House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 35% of the vote.
Coast Guard March 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the provision of emergency services in the tributaries of the St. Lawrence River, as in other rivers in Canada, is the responsibility of the province. The Canadian Coast Guard provides ice-breaking services in the tributaries at the request of the Quebec ministry.
I will take into consideration what he has said and we will do what we can with the resources that we have.
Coast Guard March 6th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that this took place. The coast guard has only one air cushion vehicle, a Hovercraft, in the region and it was in refit at the time. It was January and that was the normal time to refit these kinds of crafts. I think the hon. member would agree that it was impossible for any other vessel to get there because of the depth concerned.
I will take into consideration what the hon. member has said. We will try to make that craft available as much as possible, given the contingencies that one would expect under the circumstances.
Fisheries March 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member and this House that a good meeting took place yesterday. Five items were discussed: the Fisheries Act, the Oceans Act, licence fees, allocations of quotas and the criteria to get to a core fishery.
I am pleased to report to the House that common ground was found on many items among the over 100 people who attended the meeting. The discussions are continuing today. I think it is safe to report that this common ground will help us move forward with a fishery of the future with optimism and positiveness.
Canadian Waterways March 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I had a long answer ready but the answer is no.
Canadian Waterways March 5th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, this is not new. This has happened before. To bring the House up to speed, the U.S. has complained that we have applied the transit fees of two years ago inappropriately and not in accordance with international law.
In January we sent a note to the United States indicating that it is reasonable to use these terms and options in inland waters. The waters under question include the inland waters of British Columbia.
The fees are quite appropriately charged in inland waters. The right of innocent passage, which really is at issue here, applies only to the territorial sea.
Fisheries March 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for the manner in which he and his colleagues have represented fishermen and their concerns.
I am aware of these concerns. The emphasis up to now has been on the occupation of DFO offices. I want to de-emphasize that because I am aware there are many fishermen who are not occupying offices, who are interested in speaking, talking and discussing the issues of concern. They have indicated their eagerness to do this to me.
To that end and as a result of meeting with members of Parliament last night I have instructed my officials over this weekend to contact those people who are occupying the offices to give them the opportunity to join the discussions that will take place early next week with those fishermen who share the same concerns but who are not occupying the offices.
Fisheries February 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his first question this session in the House.
The fishermen in his riding and in adjacent ridings are concerned about a number of things, including licence fees. There have been tremendous consultations on that and many changes. The licence fees are set for 1996 but there is some flexibility for 1997.
On the criteria for reduction to a foundation fishery, the rules were basically agreed to in principle by the fishermen. There is some flexibility and so we can look at that.
Concerning quotas, we will be quite happy to look at that. My department is very sensitive to the needs of the people in the fishing industry.
We have told them over the last three weeks that we are looking forward to talking with them after they vacate the departmental offices.
Food And Drugs Act December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the interdepartmental committee on household goods removal services, which I will call the IDC for short, recently conducted a review of the household goods removal service process. It had three goals when it did this.
The first was to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of an admittedly overregulated arrangement with the industry. The second was to encourage the entry of new competitors into the process. Third was to secure greater savings through the application of economies of scale and consolidation of service.
The committee reviewed the feasibility of using a single supplier, as the hon. member said, for its moving business. The committee's evaluation of the concept after meetings with parliamentarians and others in the business concluded that there was a potential for saving, but insufficient grounds exist at this time to introduce a major change in the process. The information was too soft and the risks were too high.
The committee met with current contractors and other interested parties to seek industry feedback and to include their views in order to ensure that the process was open and transparent.
A new approach to acquiring these services has been developed which represents strong potential for savings, addresses the concerns of the bureau of competition and moderates the implementation risks involved.
The basic elements of the changes are: a one year competitive tender fully accessible by any interested party; the lowest bidder will receive 40 per cent of total government business, while the remaining compliant bidders, maximum of three more, would receive 25 per cent, 20 per cent and 15 per cent respectively; the lowest bidder's rate would be used; contractors would not have the right to refuse government moves; contractors rather than the government would determine the infrastructure requirements; and exclusivity rules would be rescinded whereby any carrier could align itself with another carrier, van line or government moves. These changes will take effect in April 1996.
Finally, I want to assure the hon. member and this House that this government is committed to fairness in awarding government contracts while at the same time ensuring that the best possible value for the Canadian taxpayer exists. I assure her that her concerns will be taken into consideration.
Food And Drugs Act December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is very misguided in his attempts to discredit the minister and the government.
Certainly members on this side of the House know that the platform of the third party has been to use specious and irrelevant petty arguments and half truths for partisan gains which really have nothing to do with the Canadian forces and the issue at hand.
Let us look at the facts. It was a Liberal government that called for an inquiry. It was this government that ensured the inquiry would be public and open. At least the hon. member gave me credit for asking for it two and a half years ago.
It was this government that encouraged people to come forward with the information and to go forward to the inquiry. It was this government that ensured that the Somalia inquiry was provided with complete and accurate information and that relevant documents were made available to the commission.
Not all these actions have been easy. We could have been goaded into precipitous action. I will give one example. Where others may have been attempted to score political points, we stayed the course and waited for the Westray Mine decision so that justice would be done and done properly, without the possibility of it being undone later because of a technicality.
That is one example. These actions point toward good leadership, integrity and willingness to get things done. Now is the time for the commission to do its work and we look forward to its recommendations.
The Canadian forces have a long and proud heritage which we are not prepared to throw away, despite the antics from the other side of the House in the third party. I suggest the third party share the sentiment of all members on this side of the House, especially at a time when we have just embarked on a new program, the first
in the history of peacekeeping. I hope they will continue to lend their support for Canadian forces abroad.
The Balkans December 4th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member just said. I think he said the Reform Party's position was not that we not send troops to fight. That certainly was not the position the third party defence critic concluded. After 30 minutes I finally got it out of him.
I want to ask the third party members if they believe we should have Canadian forces that are not able to participate in armed conflict. What do we have an armed forces for, to sit at home and stick their tongues out at people?