Debates of April 26th, 1996

Physiotherapy Week

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, April 21 to 27 is National Physiotherapy Week, marking an annual campaign sponsored by the Canadian Physiotherapy Association to increase public awareness of physiotherapy. The theme for 1996 is "All the Right Moves-Entre bonnes mains", highlighting a profession in motion.

For more than 75 years, physiotherapists have helped Canadians achieve their highest level of physical functionality. As frontline health care workers, they help patients enhance their mobility, strength and well-being. Physiotherapists will continue in this important role and will become increasingly involved in promoting good health. Physiotherapists play a key role in restoring health to Canadians in the post-operative care they provide. They also provide preventive health remedies for many Canadians.

I join Canada's 10,000 physiotherapists in reminding Canadians of the important role they play as members of the health care system in their community.

I congratulate physiotherapists for their devotion to their profession and their contribution to the establishment of a system of modern medicine in Canada.

Cancer

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

Mr. Speaker, April is cancer campaign month. During this month thousands of Canadians across the country have generously donated their time, energy and money to rid us of this terrible scourge. Last year more than $45 million was raised.

The Canadian Cancer Society spearheads this campaign. Its mission is the eradication of this disease and the enhancement of the quality of life of people who are suffering from it.

All of our lives have been touched in some way by cancer. I know we all stand shoulder to shoulder in wishing our colleague from Windsor West a speedy recovery in his battle with this terrible disease.

In 1996 it is estimated that 129,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer and 61,000 will die. For almost 60 years the generosity of Canadians has enabled important cancer research and education to occur.

I congratulate and thank all Canadians from coast to coast who have generously donated their time and energy to this worthy cause. I know that through them cancer can be beaten.

Coast Guard

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal, Vera Danyluk, Chairperson of the Montreal Urban Community, Patrice Simard, President of the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce, and Serge Ménard, ministre d'État à la métropole spoke out, on behalf of all Quebec industries dependent on marine shipping, against the government's intentions regarding new fee scales for aid to navigation.

Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans realize that he will be placing American Great Lakes ports at an advantage over Canadian and Quebec ports, since a ship taking the seaway en route to Chicago, for instance, will not be subject to the new fee scale, whereas one taking the same route but stopping at Montreal will have to bear the burden of the increased charges the minister proposes?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that marine services fees are user fees that pay for the use of public facilities which taxpayers pay for right now. He also knows that the charges are applied fairly across the country. The system was developed over a period of five months, stemming from recommendations made by the Marine Advisory Board.

With respect to being fair and equitable, 850 consultations were conducted in this period of time. I believe the standing committee itself looked at 26 industries.

I can assure the hon. member that the fees levied in Montreal are as fair as those levied in any other part of the country, including the Great Lakes area. If there is a difference in the total cost, it relates to the volume of traffic.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer I am being given is unbelievable.

What I am saying to the minister is that a ship going to Chicago, U.S.A.-it is not in this country, it is in the U.S.-will not pay. Our jobs are being exported to the U.S. Yesterday those in charge of metropolitan Montreal, speaking on its behalf, were asking what the ministers, the Liberal members for Quebec, were waiting for before criticizing this policy.

The minister speaks of integrity, equity. He is also proposing that part of the costs that ought to be borne by Newfoundland, and all of the costs paid by the northern ports, including Churchill, Manitoba, be assumed by the other regions. How then can the minister justify the fact that the user pay principle is not applied in these two cases, unless it is to favour those two regions? I would point out to you that, just by chance, one of the two is Newfoundland, the minister's own province.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the position nor will I ever be in the position of pitting one region of the country against another. I simply want to say two things to the hon. member.

First, he asked why the opposition in Quebec would not go along with the concern which he has expressed. I do not know the full details, but I believe its reasoning was that it would be prepared to look at these fees if indeed the Quebec government would look at some of the fees which it is contemplating for the little guy, the small taxpayer, for bridge tolls and that kind of thing.

Second, if the member is looking at one region against another, I will tell him one more time that the fees that are paid are based on the level of services provided. To make sure that this will work properly there are two impact studies in place which will show what is in fact happening.

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

Mr. Speaker, the regions pay for their traffic. Is that the principle? How can it be, then, that the other regions pay for part of the traffic that goes to Newfoundland? This proposition represents a precedent, and one that makes no sense. He will have no reply to that, since he knows very well that this is true.

Capt. Tremblay, the Trois-Rivières port administrator, has estimated that the coast guard could save up to $90 million if the icebreaker fleet were better managed.

Does the minister not realize that it would be wiser to declare a one-year moratorium, as three-quarters of the witnesses have asked the committee to do, and to wait for the impact studies to be over in September, rather than to impose his policy before they are ready? In the meantime, some housekeeping could be done in the coast guard, for there are savings to be made there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member in response to his concern that if he is suggesting Newfoundland is being subsidized, he

should get in touch with the premier of Newfoundland who yesterday suggested that Newfoundland was paying more than its fair share.

Everybody thinks they are paying more than their fair share. Everybody believes in user fees, but nobody wants to pay one cent. I will tell the hon. member that the taxpayer of Canada can no longer assume the cost of these kinds of services. We have to move forward.

We are moving forward with the lowest possible tariff: 10 per cent of what it costs to do this. We have to move forward at this low level. At the same time we have to reassure ourselves and those companies that are saying they are going to lose everything that paying less than 3 per cent of the port cost at the taxpayers' expense, paying less than 3 per cent of a voyage cost and paying less than 10 per cent of the cost of the services is fair and equitable. I believe it is fair and equitable, as do most people in the country.

Somalia Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question by the official opposition, the Minister of National Defence said yesterday that the military police had reopened its investigation of allegations of document falsification and destruction against the chief of staff, General Jean Boyle. New documents submitted to the commission of inquiry have rekindled serious suspicions against the chief of staff.

How can the Minister of National Defence justify the chief of staff's remaining in command of Canada's armed forces, when the military police are investigating him in a matter involving the falsification and destruction of documents?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the military police are investigating events in the division of our department concerned with documents. They are not investigating an individual.

It is usual for military police, as it is for the RCMP or any other police force in Canada, to reopen an investigation if there are new witnesses. It is standard procedure.

As regards the chief of staff, I have confidence in him. I met with him this morning. Canadian forces operations are going smoothly.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is crazy. When an enlisted man is involved, he is relieved of duty during the investigation, so is a police officer, so is a public servant. The minister is waiting and doing nothing.

What sort of credibility does the minister think our forces have with our allies, when serious allegations weigh against the chief of staff, who is being investigated by his own military police?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has heard my answers in the last couple of weeks on this issue. There is a commission of inquiry that is looking into all these matters, and the answers will be forthcoming.

With respect to the military justice system, it is a system of justice that is upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. As the chairman of the commission, Justice Létourneau, said a few weeks ago, the hearings will go on and if there is any wrongdoing, either the military or the civilian authorities will then take their responsibilities.

Goods And Services Tax

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the acting Prime Minister.

Millions of Canadians who thought the Liberal government would scrap, abolish and kill the GST are disappointed and confused. The finance minister said on Tuesday he is sorry the Liberal government broke its election promise.

Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said she had loose lips and regrets her promise to resign if the government failed to scrap the tax. But the Prime Minister, reading chapter and verse from the red book, maintains his government has honoured its commitments.

Which is it? Is the government sorry or is the government not sorry for breaking its 1993 campaign promise to kill the GST?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, in the year or two run-up to the 1993 election there were many conferences, including the Aylmer conference, developing policies for the election. Those policies were instilled into a book called "Creating Opportunity". Some words of mine made it into the book and some words did not.

However, every one of the 295 Liberals who ran in the election in 1993 ran on "Creating Opportunity", the red book. That includes page 22 in the English version and page 20 in the French version which says we would replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small business and minimizes disruption to small business and promotes federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization. That is what we did.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that response fails completely to answer the basic question troubling Canadians who place their trust in the government: can voters count on politicians to keep their word?

The Deputy Prime Minister blames her pledge to resign on loose lips. Far from it. Her comments were deliberate, calculated and repeated over and over again on the campaign trail.

Will the government keep at least one promise? Will the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton East, do the honourable thing on her word to Canadians and resign?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the previous answer, every one of us who ran for the Liberal Party ran on "Creating Opportunity", and those were the words. Never was the Canadian public better informed as to what a government would do in advance of an election.

I had in my riding alone some 2,000 copies of the red book handed out from my campaign office. We stand by what we said in the red book.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the acting Prime Minister is not speaking for two Liberal members, certainly not for the member for York South-Weston.

With the Prime Minister's promise to kill the GST the government has called into question the basic integrity of all politicians on both sides of the House. The Deputy Prime Minister's claim that the Liberal government has fulfilled the essence of its GST promise leaves Canadians to believe that campaign promises are completely worthless.

Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's contention, voters cannot take the government out of context. They counted on the Liberals to keep their word.

Will the government keep its promise to drop its scheme to spend $1 billion to hide the GST in Atlantic Canada, go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan to honour its pledge to Canadian voters and scrap the GST?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening with great interest to the hon. member strong protestation for the need for consistency because I had taken the time to look back at what the Reform Party had said about the GST.

In 1990 the Reform Party leader said "let's rip up the GST". In 1991 he said "oh, no, we cannot repeal the GST because it would affect the deficit". Then in 1992 he said "what we need to do is reduce it in stages". In 1994 in front of the finance committee the Reform Party said "let's harmonize the GST and congratulate the government for moving toward harmonization".

If there is any example of inconsistency on the position on the GST, the hon. member should be asking questions of his own leader, the leader of the Reform Party.

Lebanon

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that Israeli army shelling of southern Lebanon has finally stopped, as reports of a ceasefire between Israel and pro-Iranian Hezbollah fighters are reaching us this morning. For the first time in 16 days, it would seem that peace has been restored to the region and there is every indication that a peace agreement could be negotiated after all.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that a ceasefire agreement was indeed reached by Israel and Hezbollah fighters and, if so, could he tell this House what the terms of this agreement are?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to point out this morning how important the agreement between the parties to the conflict in southern Lebanon is. This is a preliminary agreement whereby both parties agree to put an end to their show of force. A task force will be formed to explore avenues for peace and at the same time efforts will be made to develop a plan to rebuild those areas of southern Lebanon that were affected by the fighting.

I think that all members of this House will be very pleased with the efforts made to reach this agreement.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition also rejoices at the news of a preliminary ceasefire agreement.

Now, could the minister tell us what contribution the Canadian government intends to make in support of the ongoing peace process, so that a lasting peace agreement can be implemented in this region?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, along with many other countries we did, during this past week or 10 days, add our voice to the efforts of developing a ceasefire.

We have also committed, this past week, close to $500,000 to give direct assistance to the displaced populations in Lebanon so they can do some reconstruction. We also have over 200 peacekeepers in the area. There is a consultative group that has been established under this new agreement.

We are quite prepared to participate and co-operate with any efforts in those areas. I welcome any proposals or ideas put forward by members of the Chamber, including members of the opposition, as to how Canada can play a constructive role in this very important effort toward a peaceful solution.

Copyright Act

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the "get over it" Deputy Prime Minister announced amendments to the Copyright Act, introducing a new tax on blank audio and video tapes. This measure is in direct violation to the finance minister's boastful misleading claim that in his budget this year there are no increases on personal taxes, no increases on corporate taxes and no increases on excise taxes. He bragged about no new taxes.

Now the government cannot even keep a promise for two months.

Does the Minister of Industry have special permission from the finance minister to implement this tax and how much is it?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will correct at least a few of the errors in that question.

First, the home copying charge will apply to audio tapes. Second, it is not a tax. It might be useful if the government could retain that revenue but the levy will be established by the copyright board and will be distributed on behalf of the producers, the performers and the composers who, after all, are entitled to it.

If the hon. member wishes to countenance the unauthorized copying of artistic works then perhaps he should explain his rationale for why he feels those who compose, produce and perform artistic works should have their works randomly copied, easily copied, with no compensation whatsoever for the economic value they have created.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by a response like that, that they have no compensation altogether.

The minister knows full well there is a system of royalties in place for artists and producers. Some in the industry think they even get too much. It has nothing to do with that. His definition that this is not a tax leaves a lot to be desired.

Why does the government insist on breaking election promises and now even breaking a budget promise?