House of Commons Hansard #2 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fishing.
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, let me take the opportunity to thank members on both sides of the House who provided excellent input. One of the things I did was a lot of consultation. Following those consultations I said that we have to sit down, have a dialogue and co-operation.
Today we should applaud those aboriginal leaders, 33 out of the 35, who on a voluntary basis decided to have a moratorium and not fish for 30 days. That is co-operation and that is dialogue.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, the throne speech yesterday did not even address the serious racial conflict which has erupted in the New Brunswick lobster fishery. Ethnic tensions have escalated and that is inexcusable for the government.
Here is a revealing quote from a former Indian affairs minister: “Special treatment has made the Indians a community disadvantaged and apart. Obviously the course of history must be changed”. Who was that? It was the current Prime Minister speaking in 1969. Why, 30 years later, is he still ranking Canadians according to their bloodlines? Why would that be?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. We have a different position from the Reform Party.
The Reform Party believes that if everybody is treated the same, it means everybody is treated equally. I have three children. I treat them equally but I do not treat them the same. As a country we were built taking into consideration the regional differences across the country. We want to make sure we include Canadians and take into consideration the needs of Canadians right across the country.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, what part of equal might the minister not understand?
Let us take a quote from the great guru of Liberal wisdom, and that would be Pierre Trudeau where in 1969 he said:
We can go on treating the Indians as having a special status— Or we can say you're at a crossroads, the time is now to decide whether the Indians will be a race apart in Canada or whether they will be Canadians of full status.
That was a Liberal. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what has changed his mind since then?
Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC
Mr. Speaker, yes. In 1760 there was a royal proclamation that gave the national government an obligation to respect the treaties with the people who were here before the white people came. This is a treaty. This is a contract. A government has to respect obligations that were signed either yesterday or 300 years ago.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, since the minister suspended the Competition Act, the airline industry has been in crisis.
Yet nowhere in the throne speech is there any mention of the serious problem facing the industry, particularly in Quebec, where thousands of jobs are at stake.
Will the government tell us why it has absolutely nothing to say in the throne speech on this topic, when this is something that actually comes under its jurisdiction?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, obviously, there were problems with Canada's airline industry, particularly with the weak opposition from Canadian Airlines.
As a government, we have three options: first, we can provide financial assistance for Canadian; second, the company can declare bankruptcy; third, we can seek another solution.
We have chosen the third option, which is to find a private sector solution, and that is why we resorted to section 47 of the National Transportation Act.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, everyone is waiting to hear something about the strategic issue of the airline industry in Canada.
Why has the government chosen to remain silent about this in the throne speech, when it has found something to say about all sorts of matters that are none of its business?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, in our view, the situation is very serious and I am therefore prepared to answer questions in the House of Commons.
However, if there is a private sector solution, the Canadian government will insist on five principles: consumer protection, service to small communities, employee rights and concerns, competition, and effective Canadian control. And that is very important in this debate.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Speaker, the government had months to develop a response to the Marshall decision and it did not. It had years to develop a fisheries management policy for this country and it has not. Under this Liberal government Canada now has a race based fisheries policy from coast to coast. A fisherman's livelihood is contingent upon his parent's bloodlines.
I would like to ask the minister why he has allowed race to become a cornerstone of fisheries policy in this country.
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, clearly we have a different point of view on this side. Our view on aboriginals is that we have to include all Canadians to make sure they can participate. We have to make sure that we respect the treaties that we have signed. That is exactly what we are doing and that is exactly what we are going to do.
John Cummins Reform Delta—South Richmond, BC
Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister is of no comfort to lobster fishermen who are afraid of losing their livelihoods. He is of no comfort to native families who are now facing unfair recriminations from their neighbours. He is certainly of no comfort to those who are concerned about the pillaging of lobster stocks.
I went to the east coast. I saw the problem developing and I suggested a solution to the minister which was a way out of the mess we are in now. I would like to ask the minister why he failed to ask the supreme court to stay the decision and take a rehearing of this judgment.
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, let us examine the position of the Reform Party. The Mi'kmaq people, after 240 years, a quarter of a millennium, were given a treaty right. What the Reform Party wanted to do right away was to take that right away from the aboriginal people. We will not do that.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, without even once using the word education, yesterday's Speech from the Throne made reference to learning, skills development, knowledge, and internship programs.
Can the Prime Minister now admit that his government wants to implement a national education policy, when this is not an area within its jurisdiction?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the answer is not a very long one. It is no.
We have responsibilities toward all Canadians. We must ensure that Canada is in a position to move into the 21st century equipped to face the challenges that we will have to confront and, within areas under federal jurisdiction, to step up our contributions in order to ensure that Canadians are very well prepared to enter the 21st century.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to get into areas of provincial jurisdiction, the throne speech states that they want to “eliminate barriers to the mobility of citizens” —I am quoting from page 21, to be exact—particularly those barriers “that deny some students use of their student loans when they study out-of-province”.
Are we to understand that the government in Ottawa, after having inaugurated its millennium scholarship program, now wants to attack the award criteria for loans and bursaries that are in place in Quebec?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeking is equality for everyone, for everyone to be able to go anywhere in Canada to further their education.
I believe it would be very good for Canada if people from the English speaking provinces could go to Quebec to study, and if people from Quebec could go to study in the rest of Canada under the same conditions.
I feel that this is ideal, because everyone would gain from it.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the throne speech failed to mention the massive restructuring that Canada's airlines are about to face. Air Canada and Canadian Airlines were in merger discussions six months prior to section 47 being invoked. Could the minister please explain to Canadians why he invoked section 47 when he did?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, it is true it now appears that the two airline companies were having discussions earlier this year. In the month of March, Air Canada was the first to raise with my officials the use of section 47. We now know that it was in connection with those discussions, but no action was taken and there was no formal request because the talks fell apart.
In June of this year, first Air Canada, with its proposal for the Canadian Airlines international routes, and then Canadian Airlines came to us and talked about a need to restructure the industry. That is why we used section 47.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government failed to provide Canadians with its vision of our airline industry in the new millennium. One can only assume that it does not have one. Why has the government failed to provide Canadians with some indication of its vision of Canada's airline industry in the 21st century?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a viable, strong and stable airline industry, but it is undergoing some very difficult problems, problems that will necessitate some very difficult choices on the part of Canadians and especially members in this House. We want a full debate in the House to elicit the views of hon. members on both sides of the House so we can develop an airline policy that will deal with the difficult matters we have to overcome in order to have a very strong and viable airline system in the 21st century.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the disastrous consequences of EI reform are well known.
Nearly 60% of unemployed workers, youth and women in particular, do not qualify. This reform is creating poverty in Canada.
Setting aside the parental leave plan, will the minister explain why she has been unable to convince her Cabinet colleagues that the best way of fighting poverty is to restore access by the unemployed to the EI system, which is their ultimate safety net?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks about employment insurance. That is one part of the government's strategy to help Canadians get jobs. That program is working for those citizens who have had a job, are temporarily without work and are going back to work.
There are other programs. There is the youth employment strategy. There is the opportunities fund for Canadians with disabilities. There is the Canada jobs fund. All these are our government's approach to helping Canadians find and keep jobs.