Debates of Sept. 20th, 1995

Fisheries

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to please put his question.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Can the minister tell us why the fishermen of Atlantic Canada are faced with a massive tax increase because he does not have the courage to make the cuts that need to be made?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member should know that fees have not been looked at since 1981. There has been no fee increase since 1981.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

It is a tax.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

If they would listen, I will give them some statistics.

The average value of the catch from 1990 to 1993 was $320,000 for an eight-week fishery. In 1995 the same fishers averaged more than $1 million in landings in the midshore crab fishery. For someone who is making $1 million in landings, a $16,000 fee is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

It is the Reform side of the House that is always talking about user fees.

[Some hon. members]

Order.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

This is a fair fee and it is reasonable. I can assure-

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, you leave your Speaker with a dilemma. We have questions asked and answers being given and yet I find it at times, as I am sure you must, difficult to hear the answers.

I would appeal to all of you, my colleagues, to remember that we should be civil with one another and at least give the opportunity for an answer to be as complete as it can be. I would ask you to please do that in question period.

Unemployment Insurance

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Last spring, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated on several occasions that at least $1.6 billion in new UI cuts would be announced this fall.

Does the minister confirm that he has decided not to table his reform proposal until after the referendum, to hide from Quebecers the fact that they will have to absorb 40 per cent of the new cuts, or $605 million?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that for the past year we have been working very hard with a number of Canadians across the country to develop a new program of employment creation where we can have a system that will give real support, real resources to people to get back into the employment market, to get jobs, to establish a real sense of being able to meet a lot of the new changes taking place.

We are working very carefully with a number of the major stakeholders, a number of partners, a number of people who have become involved. We are still working on refining that. When that proposal is ready we will certainly be prepared to present it to Parliament. That would be very good news, not only for the people of Canada but in Quebec, because it will give them real hope about getting a job.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

That is right, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we want sovereignty. The minister talks about job creation, but there has been no net job creation in Canada for the past eight months.

Does the minister realize that, in the absence of net job creation, only these UI cuts, which push the unemployed toward social assistance, can restore the UI fund and give the appearance of reducing the deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member does not deal in the realm of facts. She knows full well that since the government has come into power we have created over 455,000 jobs, in the province of Quebec alone 120,000 full time jobs, 70 per cent of them manufacturing, which are good well paying jobs.

As a direct result of that, in the month of August there was a 13 per cent decline in the welfare rate in the province of Quebec. It shows our programs are beginning to work.

The Environment

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

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

This past summer $12 million was spent on a failed attempt to raise the Irving Whale barge off the coast of P.E.I. Officials are now saying they need to rethink the lifting of the barge because of onboard PCB contaminants.

Why did the minister go ahead with the project, knowing full well from years before that PCBs were on board?

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

Mr. Speaker, the presence of PCBs on board makes it that much more critical that the Irving Whale be lifted.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to a December 1992 study submitted by Marex International Limited to the Canadian Coast Guard, the heating fluid on board the Irving Whale was Monsanto MGS, a trade name for PCBs.

Why did the minister clearly ignore this study before embarking on such an expensive adventure thereby bringing about a court injunction? Twelve million dollars spent and it is still on the bottom of the sea.

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

Mr. Speaker, the material the member refers to is by Monsanto. In fact the company that actually owns the Irving Whale , the Irving company, knew that the PCBs were there and did not inform.

As a result of that lack of information, on July 6 I ordered a full investigation surrounding the presence of PCBs specifically cited in the Marex report but unfortunately not identified by the officials from the Department of Transport who were reviewing that study.

On July 6 I ordered a report. This week our officials will be meeting with officials from the Irving company. We intend, hopefully within the next four weeks, to have the investigation completed and proper prosecution if and when necessary.

Income Tax Act

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

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

As part of the last budget there was a requirement that as many as 400,000 small and medium sized unincorporated businesses in all of Canada be forced to change their year ends.

Knowing the commitment of the minister and the government to help small and medium sized businesses to create jobs, how has the minister come to the assistance of the business community?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Durham has just said, in order to prevent an undue deferral of income there were certain changes brought within the last budget to the Income Tax Act.

Unfortunately we discovered, as the member has just said, that this imposed an undue burden on many unincorporated small businesses across the country. As a result we have been able to bring in changes that in effect allow small businesses to have a business year end and a tax year end.

Therein does not lie the whole story. The fact is that the matter was brought to our attention by the member for Durham and a number of members on the government side of the House. Not only did they bring it to our attention, but in a very constructive and imaginative way they worked with the department to come up with a solution. I thank and congratulate those members of Parliament.

Nunavut

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The previous Conservative government passed the Nunavut Act as its act of Parliament to ensure that the Inuit desire for self-government would be finally realized.

Will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recognize the reports by the Nunavut Implementation Commission and its findings which clearly indicate Iqaluit as the best community for the capital?

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

Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers is an advisory report to the Inuit people, to the

territorial government and to the federal government. It is no more or no less.

I am leaving next Thursday for a two-day meeting with the Inuit people in Rankin Inlet where the matter will be discussed. Hopefully at some point very soon we will be able to pick a capital.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Delegation from the United Kingdom, led by Dame Jill Knight.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I would also like to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of members of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic region.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Point Of Order

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Roberval raised a point of order regarding a question asked by the hon. member for Vaudreuil.

Today, I would like to read you a few comments Beauchesne made on this subject. The question concerned a report on the cost of separation prepared for the Government of Quebec.

As I said, the hon. member for Vaudreuil directed his question at the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and this question concerned a report prepared for the Government of Quebec on the cost to the province of separating from our confederation. In my opinion, the question is in order as it concerns the obligations and duties of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I am quoting from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , Sixth Edition. Paragraph 410(16) reads:

Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current portfolios.

This question was asked of the minister concerning a matter that clearly falls within his jurisdiction.

He is responsible for the national unity office, and this report prepared for the Government of Quebec directly concerns his work in this office. Therefore, I think that the question is in order and that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Roberval is not relevant.