforced by these results will the government save tax dollars and drop its appeal of the gag law?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am replying as government House leader.

This issue is an important one and because it is important I think it deserves to be tested in the courts.

I understand the hon. member's concerns. I will review this matter with the Minister of Justice but I continue to believe there is an important issue to be dealt with.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has already been tested in one court but the important question is has the government estimated the cost to taxpayers involved in this appeal and if so will it table these figures?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Justice to look into that.

I ask the hon. member and other members of this House to consider the cost to the Canadian economy and to the Canadian population generally if it is possible for wealthy groups to influence the election unduly and not be under the same kinds of constraints as political parties. This is an issue that deserves to be considered.

I do not know why the hon. member does not want to have that done if he is concerned about democracy in this country.

The Environment

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the budget speech the Minister of Finance said the government is committed to sustainable development. The minister went on to say that the government is establishing a task force to identify barriers and disincentives to sound environmental practice.

I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment what the status of this task force is.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to sustainable development. Both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of

Finance have committed themselves to set up this task force on sustainable development as soon as possible.

As a first step they have directed both their ministries to make it a priority. As a second step a meeting will be convened of all the interested stakeholders to discuss terms of reference, following which this task force will be set up.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in our gallery of Juan Manuel Eguiagaray Ucelay, Minister of Industry and Energy of Spain.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Point Of Order

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, you handed down a ruling which I accept and respect and which we will abide by in the future, but I would appreciate some additional explanations.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I reread all the exchanges which took place, and my decision was reached after spending an entire weekend considering the issue.

If the hon. member would like further information, first of all, I would ask him to read my ruling, and if he has any questions he would like to ask me in my chambers or perhaps would like to ask the Clerk, he is welcome to do so, but the point has been made and the Chair's decision stands.

Is this the only point the hon. member wishes to make?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to question your ruling. Not at all. I simply said first of all that we respected this ruling, but it will lead to your making another decision, and that is what I wanted to say, if you are prepared to entertain the following question.

You said in your ruling, which we accept, that a minister could answer only on a subject related to his jurisdiction. You added that the minister should not answer questions which do not relate to his jurisdiction.

I would appreciate it if you would analyse the implications of the following. If your ruling is respected from now on by everyone in this House, does that mean that when we question a minister within his field of competence while referring to a statement made by one of his colleagues, does that mean that the colleague who is quoted will not have the right to answer the question?

In other words, for practical purposes, if I cannot ask a minister about a statement he made concerning the Department of Finance and he does not have the right to reply, does this mean that if I put my question to the Minister of Finance on a statement made by his colleague, the minister who is quoted would not have the right to rise in the House and the Minister of Finance would have to answer my question? That is what I would like to know, because there are implications for the ruling you just made, because usually, if we quote a minister's colleague, often the colleague will rise to justify what he said. Now you said in your ruling that he does not have the right to do that.

[The Speaker]

Order! Hon. members can put questions to the Speaker at any time, but these are hypothetical questions. If there is anything arising from what we discuss here in Parliament, and if a member, any member, has any questions about what happened in the House, I would be glad to provide some answers. However, if they are hypothetical questions, I think the Chair should consider whether an answer is necessary. I would like to leave this for the time being. Any other questions?

Petitions

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition which has been certified correct according to our Standing Orders. It is signed by over 1,130 people in support of the request of the Garda family, of Châteauguay, for political refugee status.

These two people belong to the Hungarian minority in Rumania where, as such, they would be threatened and persecuted.

People in the Châteauguay riding do not want another Maraloï case. They want the minister to really meet the needs, within a reasonable timeframe, of all refugees, especially political refugees, who seek to be integrated into our North American society.

(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Questions On The Order Paper

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all the questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.