Debates of Nov. 17th, 1999

Csis

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough does not understand about this process. I heard him on CBC Radio yesterday morning when he indicated that SIRC was an independent body and could do the job. I just wish the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough would quit playing politics and trying to score cheap political points in this House.

Aboriginal Affairs

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered the Marshall decision last September, the minister of Indian affairs sent shock waves through resource industries in this country by suggesting that the judgment gave natives treaty access to forest, mineral and natural gas resources. This morning the court clearly stated that these other resources were simply not addressed by the Marshall decision.

Given the court's clarification, is the minister prepared to withdraw his irresponsible and inaccurate statement?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, the reality of it is that the courts did say very clearly that we should be negotiating with first nations people. That is the position of the government, not the position of the opposition, and we will continue to negotiate.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the minister says, the Marshall decision applies only to a Mi'kmaq treaty right to carry on a small scale commercial eel fishery. Most importantly, it acknowledges non-aboriginals' right to fish. Will the minister of fisheries acknowledge the right of all Canadians to fish and develop one set of regulations for all Canadians?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, when the court ruled today it totally rejected the position of the Reform Party, which asks for a hearing. Second, the court has reaffirmed the government's position, the government's strategy and the way the government has handled this.

Let me read the quote from the courts:

As this and other courts have pointed out on many occasions, the process of accommodation of the treaty right may be best resolved by consultation and negotiation of a modern agreement for participation in specified resources by the Mi'kmaq rather than by litigation.

Transfer Payments

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian federation is chronically dysfunctional—those with the money are not providing any services, and those providing the services have no money.

In the meantime, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is worrying about the referendum practices of the Government of Quebec rather than devoting his energy to resolving this fundamental problem that has been identified by all premiers.

Would the minister not be better advised to do what he was appointed to do and speak to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, so that action is taken to right this fiscal imbalance?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that our federation be in good economic health. It is extremely heartening to note that we are having some very healthy discussions on how to use surpluses.

I want to point out to the member that the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois once said that it was necessary to leave the federation because it was on the brink of bankruptcy. Well, this federation is one of the healthiest countries in the world economically and together we are talking about ways to use the surpluses.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this former leader of the Bloc Quebecois is also a premier who, along with nine other premiers, has harsh words for the government's use of the surpluses.

Instead of retreating to his ivory tower and dreaming up plans to limit the powers of Quebec's National Assembly, would the minister not be better advised to have a word with the Minister of Finance so that the next federal-provincial conference focuses on the real problem: getting the money to those who provide the services?

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

Mr. Speaker, credit is due many of the provincial governments for making it back to a surplus position before the Government of Canada did, for beginning to lower their taxes ahead of us, and for having a financial health that is comparable to ours.

If it has taken certain governments, and one of them in particular, longer to achieve this, perhaps a few years of referendum madness are responsible.

Rcmp

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that all of the departments under the solicitor general have serious problems hanging on to their briefcases. We have now learned that the RCMP had information stolen from one of its cars, which put the lives of informants and their sources in grave danger.

It is clear that the minister did not do anything about the CSIS briefcase. Did the minister and his department consider the RCMP stolen briefcase a serious threat to the lives of the informants and what action did he take?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to the case that was stolen in 1995, the commissioner assured me that an investigation into this did take place. He also assured me that the necessary steps were taken.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question then is, if serious steps were taken and this is yet another event in the life of this minister in the departments of the solicitor general, why is it that we have yet another case missing from another car? I do not really understand.

The people who put their lives on the line for the minister and his ministries want to know why it is that his ministry acts like a sieve. Why are their names in danger, in public, as a result of his department and his department's inaction?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and the government takes this matter very seriously. That is why when the director informed me he told me that the inspector general was conducting an investigation and CSIS was conducting an investigation. And SIRC, which has a mandate from this place to conduct a review, is doing that very thing.

Why will my hon. colleague not just let the process work?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that not only were documents stolen from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, but that lists of informants were also stolen from the RCMP.

How does the minister explain the fact that the RCMP has lost sensitive documents, some of which could endanger the lives of people who co-operate with the police, without the government even being informed of such an incident?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if my hon. colleague was listening, if she was talking about the brief case that disappeared in 1995, I just responded to that question.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that his cavalier attitude regarding such a serious issue has everybody concerned about his understanding of his role and of the security component that is involved?

To show that he clearly understands his role, could the minister tell us when he intends to demand the resignation of the heads of these agencies?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the commissioner of the RCMP indicated to me that there was an investigation. He also indicated to me that the documents in the case were not project specific and they did not involve national security.

Canadian Forces

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister opened a new $15 million armoury in his riding, claiming it was a military necessity, that the regiment there had been expanding since 1936.

The fact of the matter is that the membership in that regiment has actually dropped from 236 to 176. The number of privates has gone from 106 to a mere 31.

Why did this shrinking regiment require a state of the art $15 million armoury just before the 1997 election?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member has not provided all of the information about this armoury. He is talking about one regiment, one unit. However, there are six units that occupy that armoury.

If a family goes from one person to six people it obviously needs more room; so it is in the case of the armoury. The previous armoury was built in 1950. They have outgrown it. Yes, there are some fluctuations, but there are four cadet corps there with some 150 over and above the number that he is talking about.

Furthermore, this was first approved in April 1993.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the defence minister is not giving out all of the information. The project was terminated by the Department of National Defence in 1996. According to the department, it was suggested that there be no change in this armoury until the year 2015.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary Northeast may again begin his question if he would like.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the defence minister is not portraying the whole picture either. The project was terminated by DND in 1996. It suggested that the existing armoury was viable until the year 2015.

The Prime Minister insisted that the new armoury was necessary in 1997 when he was facing a tough election campaign. He knew our troops were desperately needing new combat clothing and new equipment.

How can the defence minister call this a military necessity?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this was first approved during the days of the Mulroney government in 1993, when the current Prime Minister was not even the member for Shawinigan.

Second, it was not terminated in 1996. It was put on hold at that time because of budget cuts. In 1997 it was put back on, not politically, it was put back on by the army which said it needed it because of the six units.

There is one other thing I think members should know. The hon. member talks about the $15 million for the Shawinigan armoury which is very much needed. What about the contract for $164 million awarded to Harris Energy Control Systems Canada Inc. in the riding of Calgary Northeast?

Plutonium Imports

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Transport Canada released a report in which it gives the green light to the importation of plutonium-based fuel into Canada.

The government keeps repeating that the public's short and long term safety are not at risk. However, the public's strong opposition to this project clearly shows that Canadians do not support it.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Will the minister recognize that the Seaborn panel, which spent nine years reviewing the nuclear issue, concluded that any solution must have strong public support, and will the minister finally allow a public debate on plutonium imports?