Debates of May 9th, 1994

Gun Control

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have said on many occasions that in my view the answer must be in both controlling more strictly those guns that are purchased in Canada and getting at the problem of weapons in the hands of criminals.

In fact, we have under consideration now in the Department of Justice the question of whether the penalty under section 85(1) of the Criminal Code should be increased so that it is a greater deterrent and more effective.

I have written to my counterparts in the provinces and territories. I have asked them to urge the crown attorneys in the courtrooms where these charges are prosecuted to ensure they are pressed with vigour, that they result in the appropriate sentences, and that the charges are not dropped as part of plea bargains or any such arrangements.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the minister appreciates the problem. If he is going in this direction and if they are looking at increasing the sentences for the illegal use of guns in the commission of crimes, when does the minister plan on introducing legislation that would provide a real deterrent? When can we expect it to be introduced into this House?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I should think probably in the autumn of this year, but my letter to the attorneys general of the provinces should be in their hands shortly.

Not only is this a question of looking at the prospect of increasing the penalty but as I said, it is also a question of vigorously enforcing the law that is on the books right now. That is an important part of the equation as well.

Transport

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday, the Minister of Transport said he delayed his decision concerning MIL Davie because he wanted to act in the best interest of Magdalen islanders and he needed MIL Davie's business plan. Yet, Magdalen islanders did say they wanted a new ferry and the federal government has had MIL Davie's business plan for a few weeks.

Now that MIL Davie has met all the conditions set by the federal government, does the Prime Minister intend to act and award the contract for building the ferry to MIL Davie, rather than consider buying a used ship as the daily Le Soleil reported this morning?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that when the hon. member reads last Friday's Hansard , he will realize that I never said that the Department of Transport delayed its decision because it was waiting for MIL Davie's business plan.

Having said that, however, I must point out that two very important things are involved here: we must provide an adequate and safe service between Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands, and we must solve the problems that MIL Davie will face at the end of the current contract for the frigates. We are very aware of what is at stake in both cases, and I want to assure the hon. member that the business plan submitted is being scrutinized by the appropriate departments and that we, in the Department of Transport, have always been prepared to participate in a solution which would meet both needs, as long as it is fiscally sound.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister recognize, as his chief of staff who ran unsuccessfully for the Liberals in Quebec City did, that the sustainable recovery of MIL Davie depends on the development and construction of the multipurpose smart ship? What does his government intend to do about this high-technology project which would be suitable for exportation?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the recovery of MIL Davie depends on a lot of things. Last week, when I met the Quebec Minister of Industry, along with my colleague, the federal Minister of Industry, it was obvious that the situation would be very difficult if the survival of MIL Davie were to depend solely on the construction of a ferry and maybe a smart ship sometime in the future. That is one of the reasons why representatives of both the Quebec and the federal governments are doing their best to find a logical and responsible solution which would help to protect jobs at MIL Davie and provide a ferry service. This is a very complex issue.

The matter is under study, but I want the hon. member to understand that no final decision has been made yet about the financial contribution of both levels of government, the ferry operator, and the contracts needed to make the smart ship construction project a viable initiative.

Challenger Jets

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

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

Last week the Minister of National Defence told Michel Cormier, on the public affairs program "Le Point": "Some ministers are now renting private planes at huge costs to the departments rather than using the government Challenger jets". The minister went on to admit that this practice is not cost effective and is done simply for appearance.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that his ministers have chosen the most expensive option imaginable, that is, renting aircraft while still maintaining the Challenger jets simply to avoid political pressure?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. She claims that when a minister gets on board a government plane it costs $20,000 an hour. She is sticking to that and we are listening to them. If it is costing that much money, why use it? We are looking into this issue to make sure the real costs will be known.

When the planes are not being used they still cost money. The pilots are still there. Reform Party members are so narrow minded on that and do not want to look at the facts. Now they are claiming because they are not objective they are causing the government to spend more money.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let us make the Challenger jets for sale. Second, let us all use commercial airlines.

Since 1985 the government has spent $11 million training 689 technicians to service the Challengers. At the same time national defence has contracted out $12 million of maintenance to another firm. When Mr. Cormier added up all the costs of the Challenger program he confirmed the Auditor General's asser-

tion that the Challengers are almost three times more expensive than the Prime Minister cares to admit.

When will the Prime Minister stop fooling the Canadian people about the real costs of the Challenger jets? When will he accept the Auditor General's suggestion to drastically reduce the Challenger jet fleet?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking into this matter. There is a committee and the Auditor General. These planes are made in Canada and the government uses them. Canada is a vast country. Ministers have to move around the country if they want to do their jobs.

Because of the irresponsibility of Reform Party members they do not want to look at the real costs. Even when the plane is in the garage we pay for the pilot, we pay for the plane, for everything. When the plane is flying the only other cost is the fuel, but they say it is costing much more money. That is why we are not using them. We are looking into that. We will make sure this is managed better than it was with the previous administration.

However I hope this group of people will stop spreading lies because it is not costing-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

They do not want to know the truth.

[The Speaker]

Order. I think I heard the right hon. Prime Minister withdraw. Is that correct?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had nothing to add. I simply think that we have a problem and it is under review right now. We want to find a reasonable solution. We ask the Reform Party to be reasonable and not to be so sanctimonious.

[The Speaker]

I only wanted to make sure that the Right Hon. Prime Minister had withdrawn the word.

The right hon. Prime Minister withdrew the word.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word I used.

Westray Coal Mine

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Exactly two years ago today, in my riding of Central Nova 26 coal miners were killed in the Westray coal mine explosion. Can the minister advise this honourable House as to what his position is regarding the recovery of the remains of the deceased coal miners still entombed in the mine?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians remember with sorrow the tragic accident that happened in the Westray mine some two years ago. As the member knows, many volunteers risked their lives, albeit unsuccessfully, to try and rescue the lives and later on the bodies of the miners.

Right now the Government of Canada in conjunction with the Government of Nova Scotia has hired an expert who is working on this project. Very soon the results of his study in terms of not only the remaining deposits in Westray but also the access to the remaining bodies will be made known to us.

Indian Affairs

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. We learned in April that the federal government had set up an interdepartmental committee to study the Mohawk issue, a committee made up of the Minister of Indian Affairs and four of his Cabinet colleagues, namely the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Industry and the Solicitor General.

Can the Prime Minister confirm the existence of such a committee and tell us the exact nature of its mandate and activities?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is no such official committee. Quite often, our ministers who work together meet to discuss certain problems, but we have significantly reduced the number of Cabinet committees in order to increase efficiency. A committee such as the one to which the hon. member referred does not officially exist.

However, meetings do take place between ministers who share common interests and I am happy to see that several ministers are willing to work together to help us solve the Mohawk issue.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to learn that there is no such committee because the Minister of Indian Affairs said that there would be one. But, assuming there is such a committee, since we are dealing here with the Mohawk reserves issue, how can the Prime Minister justify the fact that no federal minister from Quebec was asked to sit on that committee or to take part in meetings to discuss matters under Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said that there was no such committee, so why would ministers be invited to sit on a non-existent committee? Everybody is interested in this issue, including myself, who was Minister of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development for a long time. I am following the situation very closely.

I would like to be able to find a solution that would please everybody. This is a difficult problem and ministers are working with the people concerned to find a solution that will hopefully have the support of all parties. However, there is no committee, and therefore I cannot be accused of not inviting somebody to sit on a non-existent committee.

Esquimalt And Nanaimo Railway

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Last week the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the government's appeal of the case involving the E and N Railway stating that the government had no constitutional obligation to run the line in perpetuity.

Can the minister advise the people of Vancouver Island if he now intends to follow through with the earlier Tory decision to scrap VIA passenger service on the E and N?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would know that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada simply indicated there was not a constitutional obligation on the part of VIA to maintain that service. It did not relate to the continuation of the service; it simply stated there was no constitutional obligation.

The review of services on Vancouver Island, as is the case across the country, will depend on what VIA can achieve faced with its budget constraints and the reality of the level of service across the country for passengers wishing to use VIA services.

The answer to the question is that VIA in its good time will assess the viability of that line. Also, I am sure my hon. colleague knows that any abandonment of VIA service is subject to cabinet approval.