Debates of Oct. 27th, 1997

Fisheries

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

Last Friday in Vancouver I met with representatives of the Community Fisheries Development Centre, the Coastal Community Network and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. All of these groups said to me that the government's Mifflin plan for the fishery was an unmitigated disaster, that the government is not listening and that if the government has a plan for the fishery, they have no idea what it is.

Can the government tell us today what its plan is for the fishery on the west coast?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this government is fully supportive of the fisheries on both coasts of Canada and the inland fisheries as well.

This government has been very clear in the past that it is not the attitude of those supported by the colleague of the hon. member in the other place that advances the Canadian fishing industry, or anything else for that matter, in this country.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the groups that I met with on Friday are not interested in the minister's hot air and rhetoric about this issue. What they want to know is what the government is going to do. It is their livelihood that is at stake.

Can I suggest something constructive to the government and to the Deputy Prime Minister? At the APEC summit that will be held in November in Vancouver, the Prime Minister will meet with President Clinton. Will they give a mandate to the two envoys, Mr. Ruckelshaus and Mr. Strangway, to report to them at that time so that they can bring a solution to this very important issue for the livelihood of fishermen on the west coast?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it all depends on whether a proper, good, effective report is ready.

Later this week both Messrs. Strangway and Ruckelshaus will be in Ottawa to meet with officials to brief us on their progress. They have undertaken an extensive consultation. We want to know how far they have been able to come with recommendations. It will depend on where they are at. That will determine when and where we then present those reports to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister.

Environment

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment talks about this deal that she is going to sign in Kyoto and is rather confused yet about her policy.

I suggest that a policy she might take to the table there is to first get an agreement from the provinces and those people who are going to be affected in Canada. She should get an agreement in Canada if she is trying to get a deal that is good for Canada. Then she can take that deal to Kyoto and see if they will sign it.

My question for the Minister of Environment is simply that if she is truly committed to the environment, why will she not try this approach to get Canadians on side and try to sell the deal there?

Whose side is she on, Kyoto's or Canada's?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this government is on the side of Canadians. This government is on the side of the environment. This government is on the side of doing something about the very serious issue of climate change and we will continue to negotiate with all the Canadian partners who will help us to achieve our targets.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for all the talk about being so committed to Canadians and the environment, the minister is going to Kyoto to have them tell her the agreement she is going to sign. That is absolutely backwards.

Why will this minister not go to Kyoto and tell them what is good for Canada? Why will she not get a deal that Canadians will accept before she goes there, not have it rammed down their throats when she gets home?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is an active participant in the negotiations for a deal that will be signed in Kyoto. We are there representing the best interests of Canada. We are there trying to make sure that we get annex I countries signing on to a deal in Kyoto. That is what is important if we are going to deal with the issue of global change.

Outaouais Alliance

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

While francophone groups are fighting for French to be respected in the Pontiac region, a federally funded group of anglophones, Outaouais Alliance, is proposing that merchants defy the signage requirements of the Charte de la langue française.

Since Outaouais Alliance has suggested that anglophone businesses defy a law of the Government of Quebec, is it the Minister of Heritage's intention to immediately withdraw its federal funding for 1997-98?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

It is certain that the Government of Canada is not in favour of a group refusing to respect provincial or federal language legislation.

Now, in connection with the words of the hon. member opposite, this is the first I have heard of this matter, and I will look into it and get back to him very soon.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that, by funding Outaouais Alliance under these circumstances, she is promoting civil disobedience?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, certainly any encouragement to disobey the law is wrong. Although the Government of Quebec sometimes questions federal legislation on certain matters and is, for instance, questioning election legislation, all political parties and all political actions must respect the law.

We hope that the Government of Quebec is going to respect the Supreme Court decision on signage, and we hope that Outaouais Alliance will do so as well.

The Environment

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment knows that the science community is divided on the issue of global warming. She knows that there is no consensus as to the extent of the problem, the cause of the problem or the best solution.

My question to the Minister of the Environment is which particular scientists, whose studies has she used to form the basis of Canada's position at the Kyoto Conference?

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of respected scientists around the world who are telling us all that this an issue we have to be concerned about. Their science tells us that human introduction of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is changing our climate.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is placing ads in the paper, and I will table this. If I may quote, on the issue of greenhouse gases: “Scientists are divided about climate change and whether man made emissions are a major cause. But we think it's better to be safe than sorry”.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this government has a troubling history of ignoring good science. The Liberals in the past have twisted the studies of the fisheries and oceans and health departments to suit their own particular agenda.

The question is not whether we should not deal with the greenhouse problem, the issue is will this minister release publicly to the public the particular studies that formed the basis of the Kyoto position or would she prefer—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Christine Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of science in support of the international community's signing an agreement in Kyoto, Japan. To carry on with a quote from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers: “But we think it is better to be safe than sorry. The world should act now to control carbon dioxide emissions”.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada states there appears to be very clear scientific evidence that global warming increases severe weather. That increasing severe weather is causing the industry hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated over the weekend before Liberal supporters, and I quote “That there were too many Lucien Bouchards in the world in countries that are not democratic”.

Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain to us what he means by this surprising sentence “There are too many Lucien Bouchards in the world in countries that are not democratic”?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to repeat in this House what I said Friday night in Kamloops, as can be read in the transcripts. Please excuse my English; it won't be very long.

Do you know how many groups in the world give themselves collective identity? Experts say that it is between three thousand and five thousand. There are not two hundred states in the United Nations. So don't let—in this beautiful country of Canada—don't let the Lucien Bouchards win with a separation. Because there are too many Lucien Bouchards through the world who would create a mess in this country—in Africa, Asia, in many places in the world—if we say that there is no future for the co-habitation of—

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs says exactly the same thing we are saying.

The minister has always said that he wanted a rational debate on the issue of a Quebec sovereignty. Does he not think that stating that there are too many Lucien Bouchards in the world constitutes dangerous, irresponsible and even hateful language?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, “—if we say that there is no future for co-habitation of cultures, synergy of cultures within the same state. That the sole solution is a separation of cultures. This is a wrong idea. I don't want this wrong idea to win in my country”.

Canada Pension Plan

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend Premier Klein said that Alberta may consider dropping out of the Canada pension plan and set up its own citizens retirement fund. Who could blame him?

The more people look at the Liberal CPP changes, the less they like them.

Did the minister really expect people to stay in a plan that offers only a measly 1.8% return?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the return is substantially higher than that. It is in fact a return which will be commensurate with any other pension plan given the fact that it will be administered at arm's length.

The former minister of finance, the treasurer of Alberta, Mr. Dinning, was one of the leaders and a very constructive force in the development of the Canada pension plan along with the other provinces.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only Alberta that is less than impressed with this scheme. B.C. wants nothing to do with it. Saskatchewan says to forget it. Quebec never did join.

How long will it be until the only one left in this pyramid scheme is the minister?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member does have a responsibility to Canadians and to this House to get her facts straight.

The difference of opinion between Saskatchewan and British Columbia and the other eight provinces was that those two provinces wanted to see the rates go up higher and less moderation of benefits. Quebec has precisely the same plan. It was set up at the very beginning and it is putting through exactly the same changes in terms of premiums as we are.

The fundamental fact is that Alberta took a leadership role along with the other provinces when we put this together, and they have signed on to the deal. The hon. member simply has a—