Debates of May 18th, 1995

Gun Control

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has finally yielded to pressures from the powerful gun lobby. Yesterday the Bloc critic on justice issues, the member of Parliament for Saint-Hubert, stated:

"Unfortunately, as soon as the topic of firearms comes up, males get excited and agitated-And since women are not the majority in the Bloc, male members put a lot of pressure on the caucus".

And yet, it should be pointed out that the Bloc Quebecois was committed to supporting the bill, as mentioned by the Bloc member for Saint-Hubert, on May 6, and I quote: "It is a good bill which provides for the registration and control of firearms". Women in Quebec will be very disappointed to learn that the Bloc does not take into account their views which are overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-68.

Winnipeg Jets

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is doing an about-face in the issue of the building of a new sport arena in Winnipeg. Two weeks ago, Ottawa did not have any money to help the Jets. Suddenly, the Minister of Human Resources Development seems to have discovered plenty of it in several federal programs.

There is no doubt that the pretext of the infrastructure program is simply a smoke-screen for an inescapable reality: Ottawa is about to give several millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to the Winnipeg Jets, and never thought about lifting one finger to help the Quebec Nordiques. There has never been such double standard before. It is obvious that the only thing flexible about Canadian federalism is fairness.

Human Rights

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, imagine a place in which democratically elected members of a legislature are not allowed to propose changes to a law. Imagine then that they are not allowed to speak to the proposals of others and if they protest they are summarily cut off by the majority. Imagine a legislative body taking decisions without votes or ignoring long established rules of procedure in order to deny minority groups the right to be heard. Imagine a member of this minority group daring to challenge and oppose such autocratic rulings only to have the majority further restrict his rights by denying him the opportunity to even ask questions.

These types of governments exist around the world. We know that oppressive governments sometimes use the tools of democracy to choke off reasoned debate even while spouting false words about democracy and goodwill.

This kind of situation would be condemned by all members. I only wish we were describing a third world country, but I am talking about the standing committee on human rights and what it did last night.

Royal Canadian Air Force Association

[Ivan Grose, Liberal, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that everyone from Oshawa is in the nation's capital. It makes me wonder who is minding the store.

I am proud to acknowledge the presence in the nation's capital today of members of 420 Wing, the Royal Canadian Air Force Association from Oshawa, an organization of which I am a proud member.

Some of the members here today have just returned from V-E Day ceremonies in Europe. Incidentally they tell me that our Prime Minister was the hit of the show in Holland and literally moved everyone to tears. These are the men and women of Canada whose sense of duty, dedication and love of their country made that long ago victory possible.

We in the House would do well to exhibit the same patriotism and loyalty to this country that my friends and comrades showed in their youth and in truth to this day.

I will close with an admonition to all of us that was given to the airman son by his anxious mother: "My son, fly low and slow".

Tulip Festival

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this week in Ottawa we celebrate the Canadian Tulip Festival. It commemorates our friendship with the Netherlands and the important role that Canadians played during the dark years of World War II.

This month thousands of Canadians travelled to Holland. They participated in celebrations commemorating the liberation of Holland in 1945. They were welcomed into the homes, villages and cities by appreciative Dutch families.

Liberty and freedom are taken for granted in Canada. In Holland it is sincerely appreciated. The veterans who returned were received as liberators who restored freedom for those who had lived five long years under Nazi rule.

Canadian veterans, along with the Secretary of State for Veterans, visited Canadian war cemeteries and paid their respects to the many young Canadians who lost their lives in the struggle. Only those who were in Holland for the ceremonies could truly appreciate the tremendous respect, gratitude and emotion the Dutch people have for their Canadian liberators.

Ontario Election

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario have suffered throughout the nineties. They bore the full brunt of the recession and their troubles were compounded by an inexperienced, inept, high spending provincial government.

Do members know that the NDP government in Ontario continued to try to spend its way out of the recession two years longer than any other government? It doubled the provincial debt so that Ontarians now pay 20 cents of every tax dollar for interest. Now the NDP is trying to blame the federal government for its problems. We maintained the level of provincial transfers for our first two years in office. We have given all provincial governments ample notice about changes we intend to make.

Ontario needs a new government, a government which is caring and competent. Ontario cannot afford to try another inexperienced party. We cannot afford to stay with the NDP. We must have a Liberal government in Ontario after the upcoming election.

Breast Implants

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the multinational Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy protection, effectively cutting off another avenue for Canadian women seeking compensation for faulty silicone gel breast implants.

Despite the injury caused to Canadian women and the cost to taxpayers, the federal government has never filed suit against the manufacturers of these devices and continues to allow the use of saline breast implants; another disaster waiting to happen.

The federal government must act now and respond to breast implant support groups who have urged the minister to provide core funding to help them organize, to disseminate information, to make sure that physicians are required to inform women about the risk of implants, and to develop a national protocol for the removal of faulty implants.

Canadian women want action and deserve action. The government must respond now. It must no longer accept this serious health risk to women.

Gun Control

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many times the justice minister has claimed support from frontline police officers for his firearm control bill.

I would like to draw to the justice minister's attention that times have changed. The minister must be caught in a time warp. Not only have Canadians failed to support his firearm control measures but the very frontline police officers he often mentions are strongly opposed to his bill.

The frontline officers of Saskatchewan are against the bill, as are those of Manitoba and Alberta. We all know the Yukon and Northwest Territories authorities are against the bill. The police association stated it had many concerns with the bill. The Canadian Bar Association and aboriginals state the bill is unconstitutional. And today New Brunswick jumped on the bandwagon.

We have been told many times that many in his party are against his bill. They did not bother to come around to vote last time. Now the truth has been spoken I trust we will no longer hear that the minister has full support for his Bill C-68.

National Infrastructure Program

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is about to invest $20 million in public funds to give Winnipeg a new arena, just to keep the Jets in Winnipeg. Unfortunately, Ottawa has never shown the slightest interest in getting involved to keep the Nordiques in Quebec City. Once again, the double standard rears its ugly head.

How can the Prime Minister use the Infrastructure Program to justify paying $20 million to the Winnipeg Jets, when according to our information, more than 90 per cent of that money has already been spent or committed, leaving only $6 million in the bank?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have an infrastructure program, and any decisions made under this program are made jointly by the municipalities involved and by the provincial government.

When we introduced the first Infrastructure Program, the Quebec government and Quebec City decided to build a convention centre in Quebec City, and the federal government invested $26 million. At the time, people said they might need an arena. The mayor of Quebec City, as reported in the media this morning, said no, Quebec City's priority was a convention centre.

In the case of Winnipeg and the Government of Manitoba, $15 million had not been allocated, and they asked us to allocate them for the building an infrastructure in Winnipeg, an arena.

There are several precedents in this respect. In Alberta, the government decided to invest $5 million in the arena in Edmonton and $4 million in the arena in Calgary, all federal money.

We respect provincial jurisdictions. We make the money available to the various governments. A total of $15 million comes from the Infrastructure Program. As we all know, the Pan-American Games will be held in Winnipeg two years from now, and they need certain facilities, so they want to combine the facilities for the Pan-American Games with the possibility to build an arena. So if the city and the province want a new infrastructure, they can take the money that is there. There is no new money for this program. This is money allocated to Manitoba which had not yet been distributed.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister confirm that the $20 million Ottawa will give in direct assistance to the Winnipeg Jets is well in excess of what is available under the Infrastructure Program and will impinge, as he himself said, on the budget set aside for the Pan-American

Games, although none of the disciplines at these games will require a coliseum or an arena of the kind that is going to be built, and that the money will also come from the Western Economic Diversification Office headed by his minister, the member from Winnipeg?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just made it very clear that the $15 million comes out of the money allocated to the Province of Manitoba. The province decides, as was the case in Quebec and Ontario. Ontario built a brand new convention centre; it also built a new cultural centre in Mississauga; Vancouver used all the allocated money for a new water treatment system. All these decisions were made by the provincial governments.

In the case of Manitoba, the province decided to use the money available to build a new infrastructure, a new arena, just like Edmonton and Calgary decided to invest substantial amounts in improving the arenas in Edmonton and Calgary.

There is no double standard here. There is only one standard; this money comes out of the budget. We respect the preferences of the provincial governments. In the case of Quebec City, Mayor L'Allier made it clear that he was not interested in an arena. He wanted a convention centre, and they will get their convention centre.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people remember how the Minister of Industry insisted on a business plan when the time came to invest money in MIL Davie in Quebec City. And how he insisted!

Before the government-which is broke, in any case-invests more than $20 million in public funds in the Winnipeg Jets, could the Prime Minister tell us whether his government insisted that the Winnipeg Jets submit a business plan, to ensure this money is not wasted, and that the Jets provide guarantees that they will not leave within the next three years?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, with the provincial government and the municipal government, we are investing in an infrastructure which is an arena. We are not investing any money in the hockey team, certainly not.

The private sector in Winnipeg has decided to raise funds to buy the hockey team. We do not know whether they succeeded. In any case, the Premier of Manitoba and the mayor of Winnipeg decided that the money allocated for Winnipeg and for the Province of Manitoba would be used to build a new infrastructure, an arena.

In Quebec City, they opted for a convention centre. In Vancouver, they decided to invest in a water treatment plant. We respect the priorities of the provincial governments, but we know that, if construction is going on, people are working, and that is money well spent. That is why we introduced this infrastructure program, which, by the way, has been a huge success in Canada.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if this money is not for the Winnipeg Jets but only for an arena, the Prime Minister will surely not tell us that it is for the free skating sessions on Saturday nights.

The federal government has decided to provide a direct $20 million subsidy for building this arena, for the sole purpose of allowing the city to keep the Jets franchise. This announcement came right after the Quebec Nordiques turned down the Quebec government's proposal.

How does the minister explain the federal government's sudden eagerness to help the Winnipeg Jets, even taking money from outside the infrastructure budget, the day after the Nordiques' owners rejected the Quebec government's proposal, when Ottawa never expressed its intention to assist the Nordiques?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that, with respect to the Quebec government's proposal to the Nordiques, no one asked us to invest in an arena as we are doing in Winnipeg. Even back in January, the first project we approved was a convention centre for Quebec City, in which we invested $26 million and which led to accusations by the Reform Party that we acted too quickly for the benefit of Quebec City.

Mayor L'Allier is reported in today's press as saying that Quebec City's priority is not an arena but a convention centre. And we respected the wish of Quebec City's separatist mayor. I wonder why the members of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are against our respecting the wish of Quebec City's separatist mayor.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, $5 million was taken from the Pan-American Games budget, even though Winnipeg maintained that it had all the facilities needed for these games. The situation seems to have changed overnight. The Prime Minister has just given us the reason: separatists. This always gets a rise out of the Prime Minister.

I would like the Prime Minister to admit frankly that the $20 million aid package to the Jets had been planned for a while and that his government waited for the Nordiques' owners to reject the Quebec government's proposal to make a public announcement so that it would not have to provide the same kind of assistance to the Nordiques.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have not received one letter or one phone call from anybody from Quebec in the case of the Nordiques. Never. There was no timing arranged for that.

The people of Winnipeg and the business people of Winnipeg might or might not buy the hockey team. The city of Winnipeg and the premier of Manitoba have decided to take the money allocated for infrastructure for Manitoba and put it into an arena, exactly like the city of Edmonton, exactly like the city of Calgary. The city of Vancouver decided to invest its money in a sewage treatment plant. The city of Toronto is investing in a conference centre. The city of Mississauga is investing in an arts centre.

We respect the will of the citizens of Canada. What is wrong with that? We are flexible enough to listen to all the premiers of Canada.

Indian Affairs

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal red book promised that the government would move full steam ahead on aboriginal self-government and on resolving outstanding land claims. As predicted, this has led to unrealistic expectations on the part of Indian bands, particularly in British Columbia.

Currently a huge percentage of B.C.'s land mass is claimed by natives but the provincial government says it is only willing to negotiate on 5 per cent and that self-government will not extend beyond the powers enjoyed by municipalities.

Will the minister of Indian affairs now admit that his failure to set realistic parameters for land claim negotiations and self-government is feeding these unrealistically high expectations and it is high time for him to correct these failures?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister treats this frivolously but he is headed for a disaster in aboriginal relations in the province of British Columbia.

Even his officials recognize that the federal government has raised band expectations to unmanageable levels while keeping the rest of the B.C. community in the dark. Despite memos from the deputy minister and appeals from the Assembly of First Nations, he stubbornly refuses to provide aboriginal groups and Canadians with any limits on the federal position on land claims or self-government.

I ask the minister again. Will he provide realistic guidelines for land claim negotiations and aboriginal self-government at least for the province of British Columbia?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question. The issue of how much land, which is what we are talking about, will be provided to the First Nations is primarily a provincial responsibility since most of the available land is in the name of the provinces.

The offer, or the leaked offer because I have not seen it, by the province of B.C. is a question of a quantum of land. When the aboriginal people of B.C. get the offer they will respond to it and we will respond to it. But right now we provide money, the provinces provide land and that is their provincial responsibility.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in its land claim negotiation paper the British Columbia government goes beyond land. It says that privately owned land will not be on the table. It says that aboriginal self-government will be restricted to municipal-like powers. It says that status Indians should lose provincial and federal tax exemptions once their land claims are settled.

Does the minister agree with the positions being taken by the Government of British Columbia on these issues and if not, what is the federal position?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of privately owned land, we have been consistent across this country to protect privately owned land and we try to compensate in those cases.

On the issue of taxes I find it passing strange that a province would make an offer on what is clearly our jurisdiction. I have made it clear to the province that the matter of taxation has to be solved with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and Parliament at a national level.

As far as the question of status is concerned, this is something we are always negotiating. The leader of the Reform Party must realize that status is very important to aboriginal people for very legitimate reasons.

Canadian National

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

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

In an effort to reduce the debt of Canadian National, thus making it easier to privatize, the government is apparently about to buy this company's real estate assets, including the famous

CN Tower in Toronto. These would be purchased at a price higher than their true market value, to help CN bring its debt down from $2.5 billion to $1.5 billion.

How can the Minister of Transport justify his government's decision to invest considerable public funds in buying real estate assets already paid for by Canadian taxpayers?