Debates of April 30th, 1996

Quebec Bridge

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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

This year, the Quebec bridge was designated a historic landmark by the federal Department of Canadian Heritage. Yet, the Minister of Transport still refuses to share in the costs of the repair work, with CN and the Government of Quebec.

Does the minister not find it ill advised, to say the least, to grant a consortium $41.9 million, indexed annually over a period of 35 years, for a total of over $2 billion, to fund the construction of a bridge between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, which will be used by 132,000 people, while refusing to give anything to preserve the Quebec bridge, which is used by over 600,000 people?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government is well aware of the importance of the Quebec bridge, but it is the responsibility of CN, not the federal government, to maintain it.

In the case of Prince Edward Island, both the federal and provincial governments have constitutional responsibilities. There is a big difference, which explains why the federal government is involved in the funding of this venture, but not of the Quebec bridge, which is CN's responsibility.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify this double talk, since he refuses to fund repair work to the Quebec bridge on the grounds that it belongs to a private company, while granting $2 billion to a consortium, which is also a private company, to build a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the bridge to Prince Edward Island, the government has a constitutional responsibility. As for the Quebec bridge, it was transferred to CN three or four years ago, before this government took office. At the time, the federal government gave land located next to the bridge and worth some $30 million. We expected CN to continue to maintain the bridge, as it is doing.

This year, CN will spend $1.5 million on maintenance, and that level should remain the same for the next 10 or 20 years. Still, responsibility for the bridge rests with CN. If the province of Quebec, which, I believe, allocates $25,000 annually for the use of the bridge by automobiles, is interested in helping out with the maintenance costs, this will be good news.

Fisheries

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister in his wisdom has divided the B.C. small boat fleet into three geographic areas.

Just to make a living fishermen will be forced to buy a second or a third licence. That will probably cost them $13,000 a year, $13,000 in additional costs.

At a time when fish prices are depressed, the Fraser River is to be shutdown for a year and when fishermen are going broke, how does the minister dare saddle B.C. fishermen with another $13,000 a year in additional costs?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the commercial fishery in British Columbia is in a very sad state. The stocks are low. The fishermen are losing money. They are expected to lose more money this year. Something has to be done.

A plan was put together which would address the environmental sustainability of the industry and its economic viability. Essentially

it is a plan that would allow the fish to survive. It is a tough plan. It is a plan which has consequences for the people involved.

However, these tough measures are necessary. They have to be taken if the fish are to survive and if the fishermen are to survive. We will move forward with something which has been needed for the last 15 years.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, something has to be done, but increasing costs in a time of hardship is not the thing to do.

The minister knows his policy will do nothing to help small fishermen. It will force them out of business. On top of that, the policy will force fishermen to increase their catch to pay the extra costs.

The minister's plan forces fishermen out of the industry, takes away their livelihoods and on top of that puts increased pressure on salmon stocks. How can he possibly justify punishing British Columbians with such a poorly conceived plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, the plan will not punish British Columbians. The plan is tough. The plan has some consequences which will create difficulties.

Everybody agrees there is an overcapacity in the industry. Everybody agrees this has to be reduced. Everybody agrees the objectives of sustainability have to be met.

We have put forward a plan which will address this tough situation. Again, it is a tough plan to address the health of the industry.

If the hon. member has problems with the plan, I have yet to see any plan he may have devised.

Human Rights

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a member of the House has made many statements that are offensive to Canadians and many members of the House. The Reform Party whip is quoted as saying he would fire or move to the back of the shop a homosexual or a black employee who offended racist or bigoted customers and caused him to lose business.

Would the Minister of Justice please explain about human rights legislation in Canada that would protect individuals like me from discrimination in employment?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians believe in a country in which no one has to work in the back of the shop and in which no one has to ride in the back of the bus.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Canada is a country in which people need not be moved out of sight or hidden away because of their race, because of a physical disability or because of some other characteristic that has nothing to do with their worth as human beings.

Canadians believe in a country in which employers cannot fire a member of a minority group to accommodate the bigotry of their customers, but in a country in which employers speak out against such bigotry on behalf of minorities.

The very purpose of human rights legislation is to protect such principles, including the amendment we put before the House in Bill C-33. That is the importance of human rights legislation in this country.

Manpower Training

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

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

Last Friday, the minister announced a new manpower training program called Experience Canada, with $21 million in funding. Far from withdrawing from the training field, as it has committed itself to do on many occasions, it is creating new programs in this sector.

How can the Minister of Human Resources claim, on the one hand, to withdraw from trade training, while on the other hand creating Experience Canada, which falls directly in an area in which Quebec has jurisdiction: trade training?

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the young people of Canada were delighted to learn that the private sector throughout the country is prepared to contribute more than $12 million in a partnership with the Government of Canada to assist young Canadians everywhere in the country. Thus, not only will they be learning to work in a sector that is familiar and appropriate to them, but they will also have an opportunity to get to know Canada better.

Young people in all of the provinces and territories will be able to take part in this program, because the private sector has seen fit to take part along with the Government of Canada, contributing $12.7 million of the $21 million to which the hon. member refers.

In my opinion, this is once again a very fine example of how Canadians, the Government of Canada, and the private sector can all work together for the common good.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify the fact that this new program aimed at our young people can be administered by a partisan organization like the Council for Canadian Unity?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it was not in the least our intention to ask a group to administer any program known as Experience Canada, and we certainly would not have entrusted it to the Bloc Quebecois.

Goods And Services Tax

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stood up in the House yesterday and somehow had the nerve to claim she is saving taxpayers the cost of a byelection by reneging on her promise to resign for failing to scrap the GST. Unbelievable. I did not hear that kind of concern when her buddy, the Prime Minister, was-

[The Speaker]

In the preambles I give as much room as I can. I ask the hon. member to please get to his question.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, since the government could not wait to have taxpayers pay for six byelections for other Liberals, is the real reason the Deputy Prime Minister is refusing to resign today that her fat patronage job is not quite ready yet?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the other day in an answer to a question from this member, because of the unfortunate time restrictions placed on some of my answers, I was unable to complete my answer.

The member claims to belong to a populist party. The Consumers Association of Canada supports what the government has done. Does the Reform Party? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities supports what the government has done. Does the Reform Party?

The Tourism Industry Association of Canada supports what the government has done. The Canadian Health Care Association, the Canadian School Boards Association, national voluntary associations and the Canadian people support the government. Why can the Reform Party not get with it?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the finance minister go out and meet the people some time and he would find out what they really think. Ask the people at the Copps Coliseum what they thought when the Deputy Prime Minister was there the other day? They did not think too highly of it.

A quote from the Halifax Chronicle Herald : `Canada's trial attorneys can thank the Deputy Prime Minister for another made in Canada addition to their quiver, theI was a victim' defence''.

To the noble drunkenness defence we can now add "I was only running for Parliament". What a great defence.

Since her government's lack of integrity and contempt for Canadians is now exposed, since she has compromised herself and all parliamentarians with her loose lipped actions, why will the Deputy Prime Minister not restore trust in her government by keeping her word for once and resign?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member likes to cite quotations. May I just cite Mike Harris on June 14, 1994: "If I want something that works, and I will tell you this, if we had one value added tax, one base, one bureaucracy to collect it, the manufacturers and the businesses in Ontario would save over $1 billion by being able to deduct these costs that you cannot deduct today on the sales tax". Mike Harris said: "It has been one of the areas of major competitive disadvantage that Ontario manufacturers have and Ontario businesses have".

I will close by simply saying this is what Mike Harris said. He said to stop the rhetoric. He said to stop the politics. He said to stop the finger pointing and get on with harmonization. Mike Harris was right then and the government is right now.

Fisheries

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

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

As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries for meeting today with the B.C. delegation and admitting that perhaps the government had acted in haste by proposing the Mifflin plan.

When the minister goes to British Columbia tomorrow, will he consider the plan put forward by the B.C. Minister of Fisheries in terms of a new consultative process? Will he immediately stop the stacking of the licences and will he take action on rehabilitating the salmon in other fish bearing streams of British Columbia?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not asking a question, he is posturing.

I did not agree that the plan was not a good plan. I did not agree that anything was going to be done with the plan. I did listen to the sustainability group. Therefore I do not appreciate the hon. member putting words in my mouth.

In answer to his question, I listened to the sustainability group which I think had some worthy points. The group put forward about seven or eight points that are reasonable for consideration. I will be looking at them. I want the best plan possible. We have a plan now. I have to make sure that any improvements will be beneficial to the

fishermen because the fish come first and the fishermen, and the politics come last.

Government Policies

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the government's admission that in the 1993 campaign the Liberal Party of Canada under his leadership was in contempt of Canadians with regard to the GST.

Having made that admission, I would like to know now from the Prime Minister whether he would not also admit that the Liberals were in contempt toward Canadians in regard to the helicopter deal, Pearson airport, trade agreements and also jobs, and that the only red thing left from the red book are the red faces on the government side.