Debates of Nov. 5th, 1999

Free Trade Area Of The Americas

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Canada was the first country in these meetings to push hard for civil society to be involved. In fact, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, which held hearings across the country over the past couple of years, met with civil society and made strong representations to the Government of Canada, which listened.

Immigration

[Sophia Leung, Liberal, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

Last year less than 14,000 business immigrants came to Canada, yet the minister's projection for this year is even higher. How does the minister intend to attract more skilled business immigrants to Canada?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to answer the question.

In the response to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said that Canada should be the destination, the place to be, in the 21st century.

We are committed to achieving the levels announced, to encouraging the best and brightest from around the world, to streamlining our processing, to using resources and information management. We want to look at innovative programming like temporary workers and foreign student visa programs to encourage them to come to Canada and ultimately decide to emigrate here and help us build a better and more prosperous life for all Canadians.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs says that new treaties are a better option than court fights when he talks about the Nisga'a.

The neighbouring Gitanyow and Gitksan bands are now claiming that 80% of the 1,930 square kilometres of B.C. given to the Nisga'a under the treaty is their traditional land. They have started legal action against both the government and the Nisga'a.

How can the government claim success with the Nisga'a treaty when all that it has started is a new round of legal battles?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the government stands by the Nisga'a agreement. We have tabled it in the House. The hon. member knows there will be hearings in British Columbia in only a few days and people can make representations on the agreement. The British Columbia legislature has voted on it. We are committed to passing the legislation.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court ruling regarding Donald Marshall and native fishing rights has led to chaos on the east coast and uncertainty across the nation.

That is because the judicial ruling is unclear regarding the geographical limitations of the treaty, and rich resources will be affected. The Liberals refuse to ask the courts for clarity. The government chooses not to ask for clarification. It prefers to introduce uncertainty. One has to ask why?

Is it the government's agenda to give natives unlimited access to all natural resources in the country? Is that the agenda?

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

Mr. Speaker, the treaty was properly negotiated and all its clauses were clarified. There was extensive consultation. It is pointless to raise fears that are totally unfounded.

Highways

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal red book promised to invest in highways but western Canada has hardly seen a cent of federal money. Some 38% of the national highway system is substandard, mostly in the west. Bringing it up to standard would save 247 lives and prevent 16,000 injuries each year.

Every dollar spent fixing the national highway system would save $2 in health care costs. Surely the Liberal government has a moral obligation to invest in highways so Canadians can drive home safely. Will it commit now to a serious investment in the national highway system?

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points. First, I point out to the hon. member that the deputy minister of the transportation department has been meeting with counterparts from all the provinces and is working on a national highway policy. The second and most important point is that in the throne speech we indicated our commitment to the enhancement of the infrastructure in the rural and urban areas of the country.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want more than words from the Liberal government. Even when the government says it will do something, it never follows through. It has not come through with enough emergency aid for farmers. It has not come through for homeless Canadians or children in poverty. It has not come through on cutting the GST.

The Liberal government has neglected the national highway system for so long it will now cost $13 billion to bring it up to standard. Will the Minister of Transport commit today to invest at least that much? Surely the lives of Canadians are worth it.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the hon. member that negotiations are progressing. Progress is being made. The future looks very, very bright as far as the infrastructure of our communities is concerned.

Housing

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the general manager for CMHC in British Columbia says the corporation knew in 1992 that there was a problem with leaky condos but the corporation still continued to insure leaky condo mortgages which thereby exposed taxpayers to risk. It did not inform consumers who were seeking CMHC backed mortgages.

CMHC has admitted guilt. Is the minister ready to compensate leaky condo owners for this government wrong?

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the provincial building code sets the standards for proper construction practices that are enforced within provincial jurisdiction. I would like to see which provinces would like all the building codes set by the federal government in Canada. I do not think any province would go along with that.

CMHC provides mortgage insurance to its lenders, not construction advice, nor inspection services.

We have offered $75 million in loans which Mr. Barrett has not taken up. We have offered a series of RRSP loans, which information has been disseminated very carefully. We have also offered RRAP funds for eligible homeowners in those areas. We have done all that we can do.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the $75 million is at the same rate as a bank loan and they cannot afford that. CMHC knew years ago that consumers in British Columbia were purchasing condominiums that would be worthless in five years but it continued to take money from young families buying their first homes and from seniors who are now faced with retirement, in poverty and have tens of thousands of dollars in repair bills.

When will the government compensate those victims?

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the blame where the blame exists. The B.C. government was warned by its own bureaucrats in 1987.

Jim Curry, then the director of the B.C. Building Standards Branch, wrote to different provincial ministers saying “My concerns stem from what appears to be a blind pursuit of energy conservation to the complete exclusion of all else, jeopardizing both the health of occupants and the structural integrity”. Mr. Curry wrote this in a 1991 letter to then housing minister, Robin Blencoe.

Why is it that when the provinces get into trouble they go to the government with the deepest pockets and the best management of their budget?

The Environment

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has said that with the advance in scientific research and with the introduction of new technologies that Canadians can take advantage of those advances as we face the issue of climate change.

What is the minister doing in practical terms to help Canadians take advantage of these technologies while we face the climate change situation?

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, science-based innovation is a big part of the climate change solution. Canadians are world leaders in making things possible. This is why the federal government has created the technology early action measures or TEAM component of the climate change action fund.

Fifty-six million dollars of seed funding has already leveraged $433 million of investment, an incredible ratio of 9:1. Companies like Iogen Corporation, Stuart Energy Systems Inc., Powerbase Inc, Hydro-Québec, Arenda Aerospace, B.C. Gas International and many others have taken up the challenge.

There are many good news stories—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Lakeland.

Immigration

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.

“Canada's revolving door refugee system is a charade, puts an undue strain on Canadian taxpayers and constitutes a scandalous abuse of our border”. These are not my words but the words of federal court judge Donna McGillis. This judge is only telling the minister exactly what she has been told before by many Canadians. Why will she not listen?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, while not perfect, the refugee determination system in Canada is not charade. I think most Canadians are proud of the fact that we have due process in Canada and that we protect individual rights.

The issue of multiple refugee claims is one that I hope will be discussed and addressed during the legislative review process that parliament is undertaking right now. If the member opposite has any positive ideas I would be happy to hear them.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Finance announced that employment insurance premiums would be lowered by 15 cents.

I did not see a single Canadian protesting because of employment insurance premiums, but I did see some protesting against Liberal cuts.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Will changes be made to the employment insurance program, yes or no?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, employment insurance benefits are a very important part of our infrastructure. They are there for Canadians who had been working and who find themselves temporarily without work. We on this side of the House are very anxious to work with Canadians to ensure that they have jobs, that they have employment.

Today we were very pleased to see that Canada's unemployment numbers are continuing to come down. They are the lowest they have been in a decade at 7.2%. I would also note that for adult women unemployment is the lowest it has been since 1975 at 5.8%.

Fisheries

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, at a meeting this week with the legal advisor of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, MPs were told the aboriginal people of Atlantic Canada will lay claim to a 50% share of the Atlantic fishery.

Is the minister aware of this position? If he is, does he support the position?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Government of Canada is taking a very close look at these issues, and there is no reason for such fearmongering.

1906 Census

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, an archaic law is still preventing the people of Quebec and of Canada from having access to the results of the 1906 census and is depriving the university community of historic data.

Will the minister promise to modify this act, already amended in 1918, and lift the restriction on the 1906 census so that historians can gain a better understanding of this period in our history?