Debates of May 15th, 1996

Coast Guard

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

Mr. Speaker, neither is true. The hon. member has to check his assumptions. I am not sure whether he is referring to the letter or the study, because some of the assumptions are different.

In the impact study the assumptions were the following. Based on 309 million tonnes, which is transshipped in Canada, there would be a fee of $60 million, with the inclusion of ice breaking services, and there would be absolutely no cap on the amount of cargo that would be charged.

The actual fee structure does not include ice breaking. It is put together at $20 million. There is a limitation on transshipment. For bulk cargoes we have a limitation of 50,000 tonnes. That is entirely different from the reference made by the author of the article who was, I believe, one of the consultants.

The assumptions are different and therefore the conclusions must be different.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could also take the time himself to reread the author's letter, which has been published, because, whatever the case may be, according to the actual study on the 20 million, the author also indicates that he is concerned about traffic being diverted from Canadian to American ports.

Now that it is clearly established that the minister cannot rely on any study, what is he waiting for to scrap his user fees, until some serious and credible impact studies are done?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps to further instruct the hon. member on the detail of these disagreements, the total volume of cargo the impact study stated as being sensitive to the fees at the $60 million level was that fees at $60 million represented 7 million tonnes, which is 2 per cent of the 309 million tonnes in Canadian water borne commerce. Even if the assumption is $60 million we are still dealing with less than 2 per cent of the total volume.

I would instruct and recommend to the hon. member that he continue to check the figures and the assumptions before we continue in this debate.

National Unity

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, procrastination seems to be the watchword for the government. It did not come up with a real strategy for the last referendum and now it is putting off developing a plan for national unity at all.

The Prime Minister promised Canadians plan A and plan B, the carrot and stick. So far we have seen a lot of the stick but the only thing vaguely related to the carrot is a national food inspection service.

My question to the Prime Minister is not too complex. Will he quit stalling and present Canadians with the details of the government's plan for national unity now?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has on her desk the speech from the throne, the document we distributed to members of Parliament. If she would just read it in English, in French if she wants, she would see our program.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I shudder to think where that document ended up-

[Some hon. members]

On the floor.

[The Speaker]

Whatever you do, do not throw it on the floor.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

You have my word on that, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister is so reluctant to let his plans be known on national unity. We are facing a crisis here and he must speak up on this. He promised quite clearly, as he just referred to, in the government's throne speech that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country.

When will the Prime Minister let Canadians have their say? Will he let them see this national unity plan? If so, will it be before or after he gets together with the premiers behind closed doors?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat we had the speech from the throne and ministers have spoken on the subject. It was debated, approved and voted on in the House of Commons.

We have a list enumerated the day before yesterday in my speech in Montreal. I repeated the list again yesterday and it is all public. I have already discussed that with the provincial governments, and they have read the speech from the throne and have commented on it.

I hope someday the Reform Party reads the speech from the throne. It would then know where we are going.

Persons With Disabilities

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week as his official response to the unanimous report of the Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Minister of Human Resources Development came out with an insipid document offering no concrete measures. After the unemployed, it is now the turn of the handicapped to feel the wrath of the minister.

Can the minister confirm that, besides paying them lip service in his report, the only concrete answer he has for advocacy groups for the handicapped is to cut their funding without warning and in an under-handed way, putting them in jeopardy?

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

Mr. Speaker, we often have the opportunity in this House to talk about jurisdiction, duplication, overlapping, responsibilities, and various levels of government with regard to individuals or activities.

In the throne speech, we clearly indicated, as a government, that in all areas of shared jurisdiction, we were going to take every possible step to ensure a sound and hopefully fruitful dialogue.

In this particular area, of course, the concerns of people affected by changes, due to either the federal or the provincial governments, are important. We are committed to keeping on talking with the provinces to make sure that people with special needs due to a handicap are well taken care of by the government responsible for their well being.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the handicapped themselves, we are talking about associations acting on their behalf. There is a slight difference.

[An hon. member]

It is the same thing.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

It is the same thing but the letter the department sent to these associations congratulates them for their work and, at the same time, warns

them that they are going to be scrapped. This is what the minister has decided.

Is the minister telling us that the federal government will no longer meet its responsibilities with regard to the handicapped in areas under its jurisdiction, offloading them onto the provinces without any compensation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued when members of the official opposition speak about jurisdiction. I often wonder whether their motivation is based on concerns for the people who are affected and who have legitimate anxieties about changes in the way government delivers service or are they just interested in compensation.

I was trying to indicate to the hon. member that if he is interested in taking care of associations and organizations, it is our objective to try to take care of the people who are affected by problems over which they have little or no control.

I believe that handicapped Canadians in every part of the country, regardless of the nature of the handicap, are concerned about how governments will come to their assistance, not necessarily the organizations that purport to represent them. Some of these organizations do very good work. Other organizations are, to say the very least, in a situation where I think we have to look closely at the level of funding we provide for them.

Our commitment is to take care of the people who need help. We will continue to discuss with those organizations that want to assist us in doing that their future and how they will be funded.

Immigration

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In my riding and in ridings across Canada are many refugees from Somalia who are held in limbo as they await the determination of their landed immigrant status. In the meantime, they are unable to go on with their lives or to live or work where they wish.

Can the minister tell me what developments there are with respect to the status of the Somali refugees?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my colleague from Etobicoke North is a difficult one, as it involves legalizing the status of people without identification papers.

The situation is quite delicate and complex, but I can also tell the House that the situation of the Somali community is rather unique as they have been living in this country for several years. They were granted refugee status under the terms of the Geneva Convention and are currently living among us.

I can assure the hon. member for Etobicoke North that we are now in contact with the Somali community. My parliamentary secretary met with the various leaders and we hope to be able, in the near future, to announce a decision that will allow community members to remain in this country.

National Unity

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing with the unity file for the last three years. Yesterday was the first time that he finally summoned up the nerve to tell Canadians that it is not okay for Quebec separatists to mock our Constitution by saying that they will decide if and when they separate.

At every step, the Prime Minister has allowed the separatists to drive the agenda. Now that he has let that happen, what is he going to do to repair the huge damage he has caused? How is he going to get control of the unity agenda?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have replied to that question four times today to members of the Reform Party.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we had a non-answer every time.

The separatists are claiming that the federal government is beating Quebecers over the head with the Constitution of Canada and disregarding any democratic vote that they might hold. Because the Prime Minister refuses to set the parameters by which the government would respect a referendum vote or the mechanics for separation, once again he is taking the jellyfish approach and playing into the hands of the separatist.

Will the Prime Minister repair this damage and lay out the terms and conditions as soon as possible.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I remember in September when we were debating that in the House of Commons, we had the pleasure of seeing members of the Reform Party applauding the Bloc Quebecois when they were arguing that 50 plus 1 meant the separation of Canada. They never sided with me when I was defending that. It was a serious question

that needed to be addressed in a serious way. I guess we will wait to see how they deal with the unity of the Reform Party.

The Environment

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

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

On page 70 of the red book, the Liberal Party promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions over the Canadian territory by 20 per cent. Yet, barely a year before the next meeting of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Canada must recognize that it will be unable to achieve this goal.

Beyond the symbolic measures he has just proposed, when will the minister finally decide to put in place a strategy that is both realistic and vigorous in order to launch the fight against greenhouse gas emissions?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. It is a very important and appropriate question.

Many of the commitments in the red book on environment and sustainable development have been realized. We are also cognizant of the international commitment that was made at Rio and at Berlin on behalf of Canada and the international community. Climate change is something that we take seriously.

A meeting is coming up some time in November involving all the ministers of the environment and energy from Canada. At that time we will receive the advice from the experts on how we are doing on those commitments.

It is also fair to say that if the targets are not met, then it is important for not only Canada but for all countries to be transparent and open. Only through that transparency will we be able to redouble and renew the commitments that the international community made at Rio, confirmed at Berlin, and that is my intention.