Debates of May 3rd, 1996

Goods And Services Tax

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would ask the hon. member for Calgary Centre to put his question, please.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when will the finance minister stand up and admit that this billion dollar cash incentive, this billion dollar cost of adjustment has nothing to do with good policy but everything to do with political expediency?

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it has everything to do with good policy and it is good for the country.

I do not recall the hon. member suggesting that fishermen were bribed or that western grain producers were bribed. This is how we do things in this country. We are implementing a national value added harmonized tax. It is good for the Atlantic provinces and it is good for Canada.

Federal Harbours And Airports

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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

For a number of years now, the federal government has been trying to privatize several regional airports. Last December, it also announced its intention to turn over harbour management to

regional bodies. However, the Government of Quebec rightly maintains that several of these harbours and airports are presently in need of extensive repair that could result in costs to the provincial governments.

Can the Minister of Transport assure us that he will respect the opinion of the Government of Quebec in the process of privatizing federal harbours and airports?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I had some very constructive discussions with Quebec's transport minister, Mr. Brassard. We spoke about the need to exchange information with regard to the transfer of airports to municipalities, the province or private interests.

We will continue with the program, but it is my hope that in future we will be able to continue to have, in a spirit of co-operation, discussions that are productive for both parties and for these airports during the transfer period. There are, I believe, $35 million set aside to help with the transfer, that is to improve the infrastructure of these airports before they are turned over to municipalities.

What I am waiting for from the province of Quebec is a decision on its part to allow the 12 municipalities who wish to enter into discussions with us to do so. In the province of Quebec, they cannot deal directly with the federal government without Mr. Brassard's permission. I hope to have this permission within a few weeks.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec is wary of Greeks bearing gifts. We need to know the conditions and repercussions of decisions.

Does the minister intend to make the necessary repairs to federal harbours and airports before privatizing them, or to make financial compensation available in order to ensure the viability of these privatized facilities?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Of course, Mr. Speaker. We have $35 million for the airports throughout the country. I hope that that will be sufficient; we will see. The money is there, set aside for this program and for the purpose mentioned by the hon. member.

At the same time, it should be pointed out that $125 million have been earmarked for the same reasons, to help with the transfer to the private sector, to municipalities. Sometimes, for example, in ocean harbours, provincial ferries may now have a harbour under federal authority that we want to turn over to the province.

The money is there. We will see how many requests we get. I am certain that with the help of my hon. colleague, and of the Quebec transport minister, we will be able to have some very productive exchanges that will be to everyone's benefit.

Somalia Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned more about the systematic cover-up in national defence. This is the same cover-up that government lawyers wanted to keep the commission from investigating. It is the same cover-up that has seen evidence destroyed and documents hidden right under the minister's nose. It is the same cover-up the minister has been evading since day one.

The minister has been saying that the leadership crisis in his department is not his fault nor General Boyle's fault. Are we then to believe that it was an act of God?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat some of the points I have raised in the House in answering other questions over the last couple of weeks.

The commission of inquiry is an independent commission that will hear all the evidence and will get the answers the hon. member and other Canadians want. This government wants to get to the bottom of the problems surrounding the deployment to Somalia in 1993 and the commission will do that. We have to allow the commission the opportunity to do its work in an unfettered way and not raise questions every day in the House based on the previous day's testimony. That is a recipe for disaster.

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

Mr. Speaker, the problem here is leadership in the department as well as in cabinet.

After Nancy Fournier's testimony, no one can deny the fact of a cover-up. Rightly or wrongly, General Boyle is widely seen as involved. Surely he cannot continue to run the department while this crisis remains unresolved.

In light of the increasing evidence, why has the minister failed to provide the leadership his department so desperately now needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said that we owe all those people involved in this matter the courtesy of being allowed to give their views at the commission so that it is done in a very systematic, calm and rational way. I think most Canadians feel that is the appropriate way to go about it.

Contrary to the comments of the hon. member and his leader in the last few weeks, it now seems the hon. member's leader is coming to that view of justice. This morning on "Canada AM" when he was asked why he took so long in reacting to the statements by the hon. members for Athabasca and Nanaimo-Cowichan, the hon. member's leader from Calgary Southwest said: "It took us two days before reacting because we have to give these

people a hearing. We have to ask them what they really meant. If we do not do that we would be accused of being discriminatory ourselves".

I think the hon. member should reflect on his own leader's statements and in future let the commission do its work before he makes any judgments.

Guaranteed Income Supplement

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

For the second consecutive month, a large number of concerned and destitute seniors have not received their guaranteed income supplement. Last week, at the Saint-Léonard office, in Montreal, 135 seniors were turned away by overburdened officials who asked them to make an appointment even though the phone lines were always busy. Worse still, when an official could finally be reached on the phone, he said that he did not know when the situation would be rectified.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm that, not only have these seniors been deprived of their guaranteed income supplement without knowing when the problem will be resolved, but they have also been unable to obtain adequate service from his department?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister-my mistake, the member-that this situation is totally unacceptable. We have had bad experiences over the past two months with the delivery of certain programs. There have been flaws in the system which I find utterly deplorable.

You will understand that our department serves hundreds of thousands of people. These people are among the most vulnerable in our society. It is totally unacceptable to cause them concern because of this kind of problem.

I can assure my colleague that I did all that could be done, considering the technology involved which makes these things very complex, to try to prevent this type of situation from occurring again in the future. In the meantime, we took immediate action by calling these people to explain to them what the problem was and to assure them that they would receive their cheques as soon as possible.

I sincerely apologize to these people who did not get good service from my department.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the minister not to call me minister because I am afraid he will hold me responsible, with him, for the present situation.

What guarantee can the minister give the House that seniors affected by this problem will be reimbursed without delay?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member every assurance that we have already begun the process. Many of the people who have been affected by this unacceptable technical error have already received their cheques or have been contacted directly.

I give him every assurance we are taking every measure possible to make sure senior citizens who have been upset by this inappropriate kind of situation will receive the money coming to them as quickly as we can do it.

In addition, I repeat to the hon. member that we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure it does not happen again. These people have enough to worry about without having to be concerned about whether they will receive the appropriate amount they are due each month.

I share the hon. member's concerns. I want to say to Canadians who have had to put up with this glitch that it is unacceptable and we will do everything we can to make sure it does not happen again.

Supply Management

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The minister is no doubt aware that in Canada's second submission to the NAFTA panel there is reference to the fact that Canada should have been more specific on whether tariffs for supply management are a GATT or NAFTA issue.

Could the minister assure the House this admission in no way compromises our position with respect to our commitment to protect supply management?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, media coverage in the last several days clearly demonstrates how vigorously we are defending, as promised, our made in Canada supply management system before the NAFTA panel.

This defence is a truly Team Canada effort because it involves all relevant farm organizations and all provincial governments. We are all working very closely together.

Canada is fully convinced that on any plain reading of the words of the FTA and the NAFTA we in Canada have the full legal right to

do what we have done with our tariff equivalents under the WTO. The United States in our view is entirely misconstruing the negotiating history of the NAFTA and the WTO. It is now trying to obtain by the dispute settlement mechanism what it could not obtain at the bargaining table, and Canada will stand up for itself.

Fisheries

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

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

On March 29 in a press release the minister said conservation was the purpose of the B.C. fisheries buy back. As recently as two days ago the minister did a flip-flop and admitted his plan has no teeth and will not do anything to conserve salmon.

We would think that with that admission he would reconsider the plan before turning the lives of fishermen in British Columbia upside down. Will the minister admit conservation was just a cynical excuse to sell his plan?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, at the time the hon. member raises his question the minister is in the west. He has had 24 hours of extensive discussions with stakeholders in the fishery industry on the west coast. He is meeting today with people for an exhaustive study.

I thought the member's comments on the minister were perhaps imaginative but I think we would have to read the text of what the minister said. It has very little to do with what the member suggested.

It is our expectation that as a result of the minister's discussions, the plan the government has, which stresses conservation but which recognizes conservation is the key to the survival of the industry, will be fully implemented.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that on March 29 he said: "A reduction of 50 per cent of the commercial fleet in British Columbia is necessary to promote conservation of the resource. Conservation is our top priority".

Two days ago in the House he said: "The plan may not result in fewer fish caught". He admitted the plan is a complete failure even before it starts, yet his government is recklessly going ahead with it anyway.

Why is the government pursuing a plan that will destroy the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and B.C. coastal communities when the minister has admitted in the House that the plan will not work?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we are not in a game of playing with words. If we were, we would look at the words more closely.

The minister and the government are engaged in preserving an industry that was on the point of disaster in 1996. We are making emergency planning for 1996. The committee of which the hon. member is a member is hearing from key experts in the field this coming week. We are looking to long range planning as well.

The plan is not a failure. The plan is being considered in the light of the thoughtful recommendations made by everybody, the three categories of fishers, the union, the food processors, the wildlife people and the habitat people. It will be a comprehensive approach to solution of something in the best interests of the west coast.

Federal Public Servants

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

Since the Liberal government took office, federal public servants have been hard hit, despite the promises made by the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer during the election campaign. Bill C-31 now goes even further to undermine the rights of federal public servants.

Why is the minister abolishing the Public Sector Compensation Act while, at the same time, amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act so as to suspend binding arbitration?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this year, Bill C-31 provides for the resumption of collective bargaining and for possible wage increases for our employees. This was well received by our employees.

We are suspending binding arbitration, because, in the years to come, we want to be directly accountable to Parliament for wage increases granted to public servants, so that we can meet our fiscal objectives.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that, by denying access to binding arbitration in case of a deadlock at the bargaining table, he is forcing public servants to go on strike if they cannot agree with the government?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, in the years to come, the government and unions will have to take their responsibilities to Canadians, and the best way to ensure that they do so and that the government is directly account-

able to the House for its decisions is for the government to remain responsible for approving the outcome of negotiations and to be accountable for the outcome before our colleagues in this House.