Debates of Sept. 26th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the future federal minister of education, whoever he may be.

In his response to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister kept for himself the announcement of new meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Prime Minister announced the government's intention to set up a fund to distribute bursaries directly to students.

How can the minister play saviour and announce such a fund worth $1 billion without blushing, when his cuts to education, which will amount to $10 billion, have put students in debt like never before?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will use my example of Wales another time.

The announcement for students is excellent news. You know, the Natural Sciences Engineering and Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Medical Research Council of Canada offered, for the last year available, bursaries worth $175 million to 13,359 students. Many of us benefited from them, including perhaps the hon. member. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville did. If even more students can benefit, it will be a good thing for students in Quebec and Canada.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the federal government try to dole out federal money in order to buy students.

I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs if he intends to give the money for this new program to the Quebec government, as has been done with the loans and bursaries program for the past 30 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member understands our federation is flexible and accommodates various mechanisms. The ones actually used with this program will have to be discussed with our partners.

Multilateral Agreement On Investment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the prime minister.

The Canadian government has been busily negotiating a multilateral agreement on investment with profound implications for Canadians.

My office has been deluged with calls from people who want to know what this will mean. They want to have their say, not after the ink is dry on the agreement but before the government enters into any such deal.

Will the prime minister make a firm commitment today to hold full public hearings across the country prior to any such investment deal being signed?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the NDP for the question. This is my first opportunity to reply.

Canada has learned the lesson over the last 10 years that doing business without agreements and without a level playing field can be a very turbulent thing indeed. Hence, the attempt is being made to create the MAI.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I directed my question to the prime minister and I am hoping we are going to get an answer.

The head of the World Trade Organization has said of the MAI process: “We are writing the constitution for a new global economy”. Surely an agreement of this importance deserves the same standard of public disclosure, input and consultation that Canadians have demanded with respect to their own Constitution.

It is clear that the government intended to sign, seal and deliver the MAI before the last election, even without consultation.

Will the prime minister assure us today that Canadians will have their say?

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, having spent 10 years in opposition in the province of Ontario I understand full well the temptation to speculate on what will be contained in something.

I should point out to the House that at this stage the negotiators are still negotiating what they are going to negotiate.

Infrastructure

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very Liberal question for the Minister of Transport.

Under the terms of the strategic highway improvement program between the federal Liberal government and the provincial Liberal Government of Nova Scotia, all contracts are to be tendered. I quote directly from the agreement: “All contracts will awarded to the tenderer submitting the lowest evaluated bid”.

Why were two contracts worth over a $100 million given to two companies, both untendered? Even worse, both companies have at the top of the list of officers the past president of the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to congratulate the hon. member's appointment as critic for the Conservative Party and I welcome him back to the House.

He did raise this with me privately and it is a matter which I undertook to discuss with my officials.

This is a federal-provincial funding agreement. Highways are the responsibility of the provinces. To date we have not seen anything from the federal point of view that causes undue alarm. I have given him my assurance that we will re-examine the matter and I will discuss it with my provincial counterpart in Nova Scotia.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada.

The Highway 104 agreement includes clauses that clearly contravene the Competition Act, which ensures choices and the right to transportation and prohibits limiting facilities for transportation.

I requested the Federal Bureau of Competition to investigate the agreement which eliminates competition and choices and limits competition.

Will the minister assure the House that there will be no political interference in any resulting investigation, even though the federal government is a partner to the tune of $27 million in this agreement?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is somewhat premature to speculate about using quasi-judicial review bodies or agencies when we have not established the facts.

I have undertaken to get the facts for the hon. member. Until that time I think we should examine them and see if the problem is as acute as he says it is.

Taxation

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, they are at it again over here. I suppose Canadian merchants will be happy to know that this prime minister's government is keeping up its outrageous spending habits.

Can the prime minister tell this House if he really thinks that government spending, investments as they are called, like spending $72,000 on something called a mystery shopping program is more important to Canadians than tax relief?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this government has made it very clear from the beginning that it is our intention to bring in tax relief.

If the hon. member will take a look at what we did in previous budgets he will see very clearly that we have begun the process of tax relief, is a welcome change I must say after 10 years of tax increases from the Tories.

We have very clearly reversed the trend of constant tax increases by the Tories. We are very committed to tax decreases, which will be evident in subsequent budgets as well.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how do they spell relief over there? The prime minister could be whistling “Pennies from Heaven”. I would like to remind this government that it did not win a lottery. Any surplus belongs to the Canadian people, not to the Liberal Party.

Was it necessary for this government to spend $50 million to build ski chalets in Mont Tremblant or $70,000 to build an ice cream parlour?

My question for the prime minister is why will he not give surplus money back to the people instead of blowing it on things like fancy ski resorts or ice cream parlours?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is almost a joy to have the hon. member asking me what we will do with the surplus in future years.

No prime minister in the last 30 years has had to deal with the problem of a surplus. When we started the government was spending $120 billion on programs a year. That has been reduced to $104 billion or less.

With respect to the problem of deciding what to do with the surplus, we did manage our spending very tightly and I am happy that the people of Canada supported the program of reduction in expenditures.

Mirabel Airport

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

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

On April 14, the then Minister of Transport stated he was quite happy to co-operate with any organization that wished to improve the utilization of Mirabel airport.

What is the Minister of Transport waiting for to appoint a federal representative to the Tardif commission on the future of Mirabel?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the national airports policy is designed to turn the day-to-day operation of some airports over to local authorities.

The Aéroports de Montréal group made a decision to transfer flights from Mirabel to Dorval. I received a letter from the Quebec transport minister inviting me to sit on a commission. Based on the terms of reference of this commission, I have decided it is an economic development commission and not a transport commission. That is why we will not be part of it.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Prime Minister.

When will the Prime Minister respond to the Quebec premier's request for an urgent meeting to follow up on this issue and ensure Mirabel's development?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport just answered the question.

It is not a transportation issue at this point in time. I will get back to the premier. A decision was made a long time ago by the then Conservative government to transfer the responsibility of the airports in Montreal to an independent commission. If I am not mistaken, the premier of Quebec was a Conservative minister at the time.

This is a long-established system. They are the ones making decisions. That is why we are willing to consider transportation issues. If they say a bad decision was made at the time, we cannot overturn it now because the policy is to turn airports over to local—

British Columbia

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when a senator from British Columbia commented on renegotiating British Columbia's role in Confederation the intergovernmental affairs minister responded with comments that cannot even be repeated in this House.

While this minister has worked extremely hard at accommodating Quebec's desire to renegotiate its role in Confederation, he responds to the concerns of British Columbians with the verbal equivalent of the Trudeau salute.

What will the minister do to assure British Columbians that he will be as sympathetic to their concerns as he is to Quebecers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very helpful if the hon. member were able to quote what I said.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unparliamentary language for me to quote what he was reported to say on TV last night.

When foreign overfishing threatened Atlantic fishing stocks in 1995 this government responded by seizing a foreign trawler. This year when foreign fishing threatened Pacific salmon stocks this government responded by taking the British Columbia government to court.

Why is this government taking such a hard line approach toward British Columbia?

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

Do we think it is so horrible, I do not know. To speak about separation and secession is irresponsible in Quebec. It is irresponsible in British Columbia.

Each province has its problems and concerns and governments are not always as good as they should be. But what does this have to do with secession?

Canada Post Corporation

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

Collective bargaining talks between the Canada Post Corporation and the postal workers' union are breaking down, as was unfortunately hoped by the minister responsible for Canada Post.

Does the minister recognize that he must take action to restore at least some trust, a necessary ingredient in successful collective bargaining?