Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1995

National Defence

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

I will answer the question if you would listen.

[An hon. member]

And learn.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

-was very strong and very adamant in saying that mobility in the Canadian forces is a very strong thing. He wants to help morale with these kinds of questions? Give me a break.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians would hope that this is an isolated incident. Unfortunately, it is not.

Access to information documents show that Rear Admiral Keller, who is currently the chief of financial services at NDHQ, was in receipt of separation expenses for over four years, totalling $86,000. At the same time, able seamen in Esquimalt are in welfare line-ups trying to feed their families.

This is an example of the minister's mismanagement. How can the minister allow this to go on under his nose?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to tell members in all honesty that it is very difficult for me to find an answer to this kind of question.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

There is no answer.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

In order to have an answer, there has to be a question. There has been no question. The hon. member is talking about money paid to senior officers to ensure mobility in the Canadian forces. He signed on as part of his participation-

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Out of control.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

He signed on as part of supporting mobility. He cannot take his signature away from that report. It is there and it is immutable. It cannot be changed. I used to think he was credible.

Referendum Campaign

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Last spring, the Prime Minister mentioned that one of the ways to eliminate duplication by Quebec and Ottawa would be to let Ottawa collect all taxes from Quebecers. Last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs again suggested this as a way to eliminate duplication.

Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us whether the Prime Minister or the minister himself or his colleagues discussed with Daniel Johnson the approach suggested by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for reducing duplication, in other words, to have all taxes payable by Quebecers collected by the federal government and to close the Travail Québec centres?

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as duplication is concerned, I think what we must consider here is whether both parties are acting in good faith when they want to negotiate agreements to eliminate overlap.

I may point out that before the Parti Quebecois was elected, we had signed twelve agreements with the province of Quebec to eliminate duplication. We have signed a total of 64 such agreements with the other provinces. However, since the Parti Quebecois was elected on September 12, no agreements concerning duplication have been negotiated.

My point is that the Parti Quebecois has shown it did not have the slightest interest in reducing overlap of any kind because, as Mr. Parizeau pointed out, it is not interested in making federalism work. It wants to get out. That is their goal, that is what they want to do, and that is what they are working for.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that the last federal proposal on eliminating duplication and overlap was an agreement on manpower which was turned down by Daniel Johnson, the Premier at the time, and by the present Minister of Labour, who both called this agreement unsatisfactory?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the Quebec Minister of Labour called the agreement does not alter the facts.

The facts are that the federal government offered to transfer to the provinces, including the province of Quebec, all spending on educational institutions in the provinces, including both programs and money. The province of Quebec turned down this offer and in my opinion proved once again they did not want to negotiate any accommodation with the federal government.

We are prepared to make certain accommodations, but they are only interested in separation.

Candu Reactors

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has a long history of using tax dollars to fund megaprojects that end up costing us billions. Petro-Canada is just one example.

Now the Chinese premier has visited Canada and walked away with another megaproject deal. The government is planning to use the Canada account to finance Atomic Energy's sale of two CANDU reactors to China.

Does the government not realize it is broke? Does it not realize Canada cannot afford to finance a dime, never mind several billion dollars worth of taxpayers' money on this sale?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to take pride in export sales of Canadian technologies. These sales are done on a basis that will provide the maximum amount of returns to the Canadian public. I can assure the hon. member this will be the case here.

The Chinese market, I do not need to remind anybody, is a very important market and is one that is growing at considerable length. It is important that this country establish itself.

On the first point regarding Petro-Canada, thanks to the minister of energy and mines we have completed the most successful privatization of almost any western country in the past decade.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think they gave it away.

My supplemental is to the Minister of Natural Resources, since that is who was quoted here. I quote that minister even further: "The Canadian government will no longer be in the business of negotiating massive support packages for energy megaprojects". If we are not subsidizing megaprojects at home any more, why are we considering doing it overseas where the risk to the taxpayer is even greater?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. member that export financing is a normal part of doing business in this country and in most other countries.

As the Minister of Finance has pointed out in relation to Candu technology, we have technology which is second to none in the world. We want that technology to help solve the energy problems of nations such as China. If we are going to compete with other nations in relation to that technology, it is important to provide export financing.

Referendum Campaign

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

Last week, the deputy chair of the no committee, Ms. Lisa Frulla, demanded that Ottawa withdraw completely from the area of culture, declaring that Ottawa had no business interfering in this area of exclusive Quebec jurisdiction.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us whether it is his feeling that, in the field of culture as in the other questions raised by Daniel Johnson, Quebecers will be given no response before October 30?

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

Mr. Speaker, all of the questions by the Official Opposition are along the same lines and our response is that the federation, that Canada, has been very flexible in the past.

It has allowed the province of Quebec, like the other provinces, to acquire a considerable amount of power, even spending power. In the sixties, the federal government had around 60 per cent of the spending power, and now it is the provinces and municipalities which have more than that 60 per cent.

The immigration agreement is one that was signed without any constitutional amendment. It is totally possible to settle the problems that exist without constitutional amendments. And if I may remind the Opposition of one final point, it is they who refused to allow Quebec the decentralization contained in the Charlottetown accord, while the Prime Minister approved it.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs expect the people of Quebec to think that there would be a place for Quebec in his Canada after a no in the referendum, when we are familiar with the points of view of his Prime Minister's best buddies, Clyde Wells and Roy Romanow, and when we know that his Prime Minister systematically refuses to give any hope whatsoever and any response whatsoever to the pleadings of his allies on the no side?

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

Mr. Speaker, there has always been a place in my heart, in my soul, in my

intellect, for Quebec as a part of Canada, because it is within Canada that Quebec succeeded in developing the world's best standard of living.

It is within Canada that Quebec and the people of Quebec have succeeded in attaining a level of democracy unequalled anywhere in the world. In what country in the world could there be a leader of the opposition with the right to speak out in the House on what he sees as the future of Canada as an entity?

I am proud to belong to a country with such democratic values. I am proud to belong to a country which values sharing as Canada does. I am proud to belong to a country which redistributes the wealth of advantaged provinces to the least advantaged. And for these reasons, the men and women of Quebec will vote no in the referendum on October 30.

Health Care

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the health care system is a source of great pride for Canadians all across the country. It is an important component of our nation's identity. The constituents of Bramalea-Gore-Malton and indeed all Canadians are worried that their health care benefits may be reduced or eliminated.

Will the health minister assure Canadians that the basic principles of the health care system will never be abandoned by this government?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, this party committed to preserve the universal medicare system which all Canadians enjoy. We said we would also preserve the five principles of the Canada Health Act, but that we would work as active partners in order to make our health care system more efficient and more effective to address changing realities.

We also said that we would not support a system which offered better quality or faster access for rich Canadians versus the rest of Canadians. We have acted on this. That is what the October 15 deadline was all about. Canadians from coast to coast, wherever they live can rest assured that this government will continue to protect and enhance our health care system.

Gasoline Additives

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

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

The minister has stated before in the House that he supports uniformity of gasoline standards between Canada and the United States. As the minister is aware, this past Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favour of Ethyl Corporation to sell the gasoline additive MMT in the U.S. This is the same substance this government wants to ban.

Will the minister admit that in view of the U.S. decision this government has no reason to ban MMT in Canadian gasoline, a substance that makes cars run cleaner?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has a relatively recent model of motor vehicle. Mine is rather old. He should know that all the motor vehicle manufacturers, North American as well as Japanese have told us that the diagnostic systems in the new vehicles are put at risk by MMT. Consequently, warranties will not be respected by the manufacturers where MMT is used in the fuel.

This is the purpose of the gasoline. That is why it is made. That is what it is used for. Surely to goodness the hon. member would like to ensure that the industry has the opportunity to respond if indeed the determination in the U.S. continues to hold. In fact, at this time MMT is not available in fuel in the United States.