Debates of Sept. 30th, 1998

Québec-Téléphone

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, telecommunications policy supports a competitive marketplace for all Canadian telecommunications.

We want to make a fair and level playing field for all competitors including those from the province of Quebec and all other provinces and territories across Canada. We will continue to do so.

Standing Committee On Fisheries And Oceans

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has demanded to have the member for Gander—Grand Falls, Newfoundland, fired as the chair of the fisheries and oceans committee. The minister will do in one of his own to save his own hide.

Why is the minister covering up his own failures by having his fisheries chair fired?

[The Speaker]

I do not know that this deals directly with the minister's responsibility. If he wishes to respond I will let him, but the question is out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should inform the hon. member that if in fact his totally false assertions were correct, I would never have signed a letter to the hon. member as chair of that committee less than one hour ago.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we know and have been told by numerous sources that the minister was undertaking to have the chair fired. What we want to know now—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

Scrapie

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is still refusing to provide an accurate picture of the scrapie situation in Canada, namely the number of sheep slaughtered and quarantined, and the amounts paid to farmers.

Can the minister assure us that Quebec sheep farmers are receiving the same treatment from the agency in all aspects as their counterparts are in the other provinces, and is he prepared to produce agency documents to prove this?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker, and we have already done it.

Quebec's Economic Development

[Yvon Charbonneau, Liberal, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, Quebec's Parti Quebecois government organized two socio-economic summits. On each occasion, it excluded the Canadian government.

The Government of Quebec was prepared to meet with municipalities, high finance—all the major banks were present—, management and labour, but not with the federal government. Yet we know that the federal government is an important player in the economic development of Quebec and the greater Montreal area.

Will the secretary of state responsible for economic development in Quebec tell us what the federal government has been doing to promote the development of Montreal?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Since February 1996, the Government of Canada has stayed on the same course and continued to play a role in the economic development of the province of Quebec, bringing the Team Canada approach into play and devising a strategy for action on five fronts.

Today, I am proud to say that 1,500 projects have been completed since February 1996, with the help of the Liberal team, for a total of more than $1 billion invested in the greater Montreal area and over $3 billion in all.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if they really cared they would return the EI overpayment.

My question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The auditor general says this government's land claims policy in British Columbia is a complete and total failure. It has spent $90 million on lawyers, consultants and other hangers on to date and it does not have one treaty.

With 123 treaties to go can the minister give us any idea of what the cost of negotiations will be?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the work of the auditor general in the area of the comprehensive land claims process.

I note that he says that under the best of circumstances reaching comprehensive land claim settlements is a very difficult challenge. I would agree with him.

Do we have the process perfectly worked out yet? No, we do not. Are we making progress? Yes, we are.

Most important, the question is whether it is the right thing to do. Absolutely it is. This government is committed to making good these long outstanding claims in a fair and equitable way at the negotiating table.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, we ask questions and out of courtesy we should listen to the answer rather than yelling back and forth.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how many billions are they going to spend before they get it right?

The auditor general says the minister is going to stick Canadian taxpayers with a huge tax bill, as much as $50 billion if Nisga'a is any indication of what treaty making in British Columbia will cost. This government has not had the decency to be straight with Canadians and tell them how much will cost.

Will the minister come clean this afternoon and admit it will cost tens of billions of dollars to resolve these treaties?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that we are making progress with the legal rights that aboriginal people have in this country.

It was an honour for me on August 4 to stand with colleagues in my caucus and hundreds of people in New Aiyansh in the hon. member's riding to celebrate an historic moment in Canadian history, the initialling of the final agreement with the Nisga'a people.

Fundamentally this is a very complex treaty. But the Nisga'a people, instead of being marginalized, will be embraced and included in this great country.

Employment Insurance

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what would members think of a house insurance policy that they are forced to pay into and yet if their houses burn down they would have less than a 40% chance of collecting any benefits? They would probably want the government to intervene on their behalf because it would mean they had just been cheated.

That is how unemployed Canadians feel about the EI system. They know it is not broke but they know it is broken.

Will the Prime Minister tell unemployed Canadians that he will use the EI surplus to restore benefits and eligibility before he even considers using it for any other purpose?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as has been clearly said in the House before, no decisions have been made.

Whenever it decides this government is committed to balanced budgets. The EI debate is not just about premiums. It about making choices. Canadians may like lower EI premiums but they also want quality health care. They also want reinvestment in programs.

Until that debate is over this government will not make a decision. We have prebudget consultations in front of the finance committee. I invite the hon. member to come, put forward his case and allow the debate to continue.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that answer helps us realize our worst fears. There is a three way tug of war going on over the EI surplus.

On the one side business wants premiums cut. On the other side the Minister of Finance wants to score political points by spending money that is not his. Then there are the 65% of unemployed Canadians who just want to feed their kids and who do not qualify for any benefits at all. I ask again, will the Prime Minister tell us today that he will stand up on behalf of unemployed workers and use the EI surplus to help put working people back to work with income assistance and with training and benefits?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having the debate. I would like to read something to the House of Commons concerning what NDP Premier Romanow said: “When asked about the use of the EI surplus, Premier Romanow called for a sustainable balanced reduction in that surplus to be used for the general good of the public. I just think there is a surplus and it could be put to good use for the people of Canada. Health care is my generally favoured approach but I am prepared to look at other options”.

Canada Pension Plan

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before he was fired, Bernard Dussault, the former chief actuary for the CPP, developed a state of the art computer program called Dynacan to independently evaluate security programs, including the CPP or the seniors benefit.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that in July Department of Finance officials directed that the Dynacan program be moved from the office of the actuary over to the Department of Human Resources Development so that the government could manipulate the information created by the Dynacan program for its own political advantage?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, clearly if the hon. member is making any sort of insinuation that this government has done anything other than be transparent with respect to the CPP actuary he is clearly wrong.

Mr. Palmer today went forward and met with the public and met with the media and he indicated that it was solely within his jurisdiction to deal with the CPP actuary. He has done so very clearly in his capacity as the superintendent of financial institutions. I dismiss that suggestion by the hon. member. I ask the hon. member to perhaps check his facts.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Bernard Dussault expressed himself very clearly as well on August 24 when he wrote a letter to senior government officials expressing his deep concern over the loss of Dynacan. By taking this important tool from him, the government compromised Dussault's ability to provide independent assessment of the future of the CPP. A day later, August 25, Bernard Dussault was fired.

Was this government afraid that the chief actuary would reveal too much about the flawed future of Canada's social programs? Was the chief actuary with his competence, his independence, his objectivity, just too dangerous to keep around?

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I quote from Mr. Palmer: “I as superintendent terminated Mr. Dussault's employment because of longstanding issues concerning his management”. The Minister of Finance had nothing to do with it. In fact, today in a statement he issued to the press he stated: “I know there was no political interference in my decision to ask him to leave, not the Minister of Finance, not any other minister. I am responsible for OSFI and this was my decision as the superintendent”. Clearly it was Mr. Palmer's decision.

Aerospace Industry

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

The Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, which just held its 37th annual general meeting in Ottawa, is very concerned about unfair competition on the world market. One example is a subsidy that gives a price advantage to regional jetliners manufactured in Brazil.

What is the government doing to ensure that Canada's aerospace industries are not undermined by Brazilian government subsidies?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for her question because it is an important one.

Over 60,000 Canadians are employed by the national aerospace industry in all regions of the country. That is why the Prime Minister with the president of Brazil tried to negotiate this dispute with Proex. Regrettably that was not possible and so the Canadian government took the action this summer to bring Brazil before the World Trade Organization. We are not shy about defending or promoting aerospace industries in this country.