Debates of June 5th, 1998

Government Contracts

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I quote the deputy leader of the Reform Party, the member for Edmonton North, who said in the House on May 6, 1996: “On May 2 I attended a supper in Grand Centre, Alberta to welcome a NATO delegation. They are studying the possibility of awarding a 20 year contract to Canada as NATO's flight training location. The other bidder is Texas and we are convinced that our program could beat it out by a country mile”. Maybe the member should speak to the deputy leader.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers believe that Canadian companies can bid in an open competitive process and win those bids. This government just awarded the largest service contract in Canadian history, a $2.85 billion contract to Bombardier. Here are the facts.

NATO was flexible on the time lines. The tendering process was ignored and the 15 day guidelines for publishing of sole source contracts were nixed by this cabinet. Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services shut down the Bombardier contract just like he did Frontec? Why the double standard?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the member as usual is confused on the facts. The contract with Frontec expires March 31, 2000. Therefore I think there is some time before we make that decision to renew that contract and we will take the necessary steps to make sure that every firm has the possibility to make its representation and proposal.

On NATO training, Frontec said the political side is that we kept the Reform Party informed on this for three and a half years.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious it is the minister who is confused on this issue. Reformers have been asking for information from the government for seven months now.

Canadians want an open, transparent and competitive bidding process. The Liberal government is maintaining a non-competitive bidding process. The government is risking the loss of Canadian businesses.

Canadian taxpayers might have to put up with this but foreign governments do not. Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services freeze the Bombardier contract and allow, like Canadians want, open, transparent and competitive bidding?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there was a press release, a public announcement made in 1996 that the government in light of the Bombardier consortium proposal was going to NATO to ask it to give Canada the right to train NATO pilots. It was public in 1996 and yet no other companies came forward in spite of the public information.

Speaking of public information, the deputy leader of the Reform Party knew all about this in 1996 and she liked the deal. If it was good then, it is good now.

Immigration

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Yesterday there was an unprecedented and bizarre decision. The supreme court overturned a refugee board decision and ruled that a convicted drug dealer cannot be denied a refugee hearing. A dissenting judge said this individual jeopardized the lives, health and welfare of many Canadians.

Does the immigration minister agree with this ruling and if not, what is she going to do about it?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, members must understand that we are talking about a Supreme Court ruling. I hope that the member opposite is not asking me to flout the law of Canada.

That said, the ruling is a very recent one. We are analyzing its impact, but there are other avenues available to us in the Immigration Act that would also allow us to take action, and that is what we are examining.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a decision of this magnitude has repercussions around the world and undoubtedly leaves every criminal with intent to use Canada as a safe haven with a notion that we are very easy to access.

Will the minister of immigration amend legislation immediately so that this bad decision for Canada can be overturned? Even two of the judges say it is a terrible decision for Canada. When will the minister take action so this drug dealer can be kicked out of Canada like he should be?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is not recommending that we not follow the rule of law in this country. We will respect the rule of law in the legislation that we have.

We have other tools in the Immigration Act right now. I am thinking about the certificate for danger of the public. When we tabled that legislation some years ago the Reform Party voted against that. We will take our responsibility here.

Employment Insurance

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

If I correctly understood what the minister was saying about his EI reform, unemployed workers should be thanking him, because 60% of them are no longer eligible, and young people should be ecstatic because they are all paying premiums, but three-quarters of them are not receiving benefits.

If the minister's reform is as great as he would have us believe, how does he explain that hundreds of people are demonstrating against it in front of his Montreal office as we speak?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the EI reform was absolutely essential. The EI system we had in Canada had not changed in 25 years and did not serve the public's interests well. It had to be modernized and adapted to contemporary reality.

I know that the Bloc Quebecois members love passive measures and anything to do with the past. They are always pushing passive income support, when what people are calling for is a dynamic labour market and help entering it.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has carried out his reform so well that, according to the figures, there are now 1.3 million unemployed workers in Canada.

If his reform is so wonderful, how does he ignore the fact that it has meant that 750,000 unemployed workers are not eligible for any benefits? We are not complete imbeciles.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has failed to point out is that the number of jobs in Canada has jumped by 1.2 million since October 1993 because of a healthy economy, because we have put our fiscal house back in order, because we now have active measures to help workers back into the job market, because of 30,000 such jobs, and because of the transitional jobs fund in regions where unemployment was too high.

Transitional Jobs Fund

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly, the premiers of Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the central labour bodies as well as groups of employers are unanimous: employment insurance is not managed responsibly.

What else will it take to make the minister see the light and make the necessary changes?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary I think that if there is a government in this country that has acted responsibly over the past decades it is the one led by the current Prime Minister.

Our government is acting responsibly by making difficult and courageous decisions, when necessary, in order to help people break out of the cycle of dependency the Bloc Quebecois wants to keep them in.

I can assure you that we are doing them a service by making available to them tools far more useful than a cheque every two weeks, which is what they would be condemned to live on for years to come.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to mention that active measures are not his responsibility. In most cases, they are now the provinces' responsibility.

What he is responsible for is employment insurance and the transitional jobs fund. And he has failed on both counts.

How can the minister talk about helping workers with the transitional jobs fund when, besides the fact that the fund has run dry, this measly $300 million over three years represents 40 times less than what he has cut from the unemployed alone?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the funds in the transitional jobs fund will be spent over the coming months, up until March 31, 1999, as we have committed to do.

I welcome this opportunity the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques has given me to say that, at the heart of the employment insurance reform, there is the new Canada-Quebec agreement, a historic agreement on manpower.

It is part of this reform that will see $2.7 billion transferred to the Quebec government so it can implement active measures for unemployed workers and welfare recipients in Quebec, who will then have a better chance of re-entering the workforce.

Labour

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, just as the offshore petroleum boom in Atlantic Canada is taking off, the federal government snatches away long awaited and long promised jobs for Canadian workers. Thousands of experienced Canadians are more than ready to take up the challenge of seismic offshore work but the government is once again prepared to put the demands of foreign vessel owners for cheap labour ahead of Canadian interest.

What does this government have against Canadian workers?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against Canadian workers. On the contrary, our government is working to find them jobs.

That said, we have changed nothing in the immigration legislation or regulations. A question has arisen just recently in Nova Scotia about the interpretation of the policy or practice in use there. We are now looking at the overall picture.

We are going to do everything necessary to see that Canadians have work.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that does not sound like standing up for Canadian workers to me.

For decades federal and provincial governments have dangled the promise of offshore jobs over the heads of unemployed Atlantic Canadians. Now the government is fudging and fidgeting around about interpretations that may do those Canadian workers out of those jobs.

Again, is the minister prepared to stand up for Canadian workers?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I stand up for Canadian workers. I also stand up to respect the legislation in this country.

Perhaps the member does not know but the practice was quite different in Newfoundland. That is why we had that problem. A private company challenged the department to go to court because the practices were different in two provinces.

It is the role of the federal government to have a national policy. That is why we will revise it.

Fisheries

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans slammed the door on Nova Scotia fisheries workers by not granting a single tonne of the 28,000 northern shrimp quota to any of the four Nova Scotia community proposals. According to scientific advice from DFO, the minister is free to allocate an additional 7,000 tonnes of shrimp quota.

In light of his decision to completely ignore Nova Scotian needs, will the minister consider granting the remaining shrimp quota to the four Nova Scotia proposals?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is simply ill informed. The quota allocation dealt with two sets of components of the fleet. On the first dealing with the seventeen major license holders, two and a half of the licenses are held by Nova Scotian companies.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago we heard the minister say that fish come first. He should remember that people in communities come first, communities like Canso, Mulgrave, Lismore and Arichat. Their future depends on a reasonable share of the scientifically viable shrimp quotas.

The quota increase would allow for an allotment to these Nova Scotia proposals. Will the minister have the courage to come to Nova Scotia and explain to these individuals involved why his shrimp quotas have been denied to their communities?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the ignorance of the member displayed in the preamble of his first question extends into his second. He simply does not understand or he is not willing to admit that a substantial portion of that shrimp quota is going to Nova Scotia companies.

With respect to the second aspect of his remarks that fish come first, I simply ask him, can we have fishermen if we do not have fish? The answer is no. Can we have fishing communities if we do not have fish? The answer is no. I suggest it is time he and his party started to recognize the importance of conservation in making sure we have that fish resource.