Debates of March 15th, 1996

Indian Affairs

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

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

The minister recently claimed to have given $80 million to the Davis Inlet community. However, according to information provided by Innu leaders from Davis Inlet, the actual amount given to the community is $7 million, not $80 million as claimed by the minister. Moreover, it seems that the 35 consultation reports that the minister boasts about were paid with moneys targeted for emergencies and vocational training.

How can the minister consider Davis Inlet as a success for his government, considering that the Innu live in abject poverty and that, according to their leaders, they are still being exploited? Which version are we to believe?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start taking advice from the Bloc on Davis Inlet when they send as many members of Parliament to Davis Inlet as the Liberal Party has.

We have been there several times. We have a plan over a term of years to deal with health, to deal with housing. I have crawled under those houses myself to see what was being constructed. When the Bloc gets under a house at Davis Inlet and looks at what is being done, then I will start listening to them.

The figure is over a term of years. We are working with the very unfortunate people at Davis Inlet. We hope that this will be a success story in Canadian history where the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada works with native people. Unlike the Bloc, we work with native people, not against them.

Krever Commission

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry is an important inquiry to Canadians. Japan has had a very similar inquiry.

The new health minister in Japan, after taking on the portfolio, very quickly apologized publicly both on behalf of his government and the companies involved. In Canada the new health minister is subverting the process of Judge Krever.

The question is straightforward again to the novice health minister. Why will he not let Judge Krever speak?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is inaccurate, false and erroneous. To give credibility to that question would be giving credibility to a member who has no credibility.

Child Care

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.

Last week in his budget the Minister of Finance announced changes to the country's child care expense provisions. Would the Minister of National Revenue please explain to the House how the child care expense provisions have been modified?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of last week's budget there have been changes to the child care expense deduction.

First, the age of eligibility for children has been increased from 14 to 16, recognizing that there are parents who do work night shifts and need to have support in the home for their children. Therefore those costs should be deductible.

Second, we know there are single parents who are enrolled in full time education and who have not been able to use the deduction in the past. We have changed this process so that they will now be included. These reflect the changes in Canadian society. I believe the changes will be appreciated by Canadians.

Points Of Order

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more questions have come my way about the presence in the gallery of the 25 cadets from No. 23 Squadron, Royal Canadian Air Cadets and their officers, all from St. Catharines. Their officers are Captain Greenwood and Captain Jeffrey. I understand they are visiting Ottawa for three days on a citizenship tour.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Thank you for that timely point of order.

Government Response To Petitions

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions presented during the first session.

Committees Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.

I also have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of Standing Committees on Citizenship and Immigration, Natural Resources, and the associate membership on the Standing Committee of Finance.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record a short statement in reply to the statement by the chief government whip concerning the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs.

Members were initially informed there were three days of hearings for the subcommittee on private members' business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. These meetings were to start on Tuesday, March 12 and end on Tuesday, March 19.

Several of our members were counting on being able to present their items to the committee on March 19 and planned trips back to their ridings for most of that week. On Tuesday, March 12 our members were informed the meeting on the March 19 was cancelled and the committee wanted to report back to the House this week.

This 11th hour cancellation made it virtually impossible for a number of our members to present their items to the committee on their own behalf. Because of this change private members' business would now start on March 18 instead of March 25. This in turn created another set of last minute scheduling headaches for a number of our members.

We hope the cordial and efficient manner in which the committee functioned during the first session of the 35th Parliament will soon re-establish itself during the current session. It is our sincere hope that the unfortunate events of this week were merely a temporary aberration from the co-operative atmosphere members had become accustomed to in that subcommittee.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the point raised by the hon. whip from the Reform Party. It is of course the intention of everyone to make this subcommittee work as efficiently and appropriately as possible. I believe the committee even left empty spots to ensure members who could not be heard during the first round would have room deliberately made for them for a quick second report so that all members who have private members' items that should be made votable are made votable at the earliest opportunity.

Radioactive Waste Importation Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-236, an act to prevent the importation of radioactive waste into Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced this bill for a couple of reasons. First, the government is considering a major overhaul in dealing with the nuclear industry and radioactive waste.

Second, there have been musings by different towns, including Meadow Lake Indian Reserve, of wanting and desiring radioactive waste in their own areas as make work projects.

I do not think Canadians want to import radioactive waste into Canada. This bill would prevent that, NAFTA notwithstanding. That is what this bill is about.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-237, an act to amend the Immigration Act and Transfer of Offenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to Bill C-316, which I introduced in the House of Commons exactly one year ago, on March 15, 1995.

Pursuant to a special order of the House passed on March 4, I am requesting this bill be reinstated to the position it was in prior to the prorogation of the House. This bill would facilitate the deportation of non-citizens convicted of violent criminal offences punishable by 10 or more years imprisonment by allowing judges to issue deportation orders at the time of sentencing.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is satisfied that the bill is in the same form as Bill C-316 at the time of the prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Committees Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I move, seconded by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre today.

The first groups of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define the statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set. Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the age of consent laws. The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18 years to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I request that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Matapédia-Matane has concluded his remarks. We will now go on to the period for questions and comments.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the contract we are discussing concerns two Canadian provinces. I understand that if Quebec separates from the rest of Canada, the Churchill Falls contract will be nul and void. It will have to be renegotiated. It seems to me that that would be good for Labrador and Newfoundland.

I would like to ask the member for Matapédia-Matane to tell us his thoughts on this matter, which is of some interest to all Canadians.