Debates of Nov. 19th, 1996

Constitution Act, 1867

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to thank all of the members who have participated in the debate. I appreciate it very much. I have listened carefully to their comments.

I would like to reply briefly to some of the comments. I do not know if it will do much good to argue this because people have already decided that they will not vote on it. However, to Canadians it is a very important issue. They are out there listening and they are going to make the final decision on who is right with regard to all this.

I would like to make a few comments in reply to the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. He was in error when he said that the federal government cannot override property rights because it is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to point out one area in which the government did it and I will tell the House how it did it. Again, I have been battling Bill C-68, the useless gun registration legislation which was brought down. How did the government override the rights of law-abiding gun owners to own their property? It completely devalued a lot of property by outlawing certain firearms. How did the government do that? By putting the legislation into the Criminal Code of Canada it overrode the rights of the provinces to regulate it. Otherwise this legislation would have been thrown out by the courts. So it has found a way to circumvent the rights of the provinces to regulate private property by entrenching it in the Criminal Code of Canada. I am hoping the courts will see what it has done.

Let us look at the Pearson airport deal. How did the government manage to do that? It is the same thing.

I would also like to point out to my hon. Bloc colleague that this legislation only affects the federal government. It does not interfere in matters that he was describing within the province of Quebec.

The member for Prince Albert said that they value property rights, that they are ingrained. That is false and I gave three examples of how they have been completely disregarded. When he said we do not need further protection, that was also false.

All the lawyers who have analysed it have said and have agreed that this is needed. Listen to what the bar association or the chambers of commerce and other organizations have said.

The member said there is a hierarchy of rights in the Canadian bill of rights. I explained that it has to be put in the Canadian bill of rights because it is not in the charter. He never explained why it has never been in included in the charter of rights and freedoms, a very critical omission.

The member also never answered why his government protects foreigners better than it protects Canadians. That is a very key issue which has never been addressed. He said that it may prevent socially useful legislation. What is he referring to, the Pearson airport deal, Bill C-68?

I wonder if the member agrees that it was right to completely devalue all the property. I wonder if he was listening when I explained the supermajority provision that my bill provided and that it cannot be easily overblown.

In conclusion, when we build a strong house we need a strong foundation. In order to build a strong society we have to have strong foundations. If we do not have property rights, we do not have that strong foundation. It is a very key thing. We as legislators and parliamentarians have to look at the big picture and build that type of society so people can have the protection they need to build strong foundations.

Big government can abuse its position and the citizens of Canada need protection from their own government. That is why I am saying we need property rights strengthened in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

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

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Cumberland-Colchester is a very old historic riding, a very rural riding. Five Fathers of Confederation came from that riding and many of the communities were built in coastal areas at a time when transportation was only by means of wooden boats on the coastal waterways. As a result of this long history, we have gone through a transition period where wooden boats no longer are the mode of transportation and changes in sectoral employment have varied immensely.

The unemployment rate in my riding today is 14.3 per cent at the regional level for the northern region. However, in certain sectors it probably reaches 16 per cent to 18 per cent. In my riding there are many seasonal workers.

The people in my riding, because of this long history, do not always have access to the jobs in the larger urban centres. When we designed the employment insurance bill this past year, there was a recognition that high unemployment regions such as mine would

have a difficult move through the new Employment Insurance Act, that there may be great difficulties in this transition to finding full employment without additional support mechanisms to aid in the transition period.

As a result, our government brought in some measures that would help people to excel in entrepreneurial skills. There was a self-employment fund and a transitional job fund. We were also targeting supplements to families who would need them to take them above the poverty line.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development as to how well this additional transitory assistance to families who are in need is working and if it is helping those people achieve self-sustaining income through the new Employment Insurance Act.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague's question in the short time that I have.

The new EI bill is intended to help people get back to work. There is no doubt that we have moved from a passive system to a very active system. The employment benefits are there to assist participants in obtaining employment and to help them continue with their skills development if necessary.

If we look at the employment insurance bill, under part II there are a number of new tools for people who are looking for work. These tools, when agreements are signed with the provinces in the next year, will be the cornerstone of that very active participation of governments in helping people get back to work.

As well, we are now going to a new system on January 1, 1997 which intends to put all part timers into the system. Some 500,000 people will have access to employment insurance for the first time.

As well, we put in place as the member mentioned a system of family supplements. This recognizes that there are many people at the low end of the income scale who need protection and through no fault of their own at times find it very difficult to find work. We want to protect, to better target and to assist families with children who have incomes of no more than $25,921. We also put the family supplements in place and linked them to the child tax benefit. This is a top up of regular benefit rates to not more than $413 per week.

At the same time the maximum benefit rate in 1997 for those on the family supplement will be 65 per cent of annual insurable earnings, while the recipient who falls under the normal category will collect 55 per cent of their annual insurable earnings. Eventually over the next four years, once the whole program is in place, an individual who is collecting family supplements will be able to get a maximum benefit rate of 80 per cent of their annual insurable earnings.

There is a great potential through the new EI system to help those who are at the low end of the scale. It is important as well to emphasize that this is a bill which recognizes seasonal employees. Because of the fact that we have gone from a weeks based system to an hours based system, quite frankly that particular system will help-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Châteauguay.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of November, I questioned the Minister of National Defence about his intentions regarding the major defence procurement project under which new submarines will be bought and the next batch of shipborne anti-submarine warfare helicopters will be equipped.

I was asking him more specifically whether he was prepared to drop once and for all the idea of spending several hundred million dollars on submarines whose usefulness has yet to be proven. Second, I asked if he could soon share with us his plans for defence equipment procurement. My third question was the following: Will the minister commit to having a debate in the House of Commons on his procurement plans so that the urgency and usefulness of such procurement can be publicly discussed, according to our priorities and financial capability?

In response to my questions, the Minister of National Defence indicated quite candidly that they were not ruling out anything in terms of defence procurement. I found that this was not a very substantive answer from a minister administering a $10.5 billion budget, especially after his predecessor and General Boyle had resigned, the problems encountered in Somalia and the issue raised about the lack of leadership in DND.

This government should show some good sense and announce that it has given up the idea of buying or leasing submarines, in whatever manner. Such an acquisition is certainly not a priority, given the cuts in social programs. It is even less necessary in the present international context. The same goes for shipborne helicopters. The government should forget about equipping them with anti-submarine and other sophisticated devices for which there is absolutely no need in the present world context.

Why a debate in the House? If we look back at last year, the government, without any justification, went ahead and bought new armoured vehicles by awarding a contract of over $2 billion to GM in London without going to tender. It also announced that it was

going to buy 15 new search and rescue helicopters at a cost of $600 million, without requiring any Canadian content whatsoever of those tendering for the contract.

Another bit of madness by this government was the purchase, for $23.6 million, of 1,600 new anti-tank missiles, which have apparently never been used except for training.

It will be recalled that during the election campaign the Bloc Quebecois suggested cutting the defence department's budget by 25 per cent, which would have represented a $3 billion reduction. At the time, this was considered ridiculous. But thanks to pressure brought to bear by the Bloc Quebecois in the House since 1993-94, when the budget was $12.032 billion, it will be $10.5 billion in 1996-97.

In my view, that was the reason-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member's time is up. I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of the questions the member wanted to have answered.

He will know that Canada must maintain a multi-purpose combat capable force that can operate alongside modern forces of our allies and like minded nations.

He will know as well that last November 6 the minister announced the government's plan to spend to some $500 million on six projects over the next five years. I would like to list the projects for him.

First, there is the $187 million clothe the soldier project to provide Canadian forces soldiers with 24 items of weatherproof clothing and personal equipment from combat boots and gloves to rucksacks and protective eye wear.

Second, a $13.4 million contract has been awarded for 60,000 helmets to Gallet Sécurité du Québec.

Third, the department is proceeding with a $27 million project to acquire six modern land mine detection systems.

Next, the Canadian forces will proceed with a $180 million project to equip the army with a modern command and control system that provides timely and accurate information which will allow the commanders to better plan, direct and monitor missions.

We are also moving ahead with a $145 million project to replace the turrets on our Leopard tanks.

Finally, we are moving ahead with a $15.3 million project to purchase 2,524 grenade launchers.

The Canadian forces must maintain the combat capability if they are to perform their missions effectively. These equipment purchases will help them to do so.

As for the second question, decisions regarding military equipment acquisitions are made in accordance with the guidelines provided in the 1994 defence white paper. In that vein, we will continue to function in an open and transparent way while ensuring that we balance the needs of our domestic and international security with our financial realities.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last month I asked the Minister of Health when he would introduce legislation amending the Pesticide Products Control Act. He replied that he would table it in due course.

The proposed amendments to this act have a long history. The consultations began in 1989 and culminated in 1990 with a publication of the pesticides regulatory review team's report. The report recommended modernizing the pesticide registration system in order to further enhance the protection of human health, safety and the ecosystem. This would be achieved by minimizing risks associated with pesticides while still allowing the controlled use of pest control products. It is worth noting that health, environment, agriculture and the chemical industry representatives unanimously supported the report's recommendations.

In 1994 the government began to implement the recommendations put forward by this review team. First, the government transferred the responsibility for the Pest Control Products Act from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to the Department of Health.

Then a Pest Management Regulatory Agency was created within the health department. This agency is charged with administering pesticide regulation as well as other pesticide related methods. The agency contains a pesticide alternatives office for advising on the availability of possible alternatives during the pesticide registration process.

Eight years after the start of the consultation process, the 1969 Pest Products Control Act is still waiting to be amended. Our dependence on pesticides in agriculture, urban settings, forestry, aquaculture, you name it, is still considerable. Such dependence can negatively affect human health. It can lead to water pollution and damage to the ecosystem.

It is now most desirable that the government move quickly with amendments that would accelerate the reduction of this dependence on toxic substances. Therefore, eight years later speed is of the essence and new legislation is due within the life of this Parliament.

Again tonight I ask the minister through his parliamentary secretary, when will the legislation to amend the 1969 Pest Control Products Act be introduced in the House?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to further respond to the question posed to the Minister of Health by the hon. member for Davenport on October 24 which has repeated again this evening.

As my hon. colleague knows, the reform of the pest management regulatory system was a campaign promise of the government. In February 1995 the government announced the creation of a new agency, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

This new agency is mandated to protect the health of Canadians, their environment, and at the same time to provide the necessary pest management tools needed by farmers and other users. The agency has steadily made progress in implementing these reforms. Let me cite some examples. International harmonizations have been put in place to reduce costs to manufacturers and to save time. Operations have been streamlined. The agency has spearheaded federal-provincial working groups to find creative solutions to persistent pest problems.

As to the other question, the minister intends to introduce legislation during this mandate to provide the statutory basis for the reformed system. This step will usher in the final chapter of the reform process. The new legislation will modernize, clarify and strengthen the law and the regulation of pesticides, and it will provide the basis for a system in which we can all have confidence.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.48 p.m.)