Debates of May 11th, 2001

Organized Crime

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Bloc Quebecois has always wanted tough anti-gang legislation. It was even the first, in 1995, to introduce a bill designed to more effectively combat organized crime. But the bill now being proposed extends the notion of police immunity to all criminal investigations, instead of limiting it to investigations dealing exclusively with organized crime.

Will the Minister of Justice agree that she is completely ignoring the well-known conclusions of the Keable and McDonald commissions by allowing police forces to authorize themselves to commit criminal offences in the course of their infiltration activities, which is unacceptable?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, his party is calling for legislation with teeth. But his question suggests that they want to remove those teeth.

Why does the Bloc Quebecois want to do this and make it harder for us to successfully fight crime throughout the country?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, do the Liberal tradition and the democratic practices the Minister of Justice was boasting about in the House yesterday consist in allowing the government to become politically involved in police investigations, in which case we on this side say shame?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the judges will not be involved in political investigations in this country. Politicians will not be involved in investigations in this country.

This bill will give the police the tools they need to fight crime in this country, and this government will never apologize for giving the police the tools to do the job.

The Environment

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, both the environment and the health ministers insist they stand behind the joint action group, the local committee charged with directing the Sydney tar ponds cleanup process. JAG with one voice has demanded residents in the contaminated area be relocated urgently.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. If the government stands behind JAG, why is it not implementing as an urgent priority the relocation of those residents?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question comes from the partial nature of the preamble she gave. It omitted a number of important facts.

As she should be well aware, we awaiting the report of the consultant on this very subject, which was expected this week and now is expected next week. As the premier of the province, as my hon. friend the Minister of Health and as local residents of the joint action group have made clear, we think it is important to wait until we have the basis upon which we should move rather than moving prior to receiving the information.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the joint action group has made it absolutely clear that the residents must be relocated. The government is not standing behind JAG; it is hiding behind JAG.

Every time leadership is needed the government thinks of another reason for delay. The federal government is the only partner with the resources to get the job done, both the relocation and the cleanup. The minister knows that no cleanup can take place until the residents are relocated. What is the government waiting for?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, once again I find it surprising that a member who has served in the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia should be so insultingly dismissive of the correct position taken by the people elected to Nova Scotia legislature.

The fact is that we will have the agreement of the parties based upon proper scientific information. She claims that we do not need proper scientific information. She claims we should proceed regardless of the experts. It is her privilege to ignore the province and the local people, but we expect to abide by the agreements we have made both with the province and the local people.

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Since the moratorium hundreds of millions of dollars have been dumped into Atlantic Canada in fisheries diversification and Atlantic partnerships, a lot of it through the minister's department. However a lot of that money cannot be reinvested in the fishery, yet the fishery is the best job generator in Atlantic Canada.

Does the minister not think his department should probably look at investing more money in the fishery in research, in experimental equipment, in marketing, and I suppose—

[The Speaker]

The hon. minister of state.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. John's West for his question. I agree completely with him.

At ACOA we are spending a lot of energy working with the industry in export development, new manufacturing and added value training.

Team Canada, which will include fisheries business people from his province, will be taking a mission to Atlanta. We are also working very closely with the aquaculture industry as a new and developing industry. We have had great success in the development of new technologies and new species in Newfoundland.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of fisheries who administers the great lucrative shrimp resource off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The minister has a whole lineup of people looking for quotas. Does the minister not think that it is about time his department, and the government generally, said to those who are looking to us for such quotas “I will give you the resource provided you show me how you will create jobs onshore”?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice on this question. He is absolutely right. The northern shrimp is extremely important for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the maritime provinces.

The hon. member knows that there has been a huge increase in the harvesting of that resource, from just 37,000 tonnes five years ago to 112,000 tonnes. There are always pressures to exploit more of that resource, but we must ensure that any decisions we make are sustainable and that the resource can be taken advantage of for many years ahead.

My decision will be based—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Canada's national broadcaster, the CBC has a responsibility to be accessible to all Canadians. Why is the CBC withdrawing service from rural Canadians?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage has chosen to undertake a study on the state of the Canadian broadcasting system. It will work for the next 18 months. We will wait for its report and then pick it up from there.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, service in small or remote locations is poor and getting worse. Taxpayers in my riding, less than two hours away from Ottawa, cannot receive an over the air signal, as is the case in the rest of rural Canada from coast to coast.

Will the minister direct the CBC to use the $60 million in additional funding to maintain transmission infrastructure rather than fuel a fire sale of assets, which is the current plan?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should call the hon. member the new member for flip-flop, because the Alliance was against funding CBC.

We will take on our responsibilities. We will wait for the committee report and then pick it up from there.

Urban Affairs

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in June 2000, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services met a group of elected city officials from the Quebec City area, where recognition of constitutional status was raised as a possibility for municipalities.

Are the remarks of the minister an indication that the government intends to reopen the constitutional file and thus justify the infringement of areas of Quebec's jurisdiction?

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

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not the intention of the government to infringe on anything.

We always honour political jurisdictions. This is what the Government of Canada does, and the member opposite knows that for a fact.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the past is an indication of the future.

Can the recent remarks by the Minister of Transport and the creation of an urban affairs committee be interpreted as the first steps to constitutional reform, aimed once again at centralizing all powers in Ottawa, in defiance of Quebec's jurisdictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has a very fertile imagination, to say the least.

The Prime Minister's caucus task force on issues important to Canadians living in an urban context is entirely reasonable.

It is a good thing to do. It was even something that everyone wanted, including city dwellers, just like the equivalent committee looking into rural issues set up a few weeks earlier. It is the same thing.

Government Contracts

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, treasury board guidelines on sole source contracting are very simple: that there is a pressing emergency, that the contract is valued at less than $25,000, that it is not in the public interest to solicit bids, or that only one person or firm is capable of performing the work.

Therefore, there are only two possible reasons why the government gave a $615,000 sole source contract to Groupaction: Either it was not in the public interest to solicit bids, because the company was a major Liberal donor, or because the work was done by Groupaction in the first place it was the only one capable of evaluating. Either way it is questionable. Which is it?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the member is incorrect. The contract to Groupaction was not sole sourced. Groupaction was a qualified advertiser available to the department for utilization on specific contracts.

The work done by Groupaction was not in fact an evaluation of a past project. It was an identification of additional important opportunities for Canada to present Canadians with the services and programs available to all Canadians.

[Andy Burton, Canadian Alliance, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary maintains that this was not a sole source contract since the government picked from a source list of prequalified firms. I do not see the difference.

Would it not stand to reason then that Groupaction would have been disqualified from this list since it had done the original work in the first place? If it did not evaluate, what did it do? If there is really no problem with this contract why not release its findings? What is the government trying to hide?