Debates of Nov. 21st, 1995

Employment

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is totally incorrect. The reality is that our particular agency vastly underestimated the number of jobs which were created in our region.

The auditor general reviewed only two programs. He did not review the contribution that entrepreneurs and tourism, for example, made to the Atlantic economy.

The hon. member might be interested to know that notwithstanding the difficulties in the fisheries in Atlantic Canada, the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, and in particular the minister, can confirm that we do have in many parts of Atlantic Canada a viable fishery. That fishery can grow. It can be enhanced. It has to have the leadership of the private sector and as a regional agency we want to work with them in order to enhance that.

Agusta

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the same day the government announces its intention to call for bids on 15 new search and rescue helicopters, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services announces the conclusion of an agreement with Agusta to break the contract for the EH-101s.

My question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. Are we to understand from the announcement of this agreement with Agusta that the government has given up trying to investigate the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the contract for the EH-101s, which is what the present Minister of Human Resources Development was calling for when he was in opposition?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the appropriateness of the question in view of the fact that I believe it is the subject matter of the opposition day today.

Let me repeat what I have said on three separate occasions. The Government of Canada has entered into negotiations concerning termination costs for two contractors with the Government of Canada. We were successful with one. We have held very long, very exhaustive negotiations with E. H. Industries on termination costs. We have reached agreement. I hope to be able to provide the details in due course, but because of certain confidentiality rules I am not at liberty to provide that today.

I said before on the floor of the House of Commons and I have said it outside of the House that this particular matter has been resolved. When the details become available to all members, they will realize that the Government of Canada has achieved its particular objective.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given Agusta's involvement in dubious events in Belgium during negotiations for a similar helicopter contract, and given that the contract for the EH-101s was negotiated at the same time as the one that was the focus of the scandal in Belgium, how can the minister persist in his desire to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to Agusta, without a preliminary investigation?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is incorrect. It is not compensation. It is termination cost. We have reached agreement. In due course, the details will be provided to the House.

Fisheries

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Council of Canada wrote to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on November 10 graphically pointing out that the government spends more than five times as much as Norway and ten times as much as Iceland on fisheries administration even though both of these countries catch more fish than Canada.

Will the minister admit that his department's spending on fisheries administration is totally out of control and must be drastically reduced if Canada's fishery is to remain viable and competitive in the future?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I do know a few things about fish. I will not make any admission that the cost of administration within DFO is totally out of control.

I know the member will want to carefully do his homework with respect to making representations on behalf of the Fisheries Council of Canada. What he should know is that the Fisheries Council of Canada said that we should have a fishery more like New Zealand. In New Zealand 73 per cent of all the quota available in the whole country is held by only eight companies.

If the Reform Party is seriously suggesting that some 64,000 fishermen ought to disappear so that eight corporations could hold 75 per cent of the quota, then the member should say so.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the minister insists on spewing his bilge in the House rather than answering questions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I am not sure about all the terms that are used in fisheries and oceans, but I do not think that was very nice. I would ask the hon. member to be a little more judicious in his words.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about changing the structure of the Canadian fishery. We are talking about getting the cost of administration under control.

The fisheries council states unequivocally that the minister's plans to drastically increase access fees will make Canadian fishermen even less competitive in world markets.

Will the minister commit to reducing spending in his department by $50 million rather than saddling Canadian fishermen with another $50 million in new access fees which are nothing more than a tax?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member knows the difference between bilge and bunk because what he is spewing now is bunk.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I am not sure I understand but I would like the hon. minister to get on with his answer.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a specific question, will I cut the department of fisheries by $50 million? The answer is no. I am cutting it by $250 million.

I want to advise the member that it is not the Fisheries Council of Canada that speaks for the fishermen, it is the Harvesters Council. We met them last Monday and the member should try doing the same. Talk to a few fishermen once in a while.

Canadian Pacific Railways

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

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

Would the minister say whether the CPR consulted with or advised the government before cutting 700 jobs in Montreal yesterday and shifting its headquarters to Calgary? If so, what reasons were given? Does the government have a plan to deal with this additional loss of quality jobs in the Montreal area?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the decision by CP Rail was one taken by a private company. I have no knowledge of nor reason to believe that the company or any of its directors either consulted or gave information to the government in advance of that decision.

I point out that it is always regrettable when jobs are lost in any community. However, if we are going to address the ability of the private sector throughout Canada to create jobs we are going to need to do it in a way that enhances and enables the private sector to invest and thereby stimulate growth and jobs.

It would seem to me that it would be very advantageous for the city of Montreal if the kind of co-operation that was offered by the Government of Quebec was such that companies potentially investing or staying in Quebec could feel that they were doing so in an atmosphere of political stability and where they could have confidence in seeing their investments grow and improve.

Assistance To Research

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

There will be serious budget cuts in 1995-96 and 1996-97 for the research funding councils. For instance, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council budget for that period will be cut by $142.3 million.

Is the minister aware that cutting assistance to research carried out outside federal laboratories will penalize Quebec most heavily, because this is the type of federal merit-based research funding in which Quebec receives a fair share?

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm to the hon. member that decisions made by the granting councils, and in particular the Natural Sciences and Engineering Granting Council to which he referred, are taken impartially with reviewers from across Canada in a way that is fair and recognizes excellence.

I am pleased to say that from the point of view of Quebec, Quebec scientists and researchers are doing very well competitively and, from the granting councils in general, they receive their fair share and often very much more than that. It is a good compliment to Quebec, under the circumstances, with the granting councils operating fairly.

Justice

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. In 1987, Wanda Woodward was strangled by Daniel Gingras, a convicted murderer who was out of prison on a birthday shopping pass.

Six years have passed since the family filed suit for damages against the prison system. To date, the case has not been settled nor has an apology been issued to the Woodward family.

Only a few weeks ago, the solicitor general eagerly defended Correctional Services Canada for a $12,000 payout made to convicted murderer John Lee because Lee was beaten up in jail.

If a criminal such as Lee is paid off so quickly and those actions defended by the minister, why is he not coming to the defence of the Woodward family and their plea for just compensation for their daughter's murder?

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

Mr. Speaker, when this matter was brought to my attention I began looking into it. I can say that discussions are under way between the lawyers of the Department of Justice and the lawyers for the plaintiff.

Land Mines

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the subject of land mines which kill or maim some 2,000 people every month.

Mines Action Canada, Dr. Chris Giannou and others working for a total Canadian ban on the stockpiling, production, export and use of land mines welcomed the minister's recent statement supporting these objectives.

Will the minister confirm the government's intention to implement this important new policy? Will he also tell the House when this new policy will take effect?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on several occasions, the objective of the Government of Canada is to eventually completely eliminate the manufacture, export and use of land mines. There are, of course, a number of countries doing this. This is why discussions are under way in the UN to gain acceptance of this objective by all countries.

Canada has already taken part in some meetings and will play an extremely active role in the next, to be held in Geneva early this coming January, in order to gain worldwide acceptance of the objective we are pursuing.

National Defence

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It involves the contracting out of household moving services for the furniture and effects of employees of the federal government. The moneys involved are in excess of $100 million annually.

Will the minister inform the House as to what steps he has taken to ensure greater competition in awarding the moving contracts, which will result in savings to the taxpayers of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, I have to tell the House that the interdepartmental committee on household goods removal has sought to deliver household goods in a more cost efficient manner.

The committee, in consultation with industry and all members of the House from four different parties, has developed an approach that basically responds to and is approved by the Bureau of Competition. It develops a strong potential for saving, increases the level of competition and access by new entrants, and moderates the implementation risks involved.

I am pleased to inform the House that this is a better method of moving. I think it is agreed to by all members. I thank all those who co-operated in the consultations.