Debates of March 30th, 1995

National Defence

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Liberal strategist Mike Robinson stated that the defence minister probably wakes up in the morning wondering what land mines someone might have planted for him when he arrives at his department.

If the minister cannot control or trust his staff, does the minister not agree that he needs to restructure his entire department from the top down?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that consoles me every day is that I do not wake up every morning to look at the hon. member or his colleagues. I have my family around me.

As far as I am concerned, I do not want to minimize the problems in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are dealing with them on a day to day basis.

If the hon. member and his colleagues would take time out to visit the military bases, to visit the rank and file members, I will make all the arrangements for them. I will go with them. They can have access and they would find that members of the armed forces are very distressed at the line of questioning coming from that party.

The Environment

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

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

Yesterday, just days before travelling to Berlin to attend the World Climate Conference, the Minister of the Environment finally admitted that her government will not be able to meet the commitments made in its red book with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In the light of Canada's incapacity to control its greenhouse gas emissions, how can the Minister of the Environment content herself with presenting in Berlin a mere strategic plan, when what the 1992 Rio accord called for was a true action plan?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and I repeat today that we cannot be satisfied with stabilization only. The commitment agreed to in Rio was to achieve stabilization by the year 2000.

I can assure the hon. member that, in developing our action plan at the federal level, we will go beyond federal stabilization commitments. That being said, when we table a master agreement like the one reached with the provinces, in spite of Quebec's absence, we must work together with all the provinces to ensure that their action plans also go beyond stabilization.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has done its homework in this area, but the minister made it clear in an interview given to Le Devoir yesterday that she had not done hers.

Is the minister's proposal, which will almost certainly be rejected by the European Union, not in fact part of a plan to create a diversion to mask her incapacity to fulfil Canadian commitments?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that, on an issue as vital as greenhouse gas emissions, the Bloc Quebecois would rather play politics than join in the search by developed and developing countries alike for a global solution to a global problem.

We are confident. Brazil has accepted our Berlin proposal and we expect support not only from developing but also from industrialized countries in finding a global solution.

We, in the Liberal Party, do not live in a small world. We live in the big world.

Fisheries

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

All Canadians are vitally concerned with the continued negotiations in preservation of the world's fish stocks and the jobs of fishers everywhere, as well as the food for the next generations. They support the strong stand taken by the minister on the turbot issue.

Can the minister advise the House what progress is being made in the negotiations at Brussels to save the Atlantic turbot fishery?

[An hon. member]

Brian for the Academy Award. Tell us about Broadway.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by my own side.

[An hon. member]

The envelope, please.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

We anxiously await the minister's reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, the negotiations in Brussels are going on today and are constructive. They focus primarily on the area singled out by the Prime Minister some two weeks ago as the matter of primary concern for Canada. That is the question of conservation and enforcement.

We have had the support of the country and unanimous support in this House of all members and all parties. It is deeply appreciated by the government and has allowed us to take a strong position.

We have said that sustaining the species is what matters most. We have said we would put our priorities, as the Prime Minister indicated two weeks ago, on conservation enforcement. We are making progress in that area. We hope the talks will conclude successfully but we have learned to be patient, to make sure we do it right rather than do it quickly. We will see what happens.

Forestry

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

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

Last November I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs why his department was funding environmental groups whose main purpose was to actively discredit B.C. logging practices in North America and in Europe. Since 1990 the Western Canada Wilderness Committee has received over $754,000 from foreign affairs, environment, human resources development, heritage and natural resources.

Does the Prime Minister support providing federal funding to groups whose main purpose is to undermine our number one industry in Canada, forestry?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these groups have been helpful because most of the provinces have improved, quite dramatically, the way they harvest forests. It is helping make our case when we are abroad.

We have to be careful. For example, we are asking people to help protect the fishing environment of the sea. We have to do the same thing in Canada. When we have groups in Canada that want to harvest trees in a proper fashion, they are not causing a disservice to Canada, they are helping us to do the right thing.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some of us may recall seeing Stumpy, that large cedar tree stump from the Clayoquot in my riding on Vancouver Island, around Parliament Hill last fall.

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee not only took this stump across Canada at taxpayers' expense, but is planning to take it to Berlin next month to discredit, again, the Canadian forest industry.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he act immediately to cancel all funds to this group, which has not only cost taxpayers $754,000 but continues to cost the Canadian economy millions in lost revenue?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has underlined how important it is for Canada to have sustainable forestry practices. The work of organizations such as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee reinforces the notion for an international forest practices code where all countries can be judged on a level playing field.

The member would be the first to criticize the government if it did not have a proactive international stance by which it shares Canada's sustainable forestry practices with those of other parts of the world. That is what we are attempting to do, working with environmental groups, rather than damning them all as the Reform Party would do.

Unemployment Insurance

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. According to the monthly report published by Quebec's income security department, during the month of March, over 800,000 Quebecers had to rely on social assistance. In spite of the recovery, this increase is a source of real concern, particularly since the under-25 group accounts for 40 per cent of the new welfare recipients.

Will the minister finally recognize that this increase in the number of young welfare recipients is the direct result of his UI reform, which excludes young people from the program, and will he admit that these young people are the first victims of UI cuts?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer the hon. member's question is to cite some useful facts and figures which she will be interested in knowing.

The employment gains which took place during 1994 mean that we have been able to reduce UI claims by some 10 per cent over 1993 and helped more than 200,000 Canadians get back to work without exhausting their benefits. In fact, if we look at the figures more closely we find that the exhaustion rate was down by 25 per cent in 1993-94 over 1992-93.

It shows what is contributing to the reduction in the unemployment benefit rate, which is that far more Canadians are going back to work.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot ignore the fact that a StatsCan report indicates that the proportion of unemployed covered by the UI program went from 77 per cent, in 1990, down to 53 per cent, in 1994. There are fewer recipients, even though more people are out of work.

Will the minister finally recognize that, if the number of UI recipients decreased so drastically, it is not because the number of jobless dropped significantly, but because more and more of them are excluded from the UI program and have to join the welfare ranks?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the StatsCanada report shows that one of the distressing areas of concern that we should all share is the fact that numbers of Canadians are unemployed for longer periods of time. It is one of the really disturbing phenomena taking place in labour markets. We are not alone. It is taking place around the world.

Rather than admitting to some great guilt, we should be coming together to work to find solutions to the problem. That is one reason why we are looking seriously, as the hon. member knows, at developing more active employment programs.

To give one example, we have just initiated and will be starting on April 1 some 20 pilot projects across the country using wage supplements to help those long term unemployed to get back into the job market.

If the member is interested, I can give examples of seven such projects in the province of Quebec. It is that kind of real effort that we have to come together on to find new answers to help along-

Crtc

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

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

On January 1, 1995 the CRTC launched an innovative tax grab on Canadian cable subscribers. It ignored its previous decision to issue a rebate to consumers which would have caused cable rates to decrease. Instead, half of the money will go to line the pockets of cable giants such as Rogers.

Why will the Prime Minister not protect the interests of Canadian consumers by getting rid of this hidden tax?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the country and the government over time has been very grateful to the CRTC. It has been able to protect the Canadian cultural content of the delivery system through its broadcast system.

The growth of Canadian arts, culture and performers has been a vital part of the responsibilities administered by the CRTC through its vigilance and its application of the rules of the will of the House.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question was very specific. It was specifically focused on the CRTC and the issue of the current innovative tax grab, as I say. However I appreciate the eloquence of the hon. member.

The CRTC has flip-flopped on the consumer rebate. It has not only imposed an information highway tax but it has also required these companies to pay into a Canadian program production fund. This is nothing more than a tax to subsidize Canadian content. Consumers will no longer stand for this behaviour from the CRTC.

How can the Prime Minister justify this tax without having consulted the Canadian consumer?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should think through the outcome of her observations and her direction. It would mean that a worthy and considerate member of the ministry would have to resign as a result of interference in an arm's length organization.