Debates of March 19th, 1996

Government Of Newfoundlandand Labrador

[Bonnie Hickey, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the new Liberal cabinet of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Keeping his election promises, Premier Brian Tobin has appointed four of the six elected Liberal women MHAs to his cabinet team, more than any previous administration .

Assisting Premier Tobin to create jobs and economic growth are Judy Foote, Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, Julie Bettney, Minister of Works Services and Transportation, Sandra Kelly, Minister for Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and Joan-Marie Alyward, Minister for Social Services.

Given their strong backgrounds in community and economic affairs in the province, they will bring a fresh new drive to the cabinet table and serve as great role models for all women of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My congratulations to Premier Tobin and these four dynamic women who are helping to lead the charge of increasing the number of women holding public office in Newfoundland and Labrador.

French Language

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the next few days, thousands of stakeholders, thinkers, scientists, and researchers from across the world will be making comments and recommendations on the health of la francophonie internationally.

The French language is one of the most beautiful there is. It is all nuances, subtleties and finesse. It is one of the preferred vehicles for those who have chosen to express themselves through various art forms.

On this Semaine internationale de la Francophonie, let us say again how proud we are to live in a country where French is one of the official languages.

Bosnia

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the implementation force in Bosnia is saving lives and our troops are doing an exceptional job.

However, Bosnia is unstable, its federation held together tenuously and artificially. The war has sown the seeds of ethnic hatred for generations to come. I warn the House of the following.

First, Bosnia will fracture into two or three pieces. We must be attuned to this to ensure the break-up occurs at the negotiating table and not at the end of an assault rifle.

Second, reconstruction of the economy is imperative for peace.

Third, we have to put increased responsibility on the European Union and its members.

If we do not do this Bosnia will descend into a cauldron of bloody warfare and like the many civilians who died before, thousands will die in the future. It is up to us to beware of this and prevent this tragedy.

Manpower Training

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development, in response to his Quebec counterpart, Louise Harel, confirmed the federal government's intention to maintain a presence in the area of manpower, thus maintaining costly and ineffective overlap and duplication, contrary to the consensus so often expressed in Quebec.

Does the Prime Minister confirm that his Minister of Human Resources Development's position formally contradicts his referendum commitment, reiterated in the throne speech, to withdraw from job training?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the government's intention to withdraw from manpower training, but managing the UI fund comes under the responsibility of the federal government. As confirmed in the Canadian Constitution, we intend to leave manpower training to the provincial government and to pay for those who will receive this training without imposing, as Mrs. Harel herself admitted yesterday, any conditions with respect to the training itself.

The provincial government itself will decide the kind of training to be provided. We will pay for federal clients who receive training services, which are in fact and will clearly become the responsibility of the provincial government.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Prime Minister realizes that his government is imposing, once again, negotiating terms on Quebec that can only lead to failure, since he is offering to withdraw from manpower training provided that Quebec signs an agreement confirming the federal government's role in the area of manpower and job training, which is totally unacceptable to Quebec. And the Prime Minister knows it.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just made a clear statement. We want to withdraw from manpower training and to transfer the funds needed to pay for training services that the provincial government will provide to unemployed people receiving UI benefits from the federal government. That is clear.

The federal government, however, is responsible for managing the UI fund. We pay UI benefits to unemployed Quebecers and we want to remain in charge because, as far as employment insurance is concerned, we are the ones who collect contributions from employers and employees across Canada and redistribute the money in all regions of Canada among those who are unfortunately without jobs.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after so many negative experiences, how can the Prime Minister fail to understand that it is precisely because of this tendency to stall and delay the federal government's withdrawal from manpower training that it cannot come to an agreement with the Quebec government, because the federal government is never able to make up its mind when it should?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Our mind is more than made up. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: We want to withdraw from manpower training. That is clear.

If they are talking about manpower training, we will indeed withdraw. But they want the whole UI sector, which is the responsibility of the federal government. We will abide by the Constitution and continue to manage the UI fund.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Because of the consensus reached in the Quebec national assembly and among all stakeholders, the Government of Quebec is requesting the unconditional transfer of all budgets allocated to active manpower measures.

Will the minister admit that all he has offered so far is to formalize the transfer of programs that the Government of Quebec is already administering, namely the institutional training program, which is a far cry from what was requested by the consensus his predecessor claimed to respect?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the letter we sent yesterday to the Government of Quebec will serve as a basis for the negotiations both parties will undertake in good faith. In fact, we will hold talks with all the provinces, because this is an approach that will be made available to all the provinces, not just Quebec.

In light of Quebec's suggestion that the basis and terms of negotiation be laid, of the ministerial document received from the other provinces, which also showed an open mind, and of Part II of the employment insurance legislation currently before Parliament, we should have enough principles, bases and parameters to be able to find a way to transfer responsibility for manpower training to those provinces that want it.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at a time when all Quebec decision makers are meeting, the minister, in his written response yesterday, did not seem to understand that a clear signal was given on October 30.

I ask the minister to admit that this is a pressing matter and, as the Liberal minister, Mr. Bourbeau, himself said, that the issue of manpower in Quebec is a manifestation of the confusion, red tape and inefficiency that come from having two systems. I urge the minister not only to respect the Quebec consensus but also to abide by it during negotiations.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we will certainly do our best to respect the interests of all concerned during these negotiations. I have no reason to believe that we will not have, between officials of both governments, discussions that will be profitable to both levels of government.

However, I must point out to my hon. friend that all the other provinces of Canada also attach a great deal of importance to this whole issue. That is why our offer to withdraw from the area of manpower training applies to all the provinces. I hope that an agreement can be reached as soon as possible with Quebec as with the other provinces.

Mining Industry

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest obstacles facing mining projects in this country is the mountain of government red tape. Regulation is often split between two jurisdictions. Development is often delayed and often environmental community concerns fall through the cracks. This government has talked about the need to consult and reduce red tape for projects such as Voisey Bay in Labrador but we have seen very little in the way of action.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Has his government discussed a simple one window regulatory system for Voisey Bay with the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador? If he has, can he tell us what progress has been made?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are very enthusiastic to see that the hon. member has discovered eastern Canada lately. I speak regularly with the premier of Newfoundland, whom we all know very well, and so far we have always agreed.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister has had these frequent and in depth discussions, then perhaps he can answer a simple question. Have he and the premier of Newfoundland agreed to establish a simple one window regulatory framework for Voisey Bay?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I answer the hon. member's question. The premier of the province of Newfoundland has been having ongoing discussions with the Government of Canada, with the Prime Minister, with colleagues such as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Minister of the Environment, and myself.

We are working on a process with the province of Newfoundland, with aboriginal communities, with the industry involved to ensure that we have an efficient and timely regulatory approval process for Voisey Bay.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa's track record for facilitating big resource projects and for reconciling conflicting interests up front is hardly impressive. While the government dithers, the people of Labrador will be left

in limbo. Preliminary development is proceeding at Voisey Bay but so far with no real input or participation from the people of Nain or from the Inuit.

What steps is the government taking to ensure that Labradorians who have been shafted before on resource projects will receive their fair share of the economic benefits, spinoffs and jobs from the development of their natural resources?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the minister I would like to say to the hon. member that indeed there has been much discussion between the different ministers and the government to make sure that everybody is involved and it is working very well.

There are far fewer problems among the ministers and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador than we see in the Reform Party.

Canadian Coast Guard

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

For the third time in eight weeks, the Canadian Coast Guard commissioner announced new changes to the service fees relating to navigational aids. Benoît Massicotte, the director of the Association des armateurs du Saint-Laurent, rightly pointed out that each successive review costs Quebec a little more.

Will the minister recognize that the new proposal made by the Coast Guard directly hits ports in the St. Lawrence by increasing the fees charged to navigate in that river?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member knows we are going through a consultation process.

We have looked at different systems to impose these marine service fees. There are many ways we could go about doing this. We are now on the second iteration, some would consider the third depending on how we go.

The hon. member would also know that we are working very closely with the marine advisory board representatives across Canada and with all stakeholders in the industry. We have one goal in mind, which is to come up with a system that is the most fair and equitable to all Canadians.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister recommended that the commissioner set up a consultation process, but he must know that people will not be content with minor changes. This is the third time that the commissioner goes back to the drawing board.

Even Mr. Thomas, the Coast Guard commissioner, admits that new impact studies must be done. How can the minister accept that a tariff which could have a disastrous effect be imposed without a proper review of its economic impact on the affected regions?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I would like to make two points.

He used the term disastrous effect. We are looking at the range of fees all across Canada in all the ports which is not more than 3 per cent of the total fees represented in the shipping business.

I share the hon. member's concern about what impact this is going to have after we have finished with the input and see what effect it will have on the industry. We are in the process of doing two impact studies. I will make them available to the member and indeed to the House.

Government Aircraft

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, waste, waste and more waste. This government seems to be committed to keeping it, not getting rid of it.

On the very day that I released my third waste report, what do I find? I find the cabinet ministers have logged 50 per cent more flying hours in the corporate jet than the year before and that DND estimates the use will increase even more this year.

Can the Prime Minister please explain the lavish use of corporate jets at taxpayers' expense?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member should check the extravagant level he mentioned. It is less than 40 per cent of what it was under the previous government.

Of course, we want to visit the country. The ministers are just using this facility to make sure they can get the message to the people. Since we have used it less than 40 per cent of what it was used in previous years, this is showing the people that we are putting these Canadian planes to good use, that we are not abusing their use.