Debates of March 14th, 1996

Canadian Mining Hall Of Fame

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my colleagues that Elliot Lake, Ontario in my riding of Algoma is now the home of the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame.

Recently eight more Canadians were inducted into the Hall of Fame: Edmund Horne, Noah Timmins, William Wright, Donald Hogarth, Lloyd Pigeon, Joseph Hirshhorn, Paul Penna and Robert Haullbauer. They were selected for their accomplishments in exploration, mine development, technology or management and for their contributions to mining and to Canada.

They span the history of the mining industry in our country which started in Bruce Mines, also in my riding, and which continued throughout Canada, including in Elliot Lake, once known as the world's uranium capital.

We can all take pride in the accomplishments of these eight people and other pioneers that paved the way for the development and economic success of many Canadian mining communities. They remind us that mining is important to our past and deserves our support in the future.

A special thanks to the Mining Association of Canada, to Fred Mann and to the city of Elliot Lake for their efforts in bringing the Hall of Fame to northern Ontario.

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the public hearings of the parliamentary committee that will review the UI reform project, renamed Bill C-12, are underway.

The federal government has not contributed one penny to the UI fund since 1990 and should give the money of that program back to the provinces, which are in a better position to meet the needs of their population.

Why would Ottawa not let provinces that are interested manage the program?

Workers and employers pay over $18 billion annually for insurance, in case of a period of unemployment. In the current austerity context, it is unacceptable for the federal government to directly take money from that fund to make its books look good, while systematically dismantling the program.

The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to that.

Pensions

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the following comes from a letter which appeared in the Vancouver Sun :

Dear Mr. Finance Minister,

I was delighted to learn that you are seeking input from Canadians on CPP reforms. Here are my suggestions.

CPP should start at age 55, not 67 as you have suggested, and for citizens who have worked more than 6 years prior to 1994, CPP should start immediately the citizen quits, or is fired from a job.

CPP should be fully indexed, and I would be willing to pay higher premiums for this benefit.

However, I would also like someone else to contribute $4 for every dollar I contribute to CPP.

And Mr. Minister, please be sure to arrange for my pension to accrue at twice the maximum rate legally permitted for everyone else in the country.

I realize that these requests will sound greedy and unjustified, but if they are good enough for you and your parliamentary colleagues, they're good enough for me.

Your truly,

Dr. Philip Alderman

West Vancouver

Child Labour

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, child labour is not restricted to southeast Asia. Notwithstanding our peacekeeping efforts, such practices exist in Haiti.

Recently the Toronto Star published an article on Haiti's slave children in which it recounted the physical, emotional and sexual abuse that upward of 300,000 children must face each and every day.

The problem appears at first glance insurmountable, yet groups in my constituency such as Fergus' St. Andrew's HEARTS are helping to support a school, orphanage and feed program in Cap Haitian which is diverting a small number of children from a life of misery.

I was delighted to hear that Canada is supporting a global effort by the International Labour Organization to eliminate child labour and that about $1 million a day from CIDA's budget is devoted to the programs to adjust to children's needs. I encourage the Canadian government to look to the needs of the children of Haiti.

Interprovincial Trade

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of a conference on interprovincial trade, ministers representing federal and provincial governments seemed to agree to open government procurement to Canadian businesses in general.

The Quebec minister responsible for industry and commerce, Rita Dionne-Marsolais, puts a value of $100 billion a year on government procurement. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 1.9 million jobs, 470,000 of them in Quebec, are directly related to this major market. The minister, who was obviously satisfied when she returned from the conference, thinks that, unless there are unexpected circumstances, the agreement will come into force in 1997.

We are pleased to see that the Quebec government decided to take part in this conference and is ready to sign this agreement on the easing of interprovincial trade. That proves that Quebec has everything to gain from being a part of Canada.

Nisga'A Land Claim

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a agreement in principle takes Canada on a journey down two separate paths to a country where equality of natives and non-natives no longer applies.

Bureaucrats and politicians have designed a compensation package for natives that is far too generous. Compensation should deal with loss of aboriginal interests as has already been determined by the courts and is limited to aboriginal rights to hunt, trap, fish and gather sustenance. It does not include interest in land or resources, or priority rights to engage in commercial activity.

This was all done behind closed doors. The bureaucrats have had their say, the government politicians have had theirs. Now it is time for the people of B.C. Their voices must be heard through a provincial referendum and the Nisga'a agreement should not be signed until after the provincial government receives its mandate through the upcoming provincial election.

Cuba

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. legislation to punish Cuba and those who do business with Cuba is just another example of the inequity and inconsistency of the United States in such matters.

The U.S. continues to carry out a policy to isolate and punish Cuba despite the fact that the cold war is over, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist and Cuba is in no way a military threat to the United States.

How does the U.S. justify such a policy when at the same time it is cosying up to China and Vietnam, which are both communist countries and have much worse human rights records.

The shooting down of the two U.S. planes was indeed a deplorable incident. Both sides claim to be right. Consequently, that is a matter for the International Court and not one for unilateral reprisals.

The current U.S. legislation punishes those who do not deserve it and further exacerbates the situation.

Indian Affairs

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 3, 1995, I questioned the minister of Indian affairs on negotiations with the Kanasatake band council regarding the casino project. I wanted him to inform the band council that this project falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec. The minister's opinion was, and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that this does not fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec".

On February 26, 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly indicated that Indian bands cannot operate gambling places without obtaining a permit from the province or signing an agreement with it. This time, it is not the version of a Bloc Quebecois member, it is the Supreme Court of Canada that contradicts the Indian affairs minister's statement by confirming the jurisdiction and competence of the province regarding gambling.

The minister's arrogance and lack of judgment are a true reflection of the weakness of this federalist system.

Conference Of Parliamentarians Of The Arctic Region

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the first Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region was held in Reykjavik. At the conference it was agreed to form a standing committee. Canada was invited to become a member which was accepted.

Today Canada is the host of the second Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories. Mr. Clifford Lincoln is the chair of the conference and Karen Kraft Sloan is leading the Canadian delegation. Over 100 delegates-

[The Speaker]

I remind my hon. colleague not to use our names but use our ridings or our titles. The hon. member.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over 100 delegates and observers are participating in this week's conference. They came from the circumpolar nations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and include representation from their aboriginal peoples.

The conference provides a forum for the Arctic governments to share information, exchange ideas and gain valuable insight into the problems and opportunities in the Arctic. It will serve as preparation for a minister's conference being held next week in Inuvik.

I would like to wish the members of this conference much luck in their pursuit of a cleaner, healthier world.

Dunblane, Scotland

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are simply no words to describe what happened yesterday in the quiet town of Dunblane, Scotland.

News of the killing of 16 young children and a teacher innocently going about their school activities is almost unbelievable. It tears at our hearts, makes us ask why over and over again and then leaves us with a feeling of immense horror, sadness and utter emptiness. It also gives us a great urge to reach out to that community in the hope that somehow, in some small way, we can support them in their inconsolable grief and irreplaceable loss.

To the people of Dunblane, from all Canadians, our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Science And Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has finally announced the creation of the technological fund promised over two years ago. It is about time. The government announced in the budget that $150 million will be available in 1996-97 to fund projects approved in the technology partnerships Canada program. There are some things the Minister of Industry did not say.

Will the minister acknowledge that the amount actually available to fund new projects in 1996-97 is $85 million and not $150 million, since $65 million have already been committed to another program, the DIPP, focusing on defence industry?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member saw this allegation in the Globe and Mail or whether he read a translation in another paper, but it is incorrect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could explain what is "incorrect". It would be interesting to hear what he says was "incorrect" in what I have just said. We are prepared to listen.

Will he ensure that the $150 million will go totally to funding new projects, and not to swelling figures by promising money that has already been committed by his government?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, a portion of the funds announced had already been allocated for business under the old DIPP program. It amounts to very little.

I think he will understand clearly that, under technology partnerships Canada and the projects we will support, the money committed to the business sector will not be spent for a long time. That is why businesses, particularly in Montreal, with experience in the aerospace and defence sectors, which have made use of the old DIPP program, firms such as Pratt & Whitney, Bombardier, Spar and CAE gave the new program a warm welcome.

I think both he and his colleague, who frequently asked questions on defence conversion, will be very happy with the creation of this partnership program-which is not funding, but a partnership-not only in the aerospace and defence sectors, but in the environmental technology sectors as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, the minister said that it was incorrect. Then he acknowledges it. He has again just said it is true and that it amounts to very little. Sixty-five million dollars of a total of $150 million is about 40 per cent, which means very little to them. Interesting. In addition, the auditor general recommended in his report greater transparency in the government's science and technology activities.

Will the minister acknowledge that this recommendation was swept under the carpet, since the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, which published public reports, was abolished and replaced by a single advisory board of 12 individuals appointed by the Prime Minister and reporting to the Prime Minister alone?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. The issue of the advice the government receives on science issues has been controversial.

The former government cancelled the Science Council of Canada, which produced advice and wrote reports on science. The council the honourable member refers to, NABST, also was very good at writing reports. Some would say one of the things that science policy in Canada was very good at is writing reports.

What we have proposed to do instead of focusing on writing reports is to create a very small council of the very best science minds in Canada who, instead of devoting their effort to writing reports, will be devoting their efforts to meeting with ministers on the economic development policy committee as well as providing advice directly to the Prime Minister so that those who make decisions are closely informed by the people who have the greatest stake in the outcome and can form therefore the best possible policy.

This is an approach that is not oriented to writing reports. It is oriented instead to changing behaviour and changing the practice of government. I think the test will be in whether that proves to be the case. I invite the honourable member with the rest of the science community, which I am sure will continue to make sure we

hear its opinions through all the media available, to make sure we actually do see a change in behaviour as we shape the new science policy for Canada.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. For two years now, the defence industry has been lobbying the government to create a fund aimed at defence conversion, in order to save the 10,000 jobs in that industry which are in jeopardy in Quebec. The people in charge of that new fund, which bears the name of Technology Partnerships Canada, inform us that this new program has no specific component dedicated solely to conversion.

Can the Minister tell us whether his new program, Technology Partnerships Canada, will provide the necessary support to the 30 Quebec firms in urgent need of government assistance to convert their industry?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, this is an area the member has worked very hard and constructively on for the last two years.

The way we have structured this fund will certainly not enable me to say today that any funds are dedicated to any particular companies, nor that a certain proportion of the funds is dedicated to a certain industrial sector. We are doing some very different things in structuring this fund.

For example, we will be creating a private sector advisory committee which will essentially play a role of enabling us to exercise some technology foresight in areas in which the government ought to be putting its resources. It will also provide us with a review mechanism on how the fund is being allocated among sectors; where is the greatest technology advantage for Canada.

I am sure the honourable member would agree that if we could have more money for this fund we could find some very good ways to spend it.

However, resources are tight and it is necessary to be very focused and strategic in the way resources are allocated. We will endeavour to do that. In doing so I can assure him there are two key red book commitments being fulfilled with this fund: to see to it that we do have a program for defence conversion and that we meet our requirements in order to fund environmental technology.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a program for defence conversion, let him state it clearly, for what it looks like from here is abandonment of the industries needing government assistance. I would ask him to recall that, in 1994, a financial report involving Industry Canada, the CSN, the FTQ, the City of Montreal, the Quebec department of industry and commerce, and the Montreal Urban Community assessed the figure for defence conversion at $55 million.

Can the minister commit, in keeping with what he was demanding when in Opposition, to making these sums available for defence conversion, as recommended in a study funded by his very own department? Is that what consistency is?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is also needed for the strategy. What we need is to find better ways of spending funds that are very hard to come by in the present financial climate.

I must also point out to this hon. member that in the defence sector, as he is well aware, since this government was elected virtually all funding under the DIPP fund has been earmarked for civilian applications. Second, I would remind him that it is essential for companies to make the changes necessary for access to new markets. Most companies, even in Quebec, have already done so. Even in Quebec, even in Montreal, where I spoke this morning to the Chamber of Commerce, they are prepared to find other business, in sectors outside defence, in order to receive assistance from Technology Partnerships Canada.

Krever Commission

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it took $14 million but Justice Krever believes he knows why Canada's blood system failed, why innocent Canadians died and who is responsible.

However, instead of celebrating Krever's success with the families, we are now involved with a government that wants to hold up this inquiry.

What exactly is the reason behind this ham-handed political whitewash? What is the health minister afraid of? Why will he not simply put an end to the legal action, stop the political interference and let Krever speak?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, there are adjectives to describe the question from the hon. member opposite.

[Some hon. members]

Name some.