Debates of Sept. 21st, 1998

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. .[Text]

Question No. 85—

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

Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration please provide a costing of every one, of the 172 recommendations, contained in the Legislative Review Advisory Group Report and any other pertinent documentation or analysis?

Return tabled.

Question No. 98—

[Eric C. Lowther, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Could the government provide a complete list of all the “rights” (political, social, human) that Canada promotes through international organisations or has formally recognised through international agreement (including those through United Nations forums)?

Return tabled.

Starred Questions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 88, 99, 100, 113 and 115. .[Text]

*Question No. 88—

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Could the government explain what ongoing action it is taking, what progress has been made to date and when a final resolution is expected, with respect to the present situation whereby American shipbuilders have open access to the Canadian market, yet Canadian commercial vessels are prohibited for sale in the USA?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

A number of maritime laws collectively known as the “Jones Act” impose a variety of limits on foreign participation in the U.S. domestic maritime industry. Under these laws, the carriage of cargo or passengers between points in the United States is restricted to U.S. built and U.S. documented vessels owned and operated by U.S. citizens. Similar restrictions apply to dredging, salvage and other commercial marine activities in U.S. waters. In international shipping, there are limitations on foreign ownership of vessels eligible for documentation in the United States. In addition, several subsidies and other support measures are available to operators of U.S. vessels: cargo preference laws restrict the carriage of military cargo and limit the carriage of government non-military cargo, aid cargo and certain agricultural commodities to U.S. vessels. These and other restrictions coupled with defence related prohibitions of the Byrnes/Tollefson amendment limit Canadian participation in U.S. shipping activities.

Although Canada has sought to enhance access to the U.S. market in this sector through trade negotiations, the United States has refused to negotiate improvements and has protected these restrictions in both the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the World Trade Organization, WTO, agreements. In the NAFTA and the WTO, Canada protected our ability to utilize similar measures wtih respect to imports from the United States. In practical terms, imports of ships from the United States into Canada have not been significant due to production and competitive realities.

Canada will continue to use every appropriate opportunity to encourage the liberalization of these restrictive provisions. Although there have been renewed calls for reform, the cabotage and cargo preference restrictions continue to enjoy significant support in the United States, limiting the prospect of any major change in the short term.

*Question No. 99—

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

Has the federal government done an economic impact study on the implications of the Delgamuuk decision on British Columbia and, if so: ( a ) what are the results of this study; and ( b ) what are the economic impacts of the Delgamuuk decision for the rest of Canada?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

The federal government has not conducted an economic impact study on the implications of the Delgamuukw decision on British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada. In its decision on the Delgamuukw case, the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule on whether or not where aboriginal title continues to exist in Canada. Accordingly, it would be impossible to conduct an economic impact study on the implications of the continued existence of aboriginal title.

*Question No. 100—

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

What are the safety, health, disciplinary and morale reasons behind dress regulations for the Canadian Armed Forces as the exist right now?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Safety and Health Reasons

Items of clothing are designed to accommodate the varied activities of Canadian Forces personnel in all climatic environments in order to prevent injury and disease.

Adequate clothing, properly worn, is essential to welfare and survival in harsh, cold environments. Clothing is designed to be worn as an ensemble for protection of head, torso and extremities. Failure to wear the total ensemble in accordance with the layering principle to conserve body heat, influences cold injuries such as chilblains, trench foot, hypothermia and frostbite.

In hot climates, clothing is designed to help personnel avoid the many problems associated with overheating like cramps, syncope, exhaustion and stroke.

Special items of clothing are designed to protect personnel who are occupationally exposed to environmental hazards like toxic chemicals and radiation. Also, personnel serving onboard ship must have clothing that minimizes injuries in the event of an explosion or fire.

Disciplanary Reasons

High standards of dress, deportment, and grooming are universally recognized as marks of a well trained, disciplined and professional force. Commanders must maintain the standards at all times to reinforce these characteristics for peace and war. Modified or idiosyncratic dress demonstrates inefficient and undisciplined training and a failure of those in command to focus on the purpose of a uniformed armed force.

Morale Reasons

The uniforms of the Canadian Forces identify all personnel as members of a cohesive, armed body in the service of the Canadian people. The uniform is an outward symbol of the Canadian Forces' commitment, identity and ethos. Coupled with overall appearance, the uniform is the most powerful visual expression of pride by the individual service member, and is the primary means by which the public image of the Canadian Forces is fashioned.

Canadian Forces personnel take pride in their uniforms. Ultimately, poor design or manufacture of these uniforms can affect their morale.

*Question No. 113—

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Could the government please indicate: ( a ) whether representatives of the Quebec government have been or will be, accredited as diplomats within the Canadian embassy in Beijing; ( b ) whether one of those representatives has been, or will be, operating under the title of “chef de poste du Québec”; ( c ) the names of those representatives; ( d ) whether Quebec has representatives posted in other Canadian embassies; ( e ) whether Quebec representatives operating from Canadian embassies are permitted to distribute material promoting a separate Quebec and if not, what steps have been take to prevent such distribution; and ( f ) whether any provinces other than Quebec have provincial employees working with diplomatic status in Canadian embassies?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

(a) As of June 3, 1998, no representative of the Quebec government has been accredited as a diplomat within the Canadian embassy in Beijing. The federal government is currently negotiating with Quebec a memorandum of understanding for the co-location of one Quebec official, supported by one locally engaged program officer and one locally engaged secretary, to perform what are to be essentially trade development, investment promotion and development assistance duties. Under current practice, provincial governments may, with the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, be permitted to co-locate within Canadian embassies abroad on a full cost recovery basis and where space is available.

(b) The title “chef de poste du Québec” is not an official diplomatic designation and would not be authorized for use in the official publication “Canadian Representatives Abroad” nor in the diplomatic list provided to host country authorities. In comparable situations, the senior Quebec government officer is assigned the title of “First Secretary” followed by an appropriate description of his area of responsibility, for example, “Immigration—Quebec” or “Commercial and Development Assistance—Quebec”.

(c) The negotiations of a co-location agreement are in progress. The Quebec governement has not yet nominated an officer to send to Beijing.

(d) Quebec government immigration officials are co-located within the Canadian missions in Damascus, Vienna and Hong Kong. A Quebec officer from the Ministry of International Relations working in the field of educational and social affairs is co-located within the Canadian embassy in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire.

(e) It would be inappropriate for Quebec officials located in Canadian missions abroad to distribute material promoting an independent Quebec. Under the terms of the co-location memoranda of understanding with provincial governments, the provinces agree that their provincial officials fall under the overall authority of the Canadian head of mission. The head of mission has the power to take appropriate disciplinary measures, including in the final resort to request the return to Canada of members of staff.

(f) At present, only the province of Alberta has a co-located employee with diplomatic status at the Canadian embassy in Seoul, Korea. Several other provinces, including British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland have co-located employees within Canadian missions abroad in the past.

Experience to date has been that co-locating provincial staff within Canadian missions abroad provides for a closer co-ordination and a better sharing of the workload between federal and provincial officials that is likely to occur between a Canadian embassy and a separate provincial government office. Co-locations make optimal use of scarce resources abroad reflect the team Canada spirit.

*Question No. 115—

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

With regards to the weather-related “leaky condo” situation in British Columbia, which has evolved into financial disaster exceeding the Manitoba Flood and the Ontario-Quebec Ice Storm, does the Government have a plan to assist condo owners repair unforeseen damages by way of short-term emergency relief, and if so, does it permit any or all of the following: a ) RRSP funds to be used without tax penalties: b ) interest costs of repair loans to be used as a deductible expense, as it is for landlords: c ) repairs to be GST-exempt: and d ) expansion of the limits of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I am informed by the Department of Finance and Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation as follows:

a), b) & c) With regard to the Barrett commission's recommendations on using the tax system to deliver assistance in this circumstance, a careful review has raised a number of policy concerns. For example, since the federal tax system in nationally based, it would be difficult to provide tax assistance to owners of water damaged dwellings in B.C., while excluding individuals in similar circumstances in other parts of the country. It would also be difficult to provide a tax subsidy for unexpected repair costs arising from a particular cause but not others such as fires, floods, earthquakes, et cetera. Because of these policy concerns, the tax system was not used to provide relief for those affected by the recent natural disasters in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba.

d) On July 13, 1998, the Government of British Columbia introduced legislation responding to 47 of the recommendations of the Barrett commission. British Columbia noted that discussions are underway with the federal government, local government, financial institutions and building professions on another 26 recommendations, and the other 9 recommendations are subjects to further analysis.

Two bills, the Homeowner Protection Act and the Strata Property Act, were introduced on July 13, 1998, and will make warranty protection in new homes mandatory; require residential builders to be licensed and meet standards; establish an industry funded home protection office; and, increase access to information and ensure that owners and strata corporation can effectively respond to construction problems if they should occur.

The Government of British Columbia will commit $75 million as bridge financing for an industry funded reconstruction program that will provide no interest loans to owners for repairs. Priority will be given to those most in need who have exhausted all other financing options. The provincial contribution will be paid back over time through a special assessment on residential builders.

On July 17, 1998. the Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada advised the Honourable Jenny Kwan that Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, CMHC, has been authorized to enter into negotiations with the B.C. government on the terms and conditions for a matching mortgage insurance fund, MIF, investment in the reconstruction program of up to $75 million for bridge financing. The minister also confirmed that CMHC mortgage loan insurance is available to enable owners of water damaged homes to fund repairs by way of existing, refinanced or second mortgages. Within its responsibility to manage the MIF in a prudent manner, CMHC will encourage early discussion and flexibility in applying CMHC mortgage options. CMHC will also continue to work with the industry and others to undertake research and transfer information of use to housing professionals. Since 1996 CMHC has committed approximately $1 million to this area.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada advised the provincial minister that the delivery of assistance ot condominium owners through the tax system raises a number of public policy concerns. Since the federal tax system is national in scope it would be difficult to limit assistance to owners of water damaged homes in B.C.. It would also be difficult to provide tax subsidies for unexpected repairs arising from one cause, i.e. poor design and construction of homes, but not others such as floods and earthquakes.

The Minister of Public Works and Government Services of Canada noted that it would not be possible to increase British Columbia's share of the national budget for the residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, because it would require funding to other jurisdictions to be reduced. Federal RRAP funding is allocated on a fair share basis among the provinces and territories.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Due to the number of responses, I ask that they be printed in Hansard as if read, and I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 13 minutes.

I have three requests for emergency debates. I will deal with them in the following order. I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.

I have received letters from all three members and all three members are present. I will hear them one at a time.

Request For Emergency Debate

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, I did write to you pursuant to Standing Order 52(2) to tell you that I would be rising in my place today to seek leave to propose an emergency debate concerning the actions of the officials of the Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister himself in relation to actions taken by the RCMP during the APEC summit in Vancouver.

Documents have been released to the RCMP public complaints commission inquiry that lend credence to concerns that have previously been raised about the direct intervention of the Prime Minister's office with the RCMP concerning security arrangements at the summit. There is now documentary evidence that officials with the PMO and perhaps the Prime Minister himself requested that actions be taken against peaceful demonstrators exercising their democratic rights.

Any political interference in policing is highly improper, but when there is documentary evidence that the Prime Minister intervened with the RCMP to take actions against demonstrators so he could retain cordial relations with Mr. Suharto, the former authoritarian leader of Indonesia, and that such political interference resulted in the use of pepper spray and of physical force to arrest peaceful demonstrators, we know there is a real possibility that Canadian democracy has suffered a deep wound.

Standing Order 52(5) states that in deciding upon an application for an emergency debate, the Speaker shall consider “the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means”.

The Prime Minister has clearly stated that he will make no statement in the House of Commons concerning the matter so there is no likelihood that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to address this grave and urgent matter. An emergency debate is therefore the only way for members of this House to address threats that have possibly been made to two of the foundation stones of democratic governance: freedom of expression and the political independence of the police.

An emergency debate in the House of Commons would in no way interfere with the RCMP inquiry. The public complaints commission has a specific mandate under the RCMP Act to conduct investigations. The House of Commons is a body with its own constitutional duties and obligations to hold the government publicly accountable for its actions. Surely it is appropriate that members of the House should have an opportunity to perform those democratic duties during the week that Nelson Mandela will address the House.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to consider favourably this request. It would give an opportunity not just to us but to the Prime Minister to give an account of himself and perhaps to refute convincingly the allegations that have been made against him. Nevertheless, in the interest of the public and of democracy that kind of debate should occur and occur soon in this Chamber.

[The Speaker]

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona. I received his letter about an hour and a half ago. I have had occasion to consider both the letter and what he has said here in the House of Commons.

In my view the hon. member's application does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 52 at this time. Therefore I would rule that there will not be a standing debate on this issue today.

I will now listen to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I ask that the House hold an emergency debate on the use made of budget surpluses and the management of the federal debt. Several economic indicators are disturbing and lead me to believe such a debate is really necessary.

Since August 4, the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding that the Minister of Finance table a special budget to deal with the various problems the Canadian economy has been confronted to in recent months.

First, the recent hike in interest rates by the Bank of Canada, following the ups and downs of the Canadian dollar on international markets, is a key factor that may have a very significant effect on this country's economy and consumer habits if we are not more careful and if expansionist economic policies are not promptly put forward by the federal finance minister in a special budget.

Second, the drop in the Canadian GDP over the past three months, together with an inflation rate that remains below the targeted range, clearly show that the Canadian economy is facing serious difficulties, which have led all analysts to a downward revision of the 1999 growth forecast.

This alarm bell calls, in our opinion, for vigorous and immediate action, if we do not want to find ourselves in a recession within a few months.

For all these reasons, I believe an emergency debate is required. The government must explain and justify its choices, which are contrary to the priorities of the people of Quebec and Canada as well as to the commitments made during the 1997 election campaign and in the budget tabled in February 1998.

The situation is deteriorating a little more every day, and that is why the government must immediately account for its management and take the urgent actions required.

I therefore ask that you give favourable consideration to my request for an emergency debate.

[The Speaker]

I received the hon. member's letter this morning, read it and gave it due consideration. I have concluded that his request does not meet the requirements of Standing Order 52 at this time.

I will now hear from the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek to present a motion under Standing Order 52(1) and 52(2) for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that requires the consideration of all hon. members. It is the anticipated decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal regarding Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The court decision on the challenge of Bill C-68 is due any day and it is widely expected that it will rule in favour of the province. The decision will likely read that the federal government does not have the right to regulate private property. This will not only strike down the government's plans to force the registration of sporting rifles and shotguns. It will also strike down the registration of handguns as well.

A great number of Canadians, including many who are opposed to the registration of hunting rifles and shotguns, would be extremely concerned about the loss of the handgun registry.

I propose we examine an alternative to the court ruling by debating the feasibility of the government repealing Bill C-68 before the court decision is rendered and then petitioning the court to dismiss the action as having been settled. I believe this is in the best interest of all Canadians and in the best interest of the government. Someone does have to look out for them.

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[The Speaker]

On the point of order, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to give my response first. I just want to check on one thing here.

I address myself to the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan. I have the letter in front of me and have of course listened very attentively. At this time it does not seem that the application meets the requirements under Standing Order 52. I would therefore rule at this time that he will not have an emergency debate on the motion he brought forward.

Now I will deal with the point of order.