Debates of May 13th, 1996

Fisheries

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

Mr. Speaker, I notice that today the hon. member is saying 50 per cent. Last week it was 25 per cent. I am not sure what the number will be tomorrow.

I remind the hon. member and the House that the purpose of the plan to revitalize the Pacific salmon is essentially to give fishermen a choice. The choice is to exit the fishery, to stay in the fishery and continue to fish in one area or to expand investment in the fishery by buying licences from those who exit the fishery and essentially give the salmon a better chance.

It is a plan that was developed in consultation with fishermen. It is a plan that has a lot of support in British Columbia and it is a plan that will work.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who cannot get his numbers right. His rhetoric leads me to believe that he is in cahoots with B.C. Premier Clark on this issue.

The premier is prepared to give away one-half of the catch. The minister is prepared to reduce the fleet by one-half. The ratio of boats to fish will not change.

Will the minister come clean and admit that the real agenda of the government is to transfer the right to catch fish from one group to another?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member is under the impression that Mr. Clark is helping me with this plan.

I am delighted to move forward. If Mr. Clark is happy to help me with support in one area, fish habitat, because protecting fish habitat against damage caused by logging, mining, highway construction and urban development are certainly areas where I could do with some help.

I thank the hon. member for raising the subject. I look forward to any help that Premier Clark can give me on this plan.

Referendums

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, wherever he may be, wherever he may be hiding.

[The Speaker]

The question please, dear colleague.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Is the Prime Minister aware that, by jumping into bed with Guy Bertrand, he is directly in opposition to the person who was the head of the Quebec no side during the referendum?

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is in Quebec, I would like to say first of all that our participation in the case before the courts in Quebec City this week is not to support Mr. Bertrand, but to support the rule of law.

I think it is very important to emphasize that the rule of law is what gives stability to the country, Quebec included, for the people of Quebec. Democracy and the rule of law are directly linked. I think this is very important, and that is why we are involved in this case before the courts.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, where is the government headed with its strategy, a strategy which denies democracy, while at the same time going up against its former Quebec allies on the no side?

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

Mr. Speaker, they talk of democracy. A referendum can be held in order to determine the opinion of the population. That is democracy.

But it is not democratic to say, once such a consultative referendum has been held, that the Constitution as a whole, the rule of law in this country, have been removed or nullified. That is not democracy. It is antidemocratic to say such a thing, and we are before the courts in Quebec City this week simply in order to support the principle that, above all, in Canada we have the rule of law, which applies for the good of all Canadians.

Fuel Prices

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of my riding of Mississauga East and countless other Canadians are struggling to keep their businesses and households afloat while being drained by rising fuel prices.

There is a strong and growing sentiment that gasoline subsidies are unfairly inflating prices to the detriment of the consumer.

Will the Minister of Industry explain what steps the government is taking to address this longstanding grievance?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre and five other citizens of Canada filed with the director of investigations and research a request, pursuant to section 9 of the Competition Act, for an inquiry into gas pricing in Canada.

Today the director has initiated a formal inquiry, pursuant to section 10 of the act in response to the section 9 request.

The member for Ottawa Centre and other members who have raised this issue deserve credit for taking some initiative in this and for filing the appropriate request for an inquiry. The director will investigate. If he finds evidence he will act accordingly.

I point out to the House that as recently as this January he was successful in obtaining a conviction under the Competition Act and a fine of $50,000 was levied against Mr. Gas here in Ottawa for the offence of price fixing.

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is setting its nets to catch another $14 million a year by taxing boats across the country, including recreational boats. This will apply to previously untaxed vessels such as small motor boats, sailboats and even rowboats.

I am not sure if the tax will be so much an oar, so much a seat or so much a mile. Regardless, my question is about the $14 million. Is this supposed to address a safety issue? Is it merely a pain in the oar, or is this just another tax grab?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. In Ontario alone, there were four deaths involved in recreational boating this past weekend.

The idea of recreational boating fees is based on marine safety. The industry has suggested that government may want to help by making sure that those who go on the water, whether in a small boat or a large boat, are first trained in safety and have the qualifications and the training courses that are necessary to ensure that the loss of life, be it on salt water or freshwater, is kept to a minimum. We hope to be able to contribute in that area.

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

Mr. Speaker, safety is a big issue but obviously taxes are also a big issue.

In the March throne speech, the government was very clear that there would be no new taxes. Since then we have had tax increases on fishermen, tax increases on cassette decks, tax increases on retirement and now a new tax on rowboats.

The throne speech said one thing, the government is doing another. Is this broken promise another act of God or are we merely heading into uncharted waters looking for more tax revenue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that he is not in favour of more marine safety. Is he suggesting that the taxpayer should pay it?

We are using a policy which has been used before by this government, and which I am sure they have used in their budget suggestions: services that are provided to the public should not be paid for by the taxpayer but by those who use the service. That is the principle at issue here.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Last week, barely five hours after the minister was questioned about the dubious arrest of Corporal Purnelle, seven charges were laid against the latter, because he allegedly defied the orders of a superior who wanted to prevent him from giving evidence before the Somalia commission.

How does the minister justify the fact that, five hours after he stated in this House that no member of the army was or would be prevented from giving information to the commission of inquiry, seven charges were laid against this corporal, who had the courage to defy the order of his superiors and give evidence before the commission?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave the hon. member for Charlesbourg last Wednesday and the answers of my parliamentary secretary on Friday are exactly the case.

There is no incompatibility with coming forward, giving evidence to the commission and also obeying the rules and regulations of the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no incompatibility. I am surprised the hon. member is continuing to raise this question.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister and the parliamentary secretary are hiding behind the supposed military discipline, but this does not satisfy the people. I think the minister has no choice but to withdraw the charges against Corporal Purnelle.

Otherwise, the minister will be telling other military personnel that they will be court-martialled if they co-operate with the commission to shed light on events in Somalia.

Is this the message the minister wishes to send?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two messages to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. First, all of them, if they have evidence germane to the inquiry, are expected to come forward. The second is that as a member of the armed forces they are obligated to follow the rules and procedures of the National Defence Act. That is a condition of their service. There is no incompatibility between the two.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.

The Minister of National Defence instructed soldiers to bring forward any relevant evidence to the Somalia inquiry, promising there would be no reprisals. Corporal Michel Purnelle finds that hard to believe. He tried to appear before the commission but was arrested even after the commission had told military authorities it wanted to see him.

Why is the minister, contrary to his assurances, permitting his department to intimidate witnesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was expecting to get this kind of question from the hon. member for Charlesbourg, but to get it from the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, a former colonel in the armed forces, who knows full well everything that should be known about the military justice system, is to me quite disheartening.

The fact is there is a military justice system. People are obliged to follow the rules. They are also obliged to come forward to give evidence to the inquiry. There is no incompatibility here.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at this moment the military justice system is under a bit of a cloud and I think the minister should simply reassure us.

In a letter to the commission, Corporal Purnelle said that he felt vulnerable to abuse of power and was even fearful of physical violence because he had come forward. The minister must send a clear signal to his department about openness.

To prove that he will tolerate no interference with this public inquiry, will he ensure that Corporal Purnelle's future career is not adversely affected by having come forward? What will he do to ensure that military authorities do not again hinder or intimidate potential witnesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House before that no one would suffer any reprisals for coming forward to the commission. That message has been sent loud and clear.

The hon. member asked for a clear message. What could be clearer than the Minister of National Defence publicly stating in the House of Commons that all members of the armed forces have an obligation to come forward and that there will be no reprisals?

However, the minister cannot and will not interfere in the judicial process which is taking place.

Hazardous Products

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Could the minister advise the House on the department's participation in a demonstration project promoted by the International Association of Firefighters to identify hazardous materials in transit, a project code named "Operation Respond"?

Could the minister indicate if the demonstration project will be extended to a Canadian site?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We have sent two observers to the "Operation Respond" sites in the United States and they will continue to be there monitoring what is taking place. If they come across procedures or come up with suggestions that would improve our system, we would be very pleased to look into those. That is why they are there.

I would like to add that right now we do have a very good emergency response information centre, the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre, or CANUTEC, which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Concerning his last question with respect to sites in Canada, if these are proceeded with, we will look into incorporating them into the types of studies we are doing at the present time.