Debates of May 13th, 1999

Arts And Culture

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen either of the films in question.

I can repeat that there were 15,000 artists, writers and filmmakers who were helped last year by the Canada Council. I can underscore for the hon. member that the Department of Canadian Heritage does not write the guidelines. The guidelines are written by the Canada Council precisely because successive governments and successive politicians have understood that it is not up to a politician to determine what is art.

Minister Of Human Resources Development

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that he was not informed before the month of March, and that the debate took place in February.

How can he explain to us that his department received the request on January 28? Normally, a minister is responsible for his departmental employees, responsible for his department. Today he is trying to play the wise guy by telling us “We got the information in my office only in March. The department has nothing to do with me”. He says that, even if they got the request on January 28. He is the one responsible for his department.

How is it that he did not answer?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, or at least the pseudo-leader, is still not ready to be part of a government.

I am totally responsible for my department. I have 25,000 employees under my responsibility, moreover.

What the leader of the Bloc Quebecois referred to was my office. He brought my office into question. I am responsible for my department. I have already said the delay was regrettable. What I said was that this was brought to the attention of my office only in the month of March and that there were no wrong intentions in connection with providing the documents to the journalist.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer not to be like the minister if governing means doing so with disdain and carelessness, and playing the wise guy in the House.

When he tells us that his office is not involved, I would reread again for his benefit what the letter from the information commissioner said “The minister's office put his interests before those of the requesting parties and has defied the law all this time.” This seems to me to be pretty clear.

Could he tell us, when he claims that no one in the information commissioner's office had come to see him, how it can be that the commissioner refers to April 12, a request—

[The Speaker]

The Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, no investigator ever came to my office. There is a distinction between my office and my department, that is clear.

I can assure the House that there is a big difference, but I am responsible for my department and I am very proud of it. We are going to improve the situation. Moreover, we are one of the top departments when it comes to complying with the rules on access to information.

The adjectives used by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois in the introduction to his question and the personal attacks to which I was constantly subjected by the Bloc members are another thing. They claim to be here defending Quebec but there is a constant anti-Quebec attitude from these people who are here to promote—

[The Speaker]

The member for Calgary Northeast.

National Defence

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is sending 800 Canadian troops over to Macedonia. The trouble is it will take two months to get there and guess what? They are going to have to hitch a ride across the ocean to get over to the Balkans.

The chief of defence staff admitted in his last annual report that Canada has limited lift capacity for heavy equipment. The defence minister can see for himself the problem. I ask the defence minister, when is he going to buy or build the necessary ships that our troops desperately need?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need a large capacity ship on a regular basis. To spend $1 billion or $2 billion on a ship that might get used once every five years would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The Reform Party of course knows how to waste taxpayers' money.

Let me tell the House that all of our allies will use commercial ships as a means of getting their heavy equipment into different theatres. In fact, during the Falklands war the British used commercial ships to get all its equipment and its troops into the Falklands area.

There is nothing unusual about NATO countries doing this. We are spending the money in the best way for the taxpayer.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this government has cut billions of dollars out of the defence budget. It has literally laid to waste the troops and their capacity to move around the world. Instead it resorts to rent a ship to get our equipment over there.

I am going to ask the defence minister again, when is he going to commit to building or buying the necessary ships to move our troops and equipment around the world?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what the hon. member is saying in view of the fact that his party wanted to cut still more money out of the defence budget.

Now he wants us to build a ship that might get used once every five years or so. That is not practical. All our partners in NATO use money in the most efficient and effective way possible and that is what we are doing.

Bill C-77

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Association des propriétaires d'autobus du Québec, it takes an average of 20 passengers per bus to make a regional service cost effective. On some routes, carriers report no more than five passengers on average.

Does the Minister of Transport intend to increase fourfold the fares of buses used by students, seniors and people living below the poverty line so regional lines will survive his unreasonable deregulation?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite is mistaken.

The intent of this government and the bill is to establish a national framework to permit standardization in the area of safety, the main criterion of trucking and bus transportation businesses, and to standardize it across Canada.

Employment

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The Building and Construction Trades Council, along with the AFL-CIO, have been concerned for some time about the implementation of a fair wage policy by the Government of Canada.

On behalf of the thousands of workers affected, can the minister tell the House what the status is of our fair wage policy and when specifically the fair wage schedules will come into effect?

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, when I became Minister of Labour, a majority of members of parliament asked me to make fair wages one of my priorities.

I can inform the House that new regulations are being drafted. In late June 1999, in the provinces where there are no current wage schedules, Statistics Canada will conduct surveys to collect information to establish fair wage schedules.

The good news is that fair wage schedules will be in place in the fall of 1999 at the same time as the revised regulations.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of Indian affairs told the House that the charter of rights and freedoms applies to all Canadians. The question is: Does it apply to all governments?

The Constitution says the charter applies to the federal and provincial governments but it is silent on its application to the proposed Nisga'a government.

On what authority does the minister believe the charter applies to the Nisga'a government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will quote to the House from Dr. Joe Gosnell, the president of the Nisga'a people. He said, “We are not prepared to be marginalized by any political party in the country. We want to be a part of this great country of ours, to take part politically, socially, economically. That's the basis of the treaty”.

The Nisga'a are Canadians and the charter applies to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the charter is an instrument for checking the powers of government over individuals and the Constitution is clear. The charter applies to the federal and provincial governments. It is silent on the proposed Nisga'a government.

On what authority does the minister believe the charter applies to the Nisga'a government?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the expressed intent of all three signatories to the Nisga'a treaty that the Constitution and the charter of rights do apply to the Nisga'a people.

It is the intention of the government to ensure that is reflected in the enabling legislation that will accompany the treaty when it is presented to the House.

Grain Transportation

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, three days ago the Minister of Transport assured the House he would not slam the door on any reasonable suggestion from anybody at yesterday's grain transportation meeting in Winnipeg. However, he did just that by ruling out of hand any independent accounting of current handling costs for moving prairie grain. A dozen western farm organizations had unanimously requested that as a first step but the minister slammed the door in their faces.

How does the minister justify that decision?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the background documents that we released, he would know that Mr. Arthur Kroeger, a very eminent former public servant who will be our facilitator, will have a number of issues to look at in his mandate, including that of costs.

Mr. Kroeger can examine costs and the railway data, but we do not need a full costing review that will take nine months and delay the whole process.

Is the NDP more interested in delaying the process and lining the pockets of lawyers, or is it interested in getting a solution?

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the government has been sitting on the Estey report for five months now, it is a fairly feeble excuse.

The minister should simply stand up in his place and admit that he and the government have bought the Estey report lock, stock and barrel. They are not only refusing a review of costs, but they are stating that Mr. Estey's report is a compass for the future, a compass, I might add, that is pointed directly at the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why is the minister so eager to emasculate the role of the board and force ever higher grain transportation costs onto the backs of beleaguered prairie farmers?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accuses us of sitting on the report. What we were waiting for was feedback from the various sectors that are affected, something the hon. member and others in the House have been urging us to do. If we had moved any faster we would have been accused of ramming this through.

The government accepts the basic framework of Justice Estey, but we realize that a lot of work has to be done to make those recommendations come into force and to implement them to the benefit of all, especially producers. The goal for the government is to ensure that the producers get a better stake and more money out of any reforms.

Newfoundland Act

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1949, the Canadian Constitution, then known as the British North America Act, was amended by the addition of Newfoundland's Terms of Union with Canada. That amendment is now known as the Newfoundland Act, and section 44 says that Canada will provide for the maintenance in the province of Newfoundland of appropriate reserve units of the Canadian defence forces which will include the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. That is in the constitution.

Will the minister not agree that a constitutional amendment would be needed to eliminate the Royal Newfoundland Regiment which is actively being considered by DND?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing any amendments to the Constitution or any amendments to the Newfoundland Act. I am merely looking at a proposal that comes from a number of reservists themselves and people who are looking at reforms to an institution that has not been changed since the second world war.

As I have indicated previously, I will look at all those recommendations and any other recommendations. I am certainly not proposing any reduction in the size of our reserves or the size of our military overall, or anything that would involve anything akin to what the hon. member is talking about in terms of the change in the Newfoundland Act.