Debates of March 27th, 1996

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, Patricia Grace Ducharme of Campbell River, British Columbia is dead today because police were not allowed to warn her that she was living with an extremely dangerous suspect in a murder case.

A police staff sergeant told the Vancouver Sun he was unable to warn her of the imminent danger because of the freedom of information and privacy acts.

Will the solicitor general please tell the Canadian people and the House if he feels this outdated, ridiculous law is still an effective means of looking out for the interests of the public?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to get more information about this and get back to my hon. friend.

What I would like to know is whether the acts the hon. member is referring to are federal law or provincial law. He has raised some very serious matters which deserve to be treated seriously and the first thing for me to do is to be sure of exactly what the facts are.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer does not surprise me. It is about victims' rights and we do not hear much about that from the other side.

Let me quote Chris Simmonds of CAVEAT, British Columbia: "The problem really isn't with the RCMP, it rests with the politicians in Ottawa. There should be a law on the books so that when police feel someone is dangerous they have the right to warn them. An officer could have taken her aside and warned her. At least she would have known who she was dealing with".

Does the solicitor general agree there is a need for such a law, yes or no?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very concerned about victims' rights. It is for that reason that this party brought in the gun control law that was opposed by the Reform Party.

I want to ask my hon. friend, is it not true that CAVEAT called for support of the gun control legislation while it was opposed by the Reform Party, yes or no?

Broadcasting And Telecommunications

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In its final report, the information highway advisory committee recommends the review of foreign ownership policies for broadcasting and telecommunications companies in order to promote investments and competition in Canada.

Can the Minister of Industry assure the House that he intends to recommend to cabinet that foreign ownership of parent telecommunications corporations go from 33.33 per cent to 49 per cent?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that Canada, together with other parties to the Uruguay round, is now engaged in negotiations in Geneva on the issue of trade in telecommunication services.

We have an offer on the table at the present time in Geneva which would bind our current law that permits 20 per cent foreign ownership directly and 33-1/3 per cent indirectly. Combined this comes to about 46 per cent. We are not at the present time proposing a change in that bargaining position.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, can the minister tell the House that he will follow up on the recommendation made by the information highway advisory committee to ensure that these two industries, telecommunications and broadcasting, are subject to the same foreign ownership rules?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, since we are not about to recommend changes at this point, I would remind the House that the same rules do apply for broadcasting and telecommunications.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

No, no.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It is the same thing. We are not proposing changes.

Indian Affairs

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

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

Last December the minister participated in a sacred assembly where he was asked to establish a national aboriginal day that would formally recognize aboriginal people and their contributions to society. I would like to ask the minister why he is considering such a day and if he will act on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, a national aboriginal recognition day was passed by the assembly in Quebec in 1990. It has been requested by the Assembly of First Nations and by spiritual leaders. It has been pushed by private members of the NDP, by our member from Red Sucker and two weeks ago by the executive committee of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.

These people are looking for a day of recognition, a day celebrating the aboriginal ties to the land. The challenge to the government is whether it is prepared to do it from sea to sea to sea. I am pleased to advise the House and members that the caucus, the cabinet and the government have reflected on this.

The Prime Minister will be proclaiming very shortly that there will be a national aboriginal day. It will be at the summer solstice, June 21 of each and every year. It will be a celebration of the spiritual ties of the aboriginal people, a recognition of them as our neighbours. Hopefully it will lead to a better future for all of us in Canada.

Nisga'A Land Claims

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this Parliament the Bloc Quebecois has supported every major government aboriginal initiative outside Quebec.

If the Nisga'a deal was in Quebec rather than in British Columbia, the Bloc would not support it because of the precedent established by the transfer of ownership of public roads to the Nisga'a. The memories of disputes over ownership of roads at Oka, the Mercier bridge and Akwesasne are too fresh.

Why is the minister promoting a deal in British Columbia that he would not dare promote in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, the premise is patently wrong but a comparison of what the Bloc and Reform do is interesting. The party to my far right, Reform, has opposed the Yukon legislation, the Nisga'a legislation, the Davis package, the Arctic exiles package, the B.C. treaty process.

The Reform Party has voted against every piece of aboriginal legislation brought to the House except the Norman Wells legislation that benefited an oil company. If Reform members want to compare themselves to Bloc members, if the Bloc supported one piece of legislation, Reformers would be at least tied with the Bloc. If the Bloc supported two pieces, it would be 100 per cent better than the Reform.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do comprehensive analyses more than the minister. We supported the Split Lake agreement. We supported the Pictou landing agreement.

The Nisga'a deal sets a precedent for future land claims across Canada. It gives the Nisga'a constitutional protection for preferential tax treatment forever. This ends the possibility of an equal taxation system for all Canadians.

Why has the minister broken his promise to deal with native taxation on a national basis?

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

Mr. Speaker, again the Reform proves to all members that it does not know what it is talking about. If it does know what it is talking about, it is giving the wrong information to the House.

The Nisga'a deal proclaims that in the 12 years, after we help them, the Nisga'a will be paying taxes like every other Canadian. They are under the Criminal Code. They will be under the charter of rights.

This party purports to have some spiritualism. Let me read something:

The mainline churches support these negotiation processes in principle because we have been trying for over 30 years to face our own role in this sad history-We either get on with it as immigrant people, or face our First Nation neighbours in the streets and at the barricades-John Siebert, program officer, human rights and aboriginal justice, United Church of Canada.

Quebec City Bridge

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Yesterday, the coalition to save the Quebec City bridge sent all members of the House of Commons pieces of the bridge as well as a photograph showing how dilapidated it is. According to a study done for CN, restoration work must be undertaken as soon as possible to prevent irreversible damage. The Quebec government and CN recently said they wanted to do their part in saving this heritage property, a world-famous masterpiece of civil engineering.

Does the minister admit that the federal government is the only stakeholder that still refuses, unlike CN and the Quebec government, to do its part in restoring the Quebec City bridge?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is fully aware of how important the Quebec City bridge is. The hon. member should know that the Quebec City bridge was transferred to CN in 1993, which means that the federal government no longer has any economic or financial interest in it.

CN wants to continue maintaining the bridge and will do so, but it also wants to come to an agreement with the Quebec government regarding the repairs to be done within a few years.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Transport will finally understand how important this issue is when the bridge starts crumbling into pieces tomorrow.

After recognizing the Quebec City bridge as a national historic site, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Minister of Transport admit that, unless the government makes an immediate commitment, this recognition remains an empty shell while the Quebec City bridge continues to deteriorate?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, a $700,000 consultant study was done by the firm Modjesky and Masters which was one of the firms that was consulted when the original bridge was built many years ago. The

study confirmed that the bridge can be maintained and will be as long as maintenance is constant. CN plans to spend approximately $1.5 million to $2 million this summer in repairs to the bridge.

CN is prepared to enter into an agreement with the province of Quebec for a more complete restoration of the bridge in the years ahead. All it is waiting for is a decision by the Quebec department of transport which has the responsibility for this bridge.

May I repeat to the hon. member that this bridge was not built by Canadian National. It was built by the Intercolonial Railway Company. This was a company picked up by CN as it acquired certain bankrupt companies. The federal government had responsibility for it for many years, but as of 1993 its financial responsibility for this bridge ceased.

Goods And Services Tax

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister ran for the Liberal leadership, he stated that harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes would make it almost impossible to get rid of the GST down the road. Now he is pushing extremely hard to harmonize the GST with the provinces.

Does the minister now believe that the GST should become a permanent fixture in the Canadian taxation system?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, no. There were a number of times in opposition and previous times in my life when I certainly criticized the GST. In fact, I would criticize the GST today. There are a number of major problems with it. In fact, that is why we want to bring in a replacement tax, precisely to deal with those problems.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister made a very trenchant observation when he was in opposition, that if the GST did become harmonized it could be there forever.

My question is for the finance minister. Does he believe that harmonizing the GST would make it virtually impossible to get rid of it?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first we are talking about a replacement tax that would make it better for consumers and better for small business.

Second, as with any tax, a subsequent government or this government is capable of dealing with it. There is nothing in any single tax that would so bind a government, either federal or provincial, that it could not deal with it and not deal with its own revenues.

The government is going to do what it said in the red book. It is going to do what was promised on page 22. That is what was promised Canadians. The tax system will be dealt with in a way that will allow Canadian companies to create jobs, allow them to be competitive and allow consumers to have a lower rate. In fact, we are going to do a great deal to make this economy better and better and better.

Fisheries

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

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

Most often when we talk about the Atlantic fishery we hear only of the downturn of the cod fishery. However, the shell fishery in my riding and across the Atlantic provinces is doing extremely well and is a mainstay of the economy of the fishery at this time.

Will the minister tell the House of the growth and the success of this bright sector?