House of Commons Hansard #197 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mps.

Topics

Breast CancerPrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Breast CancerAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

NDP

Vic Althouse NDP Mackenzie, SK

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Transport. At the same time I advanced the thesis that since the government wished to privatize the CNR part of the railway system in the country, he should give consideration to offering that railway to the farmers of western Canada to whom the government has offered $1.6 billion as part of the Crow benefit buyout.

Since the value of the railway appears to be approximately that amount, it seemed to be a very good match. It would have saved the government a considerable amount in brokerage fees and so on. It would have left future prospects for the country much better off, given the users would be in control of at least one of the national railways and would therefore presumably operate it in a manner that permitted and encouraged the continued use and export of products over the rail lines.

I am aware the government is constrained by a report it had created internally by a subcommittee which was set up basically to respond to an offer by CPR to buy out a section of the CN track through northern Ontario.

The committee offered a solution called commercialization to which the minister referred in his response. I submit to the minister and to his department that the concept of commercialization, as proposed in the committee, is terribly out of date even though it is only six or eight months old because since that time the government has made its decision to give the payout of $1.6 billion to prairie farmers. That payout may be considerably less than what was required and what should have been made under the circumstances of the long term, in perpetuity commitment that governments made with farmers almost 10 decades ago.

However, the parameters have changed. The amount of money on the table is equivalent to the value of CNR. It would save the government a considerable amount of dollars in brokerage fees to perform the switch. Farmers who are not interested due to retirement or proximity to the other railway in owning CN shares could take them to the market and get rid of them. Perhaps other resource users such as the potash, coal, sulphur and wood industries would use the opportunity to buy shares.

A system of control to the users makes sense, given the new paradigm of globalism that has emerged with the various trade agreements under GATT, et cetera. If we are to have viable industries and viable communities in Canada, this completes the all too necessary link of control from farm to port or from woods or mine to port that is required. The commercialization option that was proposed by the subcommittee of the Liberal caucus is out of date and no longer applicable. I urge the government to

abandon it and to look at up to date solutions that will have a much better chance of long term viability.

I give the minister and his government the example of prairie grain elevators during the teens when government elevators were purchased. They were all losers. They lost money. The government decided to privatize them. The farmers took them over as a co-operative. By having control of the elevators they have subsequently turned a series of losing operations into a winning proposition and now operate two of the largest worldwide co-operative grain companies.

That same economic ability would apply in the case of the railway. CN is now a losing operation. They could turn it around and make it useful to the whole of the country.

Breast CancerAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as if my hon. colleague from Saskatchewan is talking about privatization if necessary but not necessarily privatization.

We on this side do not think that the report chaired by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River which followed nationwide consultations was out of date. We think it was quite up to date. It supported full commercialization of CN including participation by employees.

A range of factors has been considered in the process of commercializing CN, not the least of which is that the greatest possible value for taxpayer should be generated in the process.

I think all members would agree that commercializing CN must not impose restrictions on the company that would reduce its value or its competitiveness. Ideally it should be placed on a level playing field with its competitors and positioned to remain a viable force in Canadian transportation, to the benefit of our shipping community.

As the minister said, the sale of the government's equity will constitute the largest share issue in Canadian history. Through a public share offering the government, in seeking to generate the greatest value for taxpayers and to provide all Canadians with an opportunity to participate in this unique opportunity, wants to ensure a broad shareholder distribution throughout the issue.

Farmers as well as all interested Canadians, perhaps even a few people who live by the ports, will have an equal opportunity to invest in CN.

Breast CancerAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Osvaldo Nunez Bloc Bourassa, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 3, I questioned the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about the denial of visitors' visas to three Algerian actors, M'Hamed Benguettaf, Ziani-Chérif Ayad and Masrah El-Kalâa, by the Canadian embassy in Paris. They had been invited by the organizers of the Theatre Festival of the Americas, which will be held in Montreal in two weeks. Their play deals with the rise of fundamentalism in Algeria.

The minister has refused to intervene in this matter. He did so, however, in the almost identical case of Hafsa Zinaï Koudil, the Algerian filmmaker, whose application was supported by the Bloc Quebecois and by many organizations and personalities in Quebec.

One criticism I must make to the minister is that his policy and his decisions are often disjointed, inconsistent and unfair. Moreover, I find it unacceptable for immigration officials to demand Algerians provide written guarantee of their intention not to seek political asylum once inside Canada before issuing a simple visitor's visa.

I must point out that the vast majority of Algerians settle in Quebec and integrate well as a community, making a valuable contribution to Quebec society.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to Club 2/3 of Montreal, an organization for international co-operation, which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. This organization has funded many projects to assist the poor in Africa, Asia and South America.

We must thank Club 2/3 for all of its work in this area and for its decisive contribution to heightening the awareness of young Quebecers to humanitarian aid and international solidarity.

A few Algerians have obtained refugee status in Canada. But the new immigration tax that the federal government imposed on February 28 prevented some of them from obtaining permanent residence, because they could not raise the required $975. In addition, the Department of Immigration refused to lend them the money, despite the assurances of the minister that this would not happen.

In such a context, these people who have been recognized as refugees can neither become permanent residents nor bring their families over, and that is inhumane.

I invite the minister and his government to be more open and to be more sensitive to the tragedy in Algeria and to the situation of people from that country who are seeking Canada's protection and aid.

Breast CancerAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, there are times when I weep for the lack of understanding on the other side.

As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration does not have the power or the authority under the Immigration Act to overturn a visitor visa application. These were individual visitor visa applications, judged on their individual merits and on the basis of the information provided by the applicants. It is the responsibility of the government to facilitate the entry of genuine visitors to Canada.

A visa officer is required by regulation to refuse a visitor visa if he has reasonable grounds to believe the applicant will not leave Canada when the visa expires. A visa officer is bound to uphold Canadian law and to protect the interests of this country; and well my honourable friend knows this.

An applicant who is refused may make a new application and ask the visa officer to consider any new information they may wish to present. I would remind the hon. member that this is exactly what happened in the case involving the Algerian filmmaker, Ms. Koudil, who made a reapplication after she was invited to do so here in this House by both the minister and by me. Lo and behold, when the new information came forward she was admitted and went to the film festival.

Breast CancerAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)