Debates of May 5th, 1995

Peacekeepers

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement in response to the Bloc's question. I listened carefully and it is not adequate for me.

In my opinion the Canadian public is entitled to the information, and the democratic process is being violated by this blocking of the Access to Information Act.

If we consider the continued refusal to release information at the request of the commissioners we understand were appointed to conduct the inquiry, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain in simple terms why she believes Canadians' right to this information can be subverted in this way?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously prepared his question before he listened to my previous answer.

My previous answer was quite clear. There is a recommendation by the Judge Advocate General on the issue of information. We have not made a decision on that recommendation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Judge Advocate General is not the be all and end all of the legal process in Canada. He may be for the Department of National Defence but he is not for Canadians at large.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to rethink the answer, leaving out the Judge Advocate General and including someone else in authority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I can be more clear.

There has been a recommendation made by the Judge Advocate General. The government has not as yet made a decision about that recommendation.

We will very shortly obviously review the views of the commissioners, some of whom have concern about the possibility of tandem inquiries taking place, a la O. J. Simpson.

Canadian National Railways

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

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

Over the years, Canadians and Quebecers have invested billions of dollars to develop and maintain Canada's railway system in the past century. Now the government is getting ready to privatize Canadian National without guaranteeing Canadian ownership.

How does the Minister of Transport justify the fact that his proposed privatization of CN contains no restriction on foreign ownership and thus no guarantee that CN will remain under Canadian control?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to present a bill at the end of question period. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the hon. member's question before we table the bill.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about this bill anyway because I feel it is very important.

[An hon. member]

It has not even been tabled yet.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my second question is a supplementary that I would urge the minister to answer this time.

Does the Minister of Transport not agree that limiting to 15 per cent, under this bill, the number of CN shares that an individual or group may own does not seem to do much to protect the substantial financial contribution the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada have made over the years to CN's development? If he has no objections, I would like him to explain.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, if anybody should be embarrassed in here it is the hon. member who has betrayed a confidence of the House.

We were kind enough to provide for a lock-up to discuss legislation that would be brought before all my colleagues in the House at the same time. I thank the members of the Reform Party for their honour and integrity to respect those arrangements.

I deplore that a member who was given a privilege of this nature would abuse it in the way the member just has.

Public Service

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal.

Workers who have been declared surplus deserve the first crack at any job they can seize in the public service. Last year a regional director in the Department of Health cancelled a job competition in order to hire someone he knew personally under an employment equity program called "Options".

Surplus employees watched helplessly as their applications were ignored in favour of an employment equity application.

We have been assured the best qualified persons are allowed to compete for jobs in the public service. Are employment equity programs being used to bypass this important principle?

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

Mr. Speaker, no. Our equity programs are not there to create the type of result mentioned.

I can only reaffirm we use the merit principle in the public service as our basic principle. I will investigate the facts of the case mentioned to see if they fit with our principles.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give a few more facts. The person who was hired for the job happens to be the daughter of the regional director of the Department of Health. Not only was employment equity used to bypass the merit principle but apparently it was also used to hire a close relative.

Any program that does not demand the hiring of the best qualified is open to manipulation. The government plans to expand employment equity programs throughout the public service. The people of Canada do not want that; the public service does not want that and surplus employees certainly deserve a lot better.

Why does the government not cancel this program right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, even if the facts of the case are as indicated, and we will check on it, this would not be a reason to cancel the employment equity principle.

It is a principle that we basically believe which permits all Canadians, whatever their origin, colour or religion, to have the same treatment in the public service. It is fundamental to a well functioning government and a well functioning society. We will keep it as the basis for our public service.

Working Language In The Public Service

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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

Last week, the President of the Treasury Board refused in this House to answer a question on the working language of federal employees, preferring to talk about the services provided to the public instead. This week, a report released by the Commissioner of Official Languages shows that only 44 per cent of francophone federal employees in the Ottawa-Hull area are able to work in French most of the time, when they are not dealing with public inquiries.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister not see in the fact that only 44 per cent of francophone federal employees in the national capital region are able to work in French a bitter failure of institutional bilingualism?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, I can assure my hon. colleague that the President of the Treasury Board and the government are doing all they can to make sure that bilingualism policies are enforced.

On the specifics of her question, the President of the Treasury Board will be able to provide an answer as soon as he returns to the House.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages also confirmed that the French language is almost never used in written communications between public servants in the national capital region. I would like the parliamentary secretary to enlighten me on that as well.

How can he tolerate the fact that, in the federal capital, only one French speaking employee out of ten is allowed to write in French?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that, upon his return, the President of the Treasury Board will be able to provide an appropriate answer to the hon. member's question.

The Environment

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

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

Last week before the House committee on environment and sustainable development, Canada's Wildlife Service and various groups including the Canadian Museum of Nature, the Grand Council of Crees in Quebec, the Canadian Nature Federation, the Porcupine caribou herd management board and the Sierra Legal Defence Fund made representations detailing the impact human actions have on the lives and habitat of wildlife and many species of flora.

Can the minister indicate when her legislation to protect the endangered species of wildlife and flora will be introduced into the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

I certainly thank the endangered species coalition which has not only encouraged the federal government to introduce framework legislation but has also encouraged at least four provinces that previously did not have endangered species legislation to proceed with their own legislation.

Quebec currently has legislation. There are other provinces coming on board. We hope to have plain language legislation ready for tabling in June, followed by a formalized legislative bill in September.

Mmt

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is moving ahead with her plans to ban MMT, a gasoline additive.

The minister will not use federal environmental laws to ban the substance because she cannot. There is no independent evidence to prove MMT harms Canadians, the environment or cars in Canada. If the minister bans MMT without environmental laws she will likely find herself defending the ban under the laws governing free trade.

Considering the legal difficulties of an arbitrary ban of MMT, why is the minister still moving ahead with the ban?

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States Environmental Protection Agency banned MMT in 1977. Since that time the Ethyl Corporation has consistently tried to turn around the ban by court case after court case, which has and continues to fail.

I advise the hon. member that last week when I had the opportunity of speaking with Carol Browner, head of the EPA, she reaffirmed the U.S. commitment not to allow MMT. She decried the fact that there is only one country, Canada, that still allows MMT. We intend to change that.

Instead of being the mouthpiece for a particular industry, the hon. member should be concerned that Canadians across the country run the risk of having to pay $3,000 more for their automobiles next year if we do not get MMT out of gasoline.

We intend to do so. We intend to show the leadership the previous government did not show. Canadians will be happy with the result.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party supports curtailing toxic substances but only on the basis of reliable evidence. We do not choose sides in this matter. We just want some proof. The minister appears to be deciding for political reasons rather than science.

How can the minister support an arbitrary ban of MMT without impartial evidence and especially without the support of the Minister of Natural Resources?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that any cabinet decision to move on MMT is supported by all ministers of the government. I would further point out that if the member is looking for evidence, he can look at the evidence which was tabled before the environment department by Chrysler, Ford and GM. All of them have suggested that at the moment the failure rate for Canadian spark plugs is 17 times higher than that of the United States because we have MMT and it does not.

If this member is not interested in protecting Canadian consumers and cleaning up Canadian air, this government is, and collectively we are going to do that.

2005 World Fair

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.

For several weeks, residents of Hull and Ottawa have been waiting with baited breath for Cabinet to decide which city shall be selected to bid for the 2005 World Fair. In its report, a committee set up by the heritage minister recently recommended Calgary as the host city for this event.

How can the heritage minister explain this long delay in processing applications by Calgary and the federal capital and when will a cabinet decision finally be announced concerning the selection of one city as a potential host for Expo 2005?