Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and this House know that this is a court ruling and I am not going to comment on that.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 35% of the vote.
Fisheries December 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and this House know that this is a court ruling and I am not going to comment on that.
Privilege December 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. members to listen? They have had their say and I would like to have mine. Could I have the courtesy that I accorded to them?
On a technicality, I want to make sure you are very clear on this, Mr. Speaker. Actually I did not write the directive. The directive to which the hon. member for Delta refers was not a directive issued from my office but a memo from one of my regional senior officials in response to a question of my office. There is no question it did come from my office at my request, but I just want to make sure the technicalities were clear.
The intent of the request was to ensure that members of Parliament, and Senators of course who are also members of Parliament, receive the information that they need in a timely manner. I also wanted to ensure that the departmental officials with whom they are dealing are the most qualified and the most appropriate people to answer their questions.
Sometimes these questions are very difficult. Sometimes the questions are complex and deal with complex issues. I wanted to ensure, with respect to the supervision of my staff, that the most appropriate officials at a senior enough level would direct attention to these questions from hon. members.
Far from discouraging public servants from speaking to members of Parliament, the request was to ensure that members of Parliament receive the best possible advice.
As the hon. member is well aware, through his many dealings with my department, his access to departmental information I believe is generous. It is generous, indeed, as it should be. His future access to information should in no way be stifled or diminished. There is absolutely no intent to do that. As I said earlier, it is quite the reverse.
I am not, as the member implies, in the business of doing things that are not in the interests of this House, whether it is in the House during question period, whether it is in discussions or whether it is at meetings with hon. members on all sides of the House to answer questions they may have. I make myself available and I do not think there is a member here who could say otherwise.
The hon. member strikes at the heart of the democratic process, in my mind, and the business of governance. For a minister to do his or her job properly that minister has a responsibility to be aware of what people communicate to anybody associated with the portfolio. I have a responsibility to the hon. member, to this House and to all our constituents to make sure that my department responds to these questions in a proper fashion. How would I know that has been happening unless I know what is happening with respect to the number of queries that have been posed by hon. members of this House?
I have a reputation for openness. I have no reason to hide anything. I have an open department. It has a very close interface with the public. It is a very operational department. The request from my office, I say in all sincerity and in all seriousness, was indeed to ensure that members are accommodated; it was not to inhibit them.
I am committed and I will continue to be committed to providing the best possible service to my colleagues, the elected officials of this House.
By way of wrapping up the thoughts that I have put forward in the last few minutes, the intention when issuing this request to my senior officials was to ensure that members of Parliament are the recipients of the best, most knowledgeable and most timely information when they take the trouble to contact my department. I assure all hon. members that their requests will continue to be handled in a timely, expert and professional fashion.
I can only promise the House that I will continue to keep an open ear to all the voices communicating with me or my department, including the hon. member and each and every one of his colleagues.
Privilege December 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I am surprise by the question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member for Delta. Very
little surprises me after a few years in this House but I am really at a loss to understand why this is considered to be a loss of privilege.
I think there is a suggestion made that there was an attempt to deny information to members of Parliament. I am not sure whether that is what he is implying. In fact, if that is the implication I think it is totally absurd.
I want to state clearly, unequivocally and emphatically that there is no attempt by me, my staff or my department to deny answers or inquiries from any hon. member.
I have a great respect for this institution, for Parliament, and in particular for my colleagues in the House of Commons on all sides of the House. Anyone who knows me would attest to that. It is in that spirit that I have directed my department to respond quickly and rapidly to members of Parliament on all sides of the House.
Coast Guard November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has missed the whole point of the impact study. The point of the study was to find out what the impact would be at $60 million. But it also examines what the impact is in a general sense.
The hon. member is suggesting that I should go ahead with the impact study, release it and then go ahead with increased fees. I do not think I want to do that.
The purpose of the study is to find out what the future moves should be. Before I table any study, I have to look at what the impacts are, which is the purpose of the study, before we go ahead with the next move. And for the information of the hon. member, it is not another $20 million because in effect we are collecting $26 million now. We will move when we are ready and when we have studied the impacts on the overall industry to make sure that we are being fair, decent, balanced and reasonable.
Coast Guard November 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member talks about is a report on the impact study of the marine service fees. I want to make sure the house understands the question.
The impact study, as I have promised time and time again to this member, uses seven initiatives to look at 1,400 traffic flows and 15 commodities. This is a very complex study that examines the impact of the $60 million marine service fees which represent a very small portion of what it costs this government to provide.
The hon. member knows it is user pay, user say. The report is in the final stages but despite what the hon. member may surmise and suggest, the truth is the report has not yet been completed. It is not put together. I have not seen the final report.
I am not in the habit of tabling in this House or to anybody else reports that have not been completed, and I will wait until the report is complete before I do so.
Fisheries November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member one more time and more forcefully that the advice I got from my scientist was that a closely controlled food fishery executed the way it was would not impede the recovery of the cod stocks.
The food fishery was done for the right reasons; 94,000 Atlantic Canadians had the advantage to engage in the food fishery like other people in the gulf area; 5,000 checks were made; 1,200 tonnes were caught all within the parameters of the advice given by the senior scientist.
What does the Reform Party have against Atlantic Canadians? Once again it is fighting the last war on the wrong information.
Fisheries November 18th, 1996
The member has asked a question, he should please listen for the answer.
All scientific decisions like any other decisions are made on different pieces of advice. I have to tell the hon. member that this particular memo which I have not read because it was not addressed to me was addressed internally.
I went ahead with the food fishery on the basis of the advice from my senior scientist. The advice was that a closely controlled food fishery like the one which was implemented and executed with lots of surveillance would not impede recovery of the cod stock. That came from my senior scientist and it was on that basis that I went ahead.
Fisheries November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question, although I certainly do not accept the premise.
I would advise the hon. member that he should stick to the subjects he is aware of and knows. I make many decisions.
Coast Guard November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will say it in another manner. The hon.
member is aware of the objectivity of this study. It has examined seven aspects that impact on the marine transportation business in this country and on the commodities. In fact, the 1,200 runs I talked about cover almost 90 per cent of all the commodity runs by shipping in this country.
I see the hon. member smiling. I do not know where he is getting his figures with respect to Port Cartier and its closing down, but it is impossible to measure every single aspect. I remind him that the study that was done was done at the request, in fact at the insistence, of the committee on which he serves.
We are responding to the request of the committee, of which he is a member. The results are objective and the study will show that there are some conclusions that he will be able to study in the very near future.
Coast Guard November 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee that asked for the study, I am sure the hon. member is very much aware that the study is a very objective study. In fact, it is so objective that it has looked at seven of all the activities that impinge on ports and indeed the whole business of shipping.
I will go a little further. This report looks at 1,200 critical movements of commodities in the Canadian shipping business and has examined a dozen or so of them in particular. It has consulted from coast to coast, many meetings in this country. I have met with the marine advisory board. I met with certain other sectors of the shipping industry to discuss the progress of this report.
I have to tell the hon. member that despite his misgivings it is a very objective report carried out by a very credible third party with no connections to the government. It was done at the behest of the committee on which the hon. member serves. He will be apprised of the results when it is completed in the very near future.