House of Commons Hansard #124 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was harmonization.
Douglas Young LiberalMinister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, air command is in Winnipeg. General de Quetteville is in Winnipeg. That was a thing that was decided some time ago.
What the hon. member was given was information that somebody else wrote down for him which has to do completely with another aspect of what we are trying to do in the restructuring of the Canadian forces. If he has a moment sometime, I will explain it to him.
Derek Wells Liberal South Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The fishing, fish processing and agriculture industries in Atlantic Canada have been hit hard by new or increased fees for licences and fishing related services. Will the minister review the cumulative impacts of these user fees? Will he consider setting a ceiling on total payments to ensure that cost recovery will not adversely affect the immediate and long term viability of Atlantic coastal communities?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. I am quite aware of the impact which these fees have created. Therefore, we have put together a multi-sectoral committee of stakeholders which will be meeting next week to examine solutions. We will be developing a new policy in Treasury Board based on the results of these consultations which will be aimed at reducing the inconvenience caused by the imposition of these fees.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board has asked the federal government to intervene in the disastrous grain movement situation in Canada, which is estimated to cost Canadian farmers at least $65 million in lost revenues and demurrage costs. We agree with the Canadian Wheat Board and would add that government policies such as privatizing CN Rail, deregulating the rail industry, changing the car allocation policy, allowing the abandonment of rail lines and condoning inappropriate downsizing within the railways have all contributed to this problem that keeps grain from moving to the ports.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Does he not agree that the federal government has a responsibility
and the authority that is required to get the railways to make grain a priority, and that he should use the full extent of his authority to get that grain moving again?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, the legislative authority to which the hon. gentleman refers is, he will agree, rather limited.
In terms of the nature of the problem, it would appear that the difficulty this season does not relate to rolling stock or to delivery of supplies in the country or to port operations. Rather, it is a combination of severe weather conditions coupled with a shortage of locomotive power.
I am advised by both railways that in the course of the last number of days, particular efforts have been made to augment the locomotive power to catch up on the existing backlog. It is also fair to observe that it is cold every January, it snows every January and the railways should do better.
Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The problem of the Magdalen Islands ferry continues. The Lucy Maud Montgomery has seen better days and the people of the Islands are no longer being taken in by Liberal promises. They want a permanent solution and they want it soon.
The Liberal government has already had a $30 million budget available for more than two years. Is it going to let the people of the Magdalen Islands wait much longer, while it insists on dumping its old Princess of Acadia on them, instead of providing them with another ferry, the Island of Inishmore , which is 80 feet shorter, but safer?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably unaware that at this time of the year every year there is no ferry service from P.E.I. to the islands.
I would point out to him this is a condition that is not the result of any decision of the Canadian government. I would suggest to him that we will have a ferry available just as it has been every year for the past 20 years. It will be available on schedule. The service will be protected between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The government lawyers are now in court arguing that they did the Pearson developers a favour in cancelling the contract because they would have lost their shirts. Talk about a flip-flop.
Now that they have the government experts arguing that this was a good deal for the taxpayers, will those experts who argued in favour of the Nixon report be held accountable to the taxpayers?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, when I rise to answer a question from the Reform Party, I am perhaps a little more nervous than I am with the Bloc because I do not know whether I will be met with fisticuffs or with lawyers outside the House.
David Anderson Liberal Victoria, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government cancelled the Pearson contract after it was found that it was not in the best interests of the Canadian taxpayers.
We prefer the airport to be in the hands of a not for profit corporation which is similar to that in Vancouver, in Edmonton, in Calgary and indeed in Montreal as well.
Obviously, we are open to any reasonable settlement offers that come forward. However I have to say that I cannot understand why the hon. member and his party consistently sidle up to the Mulroney appointed senators to try to guarantee for the developers, including the former president of the Conservative Party, $600 million in unearned profits which could so well be put toward other programs. Why they want to do this-
Pearson International AirportOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Speaker, some time ago, the Minister responsible for the infrastructure program announced the federal government's offer to continue the program for one more year.
Could the minister inform the House of the status of negotiations with the provincial governments, the Ontario government in particular?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, the first phase of the infrastructure program with Ontario was an amazing success, with 5,000 projects and 39,000 new jobs, mainly in the construction industry, where the unemployment rate was very low.
To date, all provinces and territories have given me a response on the new offer we made them to extend the infrastructure program for the period 1997-98. In principle, all have been favourable. We are going to sign a new agreement with Alberta
tomorrow, and I trust that the one with Ontario will soon follow suit.
Presence In GalleryOral Question Period
The Speaker
I draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Patrick George Binns, Premier, President of the Executive Council and Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House the usual Thursday question. Can he give us an idea of what is in store for next week?
Alfonso Gagliano LiberalMinister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we shall continue with report stage and third reading of Bill C-70, which harmonizes the goods and services tax.
Tomorrow will be an opposition day.
Monday we shall resume consideration of Bill C-70. When that bill has had third reading we will return to the third reading of Bill C-60, the food inspection legislation, Bill C-23, the nuclear safety measure and Bill C-17, the Criminal Code amendments. We shall then resume second reading debate on Bill C-46.
Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
Paul Zed Liberal Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you would find unanimous consent for reverting to the daily routine of business, presenting reports from committees. If so, I would have a presentation of a committee report.
Business Of The HouseOral Question Period
The Speaker
Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to revert?
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence.
I have the honour to present the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
Ron Irwin LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), I wish to advise the House that it is the government's intention to refer Bill C-79, an act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to bands that desire them, to committee before second reading.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-70, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 3.
Excise Tax ActGovernment Orders
The Speaker
We are on Group No. 3 and the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley had the floor when we interrupted for question period.