Debates of March 5th, 1996

Cuba

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said, quite eloquently, how the government feels, which is that the Helms-Burton bill in the United States should not affect this country or any other country.

We should not be told that if we trade or have business with Cuba, which is perfectly lawful, that we are going to be punished. That is the message I took quite clearly to Washington yesterday. That is the message of the Prime Minister in the Caribbean supported by the leaders in the Caribbean community.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not think that such comments by the Prime Minister remove all credibility from Canada's efforts at negotiation?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

I think not, Mr. Speaker. The American senate, the American house are determined to pass this bill. The president has decided he is going to sign it. It is largely out of the unfortunate incident that occurred of the planes being shot down by the Cuban authorities. We condemned this incident and were one of the first countries to do so.

However, some discretion is being left with the president. This morning I consulted with ambassadors from a number of countries. Further I will be consulting with the business community. We

intend to follow this through. The president has some discretion with respect to this matter.

We think this bill is a dangerous precedent. We hope he will use that discretion to make sure that Canada and other third parties in this dispute are not affected by the United States' desire to get at Cuba.

The Economy

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very concerned about the deficit.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he will meet his deficit target for this year and how far into his contingency fund will he have to go to do so?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we will hit our target. There is no doubt about that.

We may do better than our targets. However it is the government's policy that if there is bad news to say it right away, if there is good news to wait until it is in the bank.

Therefore we will not be releasing a projection apart from the fact that we will probably do better than the $32.7 billion. We will not be releasing a projection or going any further in the budget tomorrow.

As far as the contingency reserve is concerned I think we should be very clear on this. It is exactly what is said. It is a contingency reserve for the unexpected. If it is not required it will not be spent. It will go directly to the bottom line and reduce the deficit.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister say they favour allowing farmers their freedom to market their wheat and barley outside the Canadian Wheat Board.

Recently a wheat board commissioned study was released claiming it cost less than five cents per bushel to run the board. Today in Edmonton the Carter study was released showing board operation costs are much higher, up to 10 times higher.

A plebiscite in Alberta and a survey in Saskatchewan show that a majority of farmers favour freedom to sell their wheat and barley abroad. With this new evidence, will the minister stay true to his promise and allow western grain farmers a direct voice through a plebiscite?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, we have noted that the Alberta government set up a committee to examine the marketing structure in the west. They produced the report today at noon. It was not a written report. It was a news conference where the committee did not give the federal government any information about what it had looked at and what it had studied.

We presently do not have written information. We only have a news conference. It is very difficult to respond at this time when we do not have the information that has been put forward.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the parliamentary secretary should place as much credence in the Alberta study as in the wheat board study.

Farmers know their business, making decisions involving thousands, indeed millions of dollars, projecting years into the future. Will the minister call the promised plebiscite and allow farmers to make their own grain marketing decisions?

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The minister has looked at this very carefully. At this time he is having round table discussions with people right across the country. He is trying to look at that problem with industry, government and all people in the area combined to come up with a reasonable suggestion. The minister is looking at this and will report back to the House when he has plans in place.

Taxation

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.

In the finance committee report on pre-budget consultations, published in January, the liberal majority recommends that the tax on gasoline be raised. For weeks now, millions of taxpayers have been writing to let us know that they are opposed to any increase in that tax.

Since 23 cents out of every dollar paid for gasoline go to the federal government, can the minister tell us if it is true he is about to pull $5.2 billion out of the pockets of road users?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member will not be surprised if I do not answer that question. He will have to wait until tomorrow.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact quite surprised that the minister will not reassure taxpayers who are very concerned about this.

Since the federal government reinvests only 4 per cent of all taxes on gasoline in the construction and maintenance of roads, will the Minister of Finance promise not to increase those taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly tempted to reply, but unfortunately, we will have to wait until tomorrow.

Interprovincial Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

In the 1960s the province of Newfoundland was refused the right to build power lines through Quebec to transfer power to New England. Newfoundland is now forced to sell its power to Quebec at 1969 prices, costing Newfoundland $800 million a year. This amounts to an interprovincial trade barrier, something the Liberal red book claims the government will eliminate.

Does the Minister of Industry believe that the people of Labrador should be able to enjoy the benefits of the free flow of trade?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that chapter 9 is being worked on dealing with energy in relation to the internal trade issue. Discussions are continuing relating to electrical power between the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the mess at Churchill Falls was created in part by the federal government. It could be fixed by the federal government because it has the constitutional authority to challenge interprovincial trade barriers.

The Reform Party is willing to support the federal government in a court challenge to ensure free trade. Will the minister tell the House and the people of Labrador whether or not she is willing to stand up for their rights and move now to fix the mess that is happening at Churchill Falls?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his support and the support of his party.

Let me reassure the hon. member. As I said before we are working in partnership with the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. We will continue to do so.

I am not going to usurp the role which is rightly that of the provinces. I have no doubt that discussions will continue and they will reach a suitable conclusion some time in the near future.

Fisheries

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that progress is being made with regard to the concerns of fishermen in the Scotia Fundy region. I want to thank the minister for moving to end the impasse.

Could the hon. minister update the House on the progress being made at the meetings which began yesterday in Nova Scotia between fishermen and DFO officials.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member and this House that a good meeting took place yesterday. Five items were discussed: the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, licence fees, allocations of quotas and the criteria to get to a core fishery.

I am pleased to report to the House that common ground was found on many items among the over 100 people who attended the meeting. The discussions are continuing today. I think it is safe to report that this common ground will help us move forward with a fishery of the future with optimism and positiveness.

Communications

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage. Over 94,000 Quebecers signed a petition asking the federal government to grant a broadcasting licence to Quebec Telephone, which would enable the company to remain competitive in the communications field. Although foreign-owned, Quebec Telephone, the corporate culture of which is francophone, is crucial to Quebec's economic development.

Does the heritage minister intend to take the necessary steps to make sure that Quebec Telephone is granted a broadcasting licence?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for taking the initiative of calling a meeting. Obviously, Quebec Telephone's wishes are similar to BC Tel's; these two companies have been competing in Canada for a long time; in 1987, they were recognized as having a certain Canadian content when they were "grandfathered" under the new telephone regulations.

We have offered the company to negotiate the acceptance of a strong presence in Canada, in Quebec, and among others, in Rimouski.

In British Columbia, B.C. Tel is a very important Canadian player. We would like to work with both parties to make sure that they are permitted to continue to work effectively in the Canadian market and at the same time we do not set the stage for the American takeover of Canadian radio diffusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that under this grandfather clause Quebec Telephone is already involved in Internet broadcasting, could the government recognize that granting a broadcasting licence to this company would only be updating its vested right, due to recent technological developments?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I told Gilles Laroche-Bloc members already discussed the issue and might be in agreement-that what is at issue is not just the expansion of two companies. Both Quebec Telephone and BC Tel are working to find a solution.

This being said, when it was decided to grant Quebec Telephone a licence, in 1987, it was to provide telephone services. Of course, when it comes to Canadian culture, television is not the same thing as telephone. The telephone is a communication tool which has no Canadian content.

As far as broadcasting is concerned, we have to make sure, not only that the Canadian content rule is respected, but also that the requirements for managing broadcasting companies are met. Last week, I met with the Union des artistes du Québec which is demanding that our broadcasting policy promote Canadian culture. I am trying to find a way to respect both Quebec Telephone presence and the Canadian content rule.

Indian Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the department of Indian affairs has been repeatedly criticized for its lack of accountability. To this department and the minister, the Canadian taxpayer is nothing more than an afterthought.

The Nisga'a deal is another example of the taxpayer being left out of the equation. The primary accountability for spending in this deal is only to the Nisga'a people.

Why is the minister failing to be accountable to the people he is supposed to be accountable to, the Canadian taxpayer?

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

Mr. Speaker, considering how many natives there are in ridings held by the Reform Party I would have thought the member would stand up and celebrate the Nisga'a deal.

The reflection of accountability comes from the discussion, the political spin and the editorial comment coming out of an area. This deal has been hailed by most of the B.C. media, by most of the Alberta media and most of the Ontario media.