House of Commons Hansard #64 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to Clifford Olson who is serving a life sentence for crimes that are absolutely heinous. He is locked away in a prison cell in an obscurity that he richly deserves.
I would like to know why the hon. member provides this platform and allows himself to be used as the instrument of that man to bring attention to Clifford Olson in this House and in the public.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, let this House remember it is this government and a previous government that have set the platform for Clifford Olson and other killers and that will never be shut down.
The justice minister refers to section 745 of the Criminal Code as the faint hope clause. He tells Canadians that section 745 is necessary because killers need a glimmer of hope. What the justice minister is reluctant to say is that 80 per cent of the killers who apply for release under section 745 receive some type of early parole. So much for faint hope. Section 745 is a sure bet clause.
Each time a killer makes an application under section 745, the families of the victims are forced to relive their tragedy. I ask the minister, will he or will he not give the families of murder victims a glimmer of hope called closure? Will the justice minister scrap, abolish, repeal section 745?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any legitimate concern for the families of victims he will stop allowing himself to be used as a dupe for Clifford Olson in raising his name in this House.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, on June 26, the Minister of Natural Resources will make her decision on moving the offices of Atomic Energy of Canada from Montreal to Toronto. In addition to the terrible economic consequences this move will have on the Montreal area, many people have said that it will save the government nothing, because the Montreal office is cost effective.
How, under these circumstances, can the minister say she will save money by moving the offices of Atomic Energy Canada from Montreal to Toronto? What information is she using to make this decision?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the potential decision to which the hon. member refers is not one made by the Minister of Natural Resources. It is one made by AECL, a crown corporation in an arm's length relationship with the Government of Canada. We do not micromanage AECL.
I presume that AECL will make the best decisions it can within its budgetary constraints based on the best information it has. I am sure that information will be made public.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the government has no input, no say and nothing to do with investments like those of Atomic Energy of Canada when the consequences will be disastrous for the Montreal area? I would like to know how she would react if the problem were in Calgary, for example?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that this government is always concerned with the implications of necessary budget cuts. It is always concerned about the implications of those cuts for individuals and their jobs.
Let me reiterate that AECL has had its budget cut, its direct subsidy from the taxpayer of Canada, from $172 million to $100 million. It has to go through the same process of program review, of restructuring and downsizing, as the government and other crown corporations.
I acknowledge to the hon. member that the decisions which ultimately will be made by AECL will be difficult ones but as I say, AECL will make public the information on which those decisions are based. I have no doubt that the business case will be made.
John Cummins Reform Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, last summer Oak Bay Marine Group, a Victoria based commercial sport fishing operation, undermined the ability of the department of fisheries to manage severely depressed chinook stocks by refusing to participate in a fisheries department conservation program to protect them and by refusing to supply the department with accurate and timely catch statistics as required by the Fisheries Act.
Last week, to obtain that critical data, a search warrant was executed on Oak Bay Marine's offices. Why, after almost a year of non-compliance, have charges not been laid against Mr. Wright and the Oak Bay Marine Group?
Fred Mifflin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this matter is before the courts and he also knows that it would be very inappropriate for me to comment in any detail on this subject.
John Cummins Reform Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not before the courts and charges have not been laid. The question is why?
Bob Wright has said that he refused to provide accurate catch information to the department because if he had, the department would have shut him down.
When is the government going to show that it is putting the conservation of fish before corporate profits and remove Bob Wright from both the Pacific Salmon Commission and the steering committee of the minister's Pacific round table?
Fred Mifflin LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, acting under the authority of a search warrant, fisheries officers visited the Oak Bay Marina on June 10. The officers requested that they be provided with certain documents relating to an investigation which is currently being conducted.
The marina staff co-operated fully and voluntarily handed over the documents in question. I will say one more time that because of the status of this issue, it would be inappropriate for me to comment irrespective of what the hon. member would like us to do.
Jesse Flis Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
An international report states that the average foreign aid budget spends less than 3 per cent on basic human needs such as health and education. When eight million children die each year before they are one year old, what is Canada's foreign aid record on funding basic human needs? What are we doing to help the poorest of the poor in this world?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech we addressed very clearly as a priority the need to tackle the issue of poverty and deprivation of children around the world.
I can report to the House that in terms of our own international assistance package, 21 per cent of the budget goes directly to human needs. This compares to the 7 per cent of most other countries. We are substantially ahead of most countries in this area.
We are providing a number of important projects in Africa. We are providing education for girls and we have a number of water projects in 15 African countries. Perhaps most important, in the field of health, we have been a major contributor to the almost total reduction of iron and iodine deficiencies in children around the world and to the prevention of the diseases.
My colleague, the Minister for International Co-operation, is now working effectively to take the percentage of the budget up to 25 per cent which will be directed to basic human needs.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
For some time now, the minister has been trying to convince us that research and industry in Quebec are going to benefit greatly from her government's efforts to sell CANDU reactors abroad. But the first thing we hear is that Atomic Energy of Canada is planning to transfer its activities from Montreal to Toronto.
Will the minister admit that if AECL leaves Montreal, she will have deceived Quebecers, since the spinoffs she promised us from the sale of CANDU reactors will no longer go to Montreal, but to Toronto?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, not at all. The hon. member should know about her own private sector high tech community in Quebec and in particular in the Montreal region.
There are companies that have and will continue to benefit on the sale of more CANDU reactors. I can assure the hon. member we estimate that for the sale of every CANDU 6 reactor a minimum of $100 million worth of benefits go to the Montreal economy and over 4,000 person years of jobs are created. In fact, I have much more confidence in the private sector in Quebec than you do apparently.
Atomic Energy Of Canada LimitedOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. minister would be referring to me and I have a great deal of confidence.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, what is particularly surprising is that it is the private sector that is complaining about the possible move of AECL from Montreal to Toronto.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, and I quote: "The new priority given to the CANDU reactors should result in great benefits for Quebec".
How can the minister stick by such a statement, when we know that CANATOM, AECL's primary sub-contractor in Montreal, might move to Toronto if AECL's offices are transferred there?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, again let me assure the hon. member that a thriving, vibrant private sector as it supports the CANDU reactor sales will continue in the province of Quebec and in Montreal.
Let me share with the hon. member some of the companies that benefit: Canatom; Dominion Bridge-Sulzer; GEC Alsthom; Velan Engineering; CAE Electronics; Lefebvre Frères-
Atomic Energy Of Canada LimitedOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture wants to sell 13,000 government hopper cars to producers. Individuals from the transport department have stated that the railways under the current operating agreement have right of first refusal which means they can match any offer put on the table and the railways own the hopper cars.
The SEO proposal has failed. The producer coalition is crumbling. Will either the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or the Minister of Transport please make it crystal clear to any groups interested in buying the hopper cars that the railways clearly have the final say as to who purchases these cars?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, that is not the policy of the government. It may be the policy of the Reform Party but it is not the policy of this government.
Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister was supposed to answer the question and he said absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing.
The minister of agriculture has been encouraging producers to put forward an offer, but putting forward an offer costs money. The producers are not interested in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a bid on these cars if the railways can match any bid and then take ownership of the cars.
They deserve an answer. Does the government have a signed commitment from the railways to relinquish the right of first refusal or is this whole bidding process for ownership of the cars an illusion which gives the producer group false hope?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply in error in his facts. We have not put forward any invitation to bid to any producer group, railway, insurance company, finance company or any other company.
We are at the present time, with the assistance of CIBC-Wood Gundy in Calgary, working out possible ways of approaching the issue of disposal of the hopper cars. We have made no requests for tenders to the public. His assumption upon which his question is based that we have done so is simply a false one.