Debates of Sept. 26th, 1996

Revenue Canada

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to telephone access to my department. It is of concern for us. All members have either anecdotal evidence or personal experience about the difficulties of getting through on the phones.

I would like to point out that one week in July last, we received two million phone calls. It would have taken 4,000 agents to respond so hiring more people does not make sense in this case.

What we are doing, however, is looking at automation. We have had pilot projects in place using automated inquiry systems. They will now be spread nationally and our anticipated implementation date is over the course of 1996. With that program in place, it is my expectation that this issue of access to the department will be relieved.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that, according to the Chief Electoral Officer's report, large corporations make generous contributions to the Liberal Party's coffers.

Can the minister tell us if there is a link between that fact and the fact that Revenue Canada has become a provider of favours and dispensations to the rich and to the big companies?

[The Speaker]

If I understood the question correctly, it concerns the Liberal Party. If the minister wants to answer, I will allow it. If not, it will be disallowed.

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This week in a historic event, Canada and 79 other nations signed the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the United Nations.

Unfortunately, some of the nuclear threshold states, including India, have stated that they would not sign. Could the minister say what steps Canada is taking to bring India and these other countries on side and to ensure that this important treaty comes into force as soon as possible?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Co-operation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to recognize the excellent work done by

the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who has been an advocate of international disarmament for many years.

In fact, just this week, Canada became one of the first countries to sign the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. With this treaty, a long-standing objective of our foreign policy has finally been achieved. Canada will continue to play a leading role in implementing the treaty as soon as possible. A binding international standard banning all tests is already in place under the treaty. This standard will provide strong political and moral leverage in the coming years, leverage that will also be brought to bear on non-treaty countries.

Telecommunications

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, outside the House the heritage minister clearly and specifically stated that neither she nor her department lobbied Liberal backbenchers to defeat the bill on banning negative option billing by the cable companies. However, I have the minister's memo in hand which specifically endorses negative option billing and encourages Liberal members to vote against the negative option ban.

Further, I have a document on the minister's letterhead which specifically states that the members should vote no, government position, nay.

With this evidence in hand, how can the minister explain the discrepancy between what she was saying outside the House and the written evidence?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I said last week, I said this week and I will say it again next week that the Liberal government opposes negative option billing. We opposed it last year. We oppose it this year and we will oppose it next year.

The chairman of the CRTC, in assigning the new specialty licences, has also gone on record as opposing negative option billing. Therefore, the issue has been dealt with.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not since the minister's broken GST promise has there ever been as loud a public outcry as there was against against negative option billing on the part of ordinary Canadians. It is clear, on the basis of this documentation, to anyone that the minister and her department are working hand in hand with the cable industry.

How can she deny that her government position was opposed to the negative option bill when I read here: "Government position, no?"

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right, the government was opposed to the negative option billing.

Lobster Fishery

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

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

More than three weeks ago, Restigouche Micmacs started fishing lobster illegally, out of season. On Monday, after tolerating the situation for more than three weeks, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to issue the Micmacs a communal fishing licence they never asked for, aggrieving local fishermen.

In light of the fact that the Micmacs have the clearly stated their intention of developing a commercial lobster fishery and do not recognize the authority of Fisheries and Oceans in that area, how does the minister justify issuing this permit?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Listuguj First Nation, in claiming historic rights, as was amply vindicated in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada, asked for a permit. It was issued a communal licence by the department. The communal licence established very serious restrictions in the interest of conservation measures, limits as to the number of catch, limits to the type of gear to be employed. Those restrictions are enforceable under the Fisheries Act.

We are aware of complaints of violations and these are being investigated. If necessary the restrictions will be enforced. Obviously it is in the interest of all of us to achieve an amicable settlement. The hon. member will agree with that. The department is examining that with all parties. However, the regulations will be enforced if necessary.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans Canada just authorized 2,000 members of the community to catch 300 pounds of lobster each. That is 600,000 pounds of lobster in Chaleur Bay. That is a lot of lobster.

How can the minister ensure the conservation of the resource, in concrete terms, in the subarea located between New Richmond and Pointe-à-la-Garde, where the Micmacs are currently fishing?

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

Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, we are aware of the conservation imperative. It is the prime obligation of the department. The issue is under investigation.

If violations occur they will be prosecuted under the Fisheries Act. I can assure the hon. member that we will still try to achieve, allowing for the political facts here, the amicable settlement which we all desire. But if necessary, the regulations will be enforced by prosecution.

Churchill Falls

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the natural resources minister expressed outrage at the very idea that a federal government should interfere in private contracts. Yet that is exactly what the Liberals did with the national energy program.

I ask the minister, are we to understand that her position is that the Liberal national energy program was a huge mistake?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention this afternoon of dwelling on the past.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

We should think about the future. I have in front of me a document from the Reform Party called "Twenty Proposals for a New Confederation". Let me read one small part which is under the heading "Realigning The Powers". It says: "To make government more effective we propose eliminating federal interference in the following areas-".

The first area enunciated is natural resources.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Say we allow exclusive provincial control over resources like energy.

We could ask ourselves why the third party, the Reform Party, has changed its mind on this fundamental point. Perhaps it is nothing more than political opportunism.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we want provinces to control their own resources, not have other provinces control them.

The minister cannot have it both ways. As I said yesterday, Liberals have no problem interfering with fair contracts. It is just unfair contracts they have a problem dealing with.

The Liberals defend selling Alberta down the river but they refuse to take action as the people of Newfoundland are forced to go over Churchill Falls in a barrel.

Can the minister explain this incredible contradiction to the people of Canada?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it seems to me that the contradiction here is between the expressed position of the Reform Party and what it is now saying.

We respect the jurisdiction of the provinces over their natural resources. The provinces have the ability to enter into contracts in relation to the sale and disposition of those natural resources.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, in the past clinical drug trials in Canada have not required that women be included.

If the Minister of Health really believes that women's health is a priority, what has he actually done or what is he doing to make sure drugs are not allowed on the Canadian market before their effects on women are fully assessed?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well known for her interest and advocacy of women's rights. I believe the hon. member as well as other members of the House will be happy to learn that my department has now changed the policy.

In the past it was not mandatory for women to be included for the purposes of drug trials. As of yesterday it is now mandatory that all drug companies will have to include women in their various test trials before they make submissions to have their drugs approved.

Defence Industry Conversion

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, so that we do not forget he actually exists. In its budget speech delivered on March 6, the federal government announced the creation of Technology Partnerships Canada. According to the minister, this program was to help in the conversion of the aerospace and defence industries. In order to help the minister manage this program and assess projects, an advisory board was to be set up.

Can the minister tell us how many Quebec businesses from the aerospace and defence sectors have so far been helped by Technology Partnerships Canada?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the projects supported by Technology Partnerships Canada will soon be announced.

The hon. member is well aware that, through its programs, the federal government provided support to the development, particularly in the Montreal region, of companies such as Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney, and CAE. We are currently witnessing Canada's success in Montreal.