Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that, by setting a minimum number of hours worked ranging from 420 to 700 hours, he will be preventing a considerable number of women from drawing maternity benefits?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question being raised by the House leader of the official opposition is indeed a very important one. It is true that the changes proposed in Bill C-12 would impact upon women, as the hon. member says. This is one of the very good reasons why we are in the process of examining the bill in committee, and why we want to hear witnesses and to find out about problems such as this.
I am sure the committee members from all parties will address the problem identified yesterday by the Fédération des femmes du Québec. I trust that here, as in other sectors, amendments will be proposed to improve or totally eliminate the problem referred to by the hon. member.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister can count on the official opposition to bring in such amendments, and I trust we can count on the minister to support them. This is not the only area in which there is a problem. Women will be penalized, not only by maternity benefit restrictions, but also when they return to work if they opt to devote several years to rearing their children. Let us keep in mind that the minister intends to triple, from 300 to 910 hours, the minimum number of hours of work required for eligibility for benefits.
I am asking the minister, who has announced major amendments and who again this morning has said he is open to certain amendments, whether he has looked at changing the rules proposed in his bill relating to people returning to the work force after more than three years, after having left to devote their time to rearing a child or for some other reason?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are trying to be as equitable as we can in addressing all of the questions that will be brought to the attention of the committee.
In response to a comment by the House leader for the official opposition, we will look with great interest at any of the amendments brought forward by any of the political parties represented on the committee. Whether we can agree with them in totality we will have to wait and see. I am sure we will do the best we can.
With respect to the re-entry qualifications I want to make it clear that they apply across the board to all new entrants or re-entrants. We will take into account any special circumstances. Again there I understand the honourable member's comment about the need for mothers to take extended periods of time to deal with the rearing of their children. I expect the committee will be making suggestions and recommendations on this and a number of other areas.
I am very pleased to see that members of the official opposition now recognize the value of having this piece of legislation considered by the committee. I am sure as time goes on, as was the case yesterday and as will be the case next week, there will be a lot of constructive suggestions made and we will deal with them.
(1120 )
The one thing I would say we are totally committed to is the fiscal parameters that were set out for the overall EI reform. Within that restriction we are prepared to look at anything which will render the situation as equitable and as fair to women and everybody else who must have access to employment insurance.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the minister is pleased with the possibility of amendments by the official opposition, I trust that he also realizes that, if the official opposition had not opposed the initial bill so strenuously, and if there had not been demonstrations across the country-which are still continuing-the government would perhaps not have acted and would perhaps not be considering changing the bill, which was unacceptable right from the start. As well as the professional agitators-
In Quebec, women hold 68 per cent of the part time jobs. From now on, in order to be entitled to benefits, people will have to have worked between 420 and 700 hours, depending on the region. Does the minister realize that people who work 15 hours a week, the large majority of these women, would see the number of weeks they would have to work to draw benefits raised from 28 to 47 weeks? This is often a problem for those with unstable employment, seasonal employment, and 68 per cent of such jobs are done by women.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a large number of women, students, people everywhere in Canada working a few hours weekly, a few hours yearly, are not eligible at all for unemployment insurance benefits under the system as it now stands.
There is no doubt that the matter of 15 hours needs looking at, for it is very important to understand that 15 is the total number of hours worked in a week required at the present time to be eligible for unemployment insurance.
It would be necessary to know how many people, including women, work exactly 15 hours a week-not 14, not 16, not 18, not 22-to find out exactly what the impacts will be. We are prepared to present all of the impact analyses once the committee has
finished its work, or even while they are still sitting, in order to try to assess the implications of this or that change.
I trust that my hon. colleague recognizes that, by changing the system to start counting from the first hour worked for everyone, women included, we have taken a forward step. We have succeeded in protecting many people and I am prepared, in due time, and in committee, to see that my departmental employees present all possible data to ensure that everything is clarified. We will need to look at the impact on women, on those who have been excluded from the unemployment insurance system all these years because they did not have their 15 hours a week, in order to see whether where we are headed will be fair to women and to all who need access to the employment insurance program.
Will the minister recognize that all the employment assistance programs for students in the world will never compensate for the hundreds of millions of dollars the government is going to cut from post-secondary education and for the increased tuition fees the cut will mean?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week I had the opportunity to meet with young people from across the country at Forum Canada. The hon. member's claim that I was confronted by young people who had raised the issues he intimates in his question is wrong.
Just to let you know what is happening with the money made available for post-secondary institutions in this country, obviously we have jurisdiction-because the member and his party are always interested in jurisdiction. The provinces have jurisdiction.
(1125)
The money transferred by the Government of Canada is being used as well to fund certain provincial expenditures for post-secondary institutions.
Tuition fees for universities, cegeps, community colleges and post-secondary institutions are set by the institution or by the government, depending on the system.
The Minister of Finance announced in his budget last week that we were going to stabilize the amounts available to the provinces under the Canada social transfer.
I hope we will all work together, as we did federally, by trying not only to provide the tools needed for young people to progress, but also the funds needed through job creation for students this summer to enable them to meet their objectives.
To suggest that the Government of Canada is totally responsible for the situation in universities or post-secondary institutions across the country does not really indicate where the responsibility lies. It lies with the provinces, which have jurisdiction.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister just talked about lowering transfer payments. We have some figures for him on the consequences for Quebec, in particular.
While the federal government has cut more than $400 million in two years in transfer payments to Quebec for post-secondary education, it will allocate an additional $15 million only for summer jobs in Quebec.
Will the minister acknowledge that the recent announcements are nothing more than window dressing hiding major cuts for students?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can have differences of opinion with representatives of various political parties on a number of issues. Surely one of the areas on which we will all find some common ground is that governments of all political stripes at all levels are faced with extremely difficult decisions.
That is the situation in the province of Quebec today on a whole number of fronts that are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. Although we have very serious and profound differences on a number of issues, the future of the country for example, one thing I do agree on with the premier of Quebec is the need for that government to take serious action to address its fiscal problems.
It is simply not accurate to suggest that the Government of Canada is entirely responsible for the problems that exist with financing post-secondary institutions in Quebec. On the other hand when we announced we were doubling the amount of money available in Canada for summer student employment from $60 million to $120 million and the portion going to Quebec would be $15 million, it recognized that we did understand the problem facing young people in Quebec and their need to find summer jobs.
I did not suggest that the $120 million for summer employment for students was going to be a panacea for their need to find jobs. It is just part of the solution, which will have to be met by other
provinces, municipal governments, and particularly the private sector.
This is a very serious matter. It strikes at the very integrity of the Canadian Armed Forces. What will the Minister of National Defence do to investigate the separatist attempt to destabilize the Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I noted the comments of the hon. member from Charlesbourg which have been in the press. Certainly those kinds of allegations are quite serious. I agree with my friend opposite on the gravity of such an accusation.
The chief of the defence staff has consulted with his predecessor, General de Chastelain, and other senior officers in the last number of hours. I can assure the House that there have been no plans drawn up. There have been no discussions authorized by the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces for the eventual creation of two armed forces or the integration of a Quebec-Canada army. That would be totally inappropriate and unacceptable.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that assurance from the minister.
(1130 )
Is this the first time the minister has heard of these allegations that are being made about the interplay between the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and the Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we should view this in perspective.
During the referendum campaign there were lots of assertions and accusations made and a lot of emotional debate. The hon. member for Charlesbourg had sent a letter to certain officers in the province of Quebec. The matter was of such gravity that you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the House debate a motion by a member of the Reform Party, my opposition critic. The matter is now before the House.
Any accusations or suggestions made by the hon. member for Charlesbourg on the latest accusation or on the letter is something that has to be dealt with by the committee. If the hon. member for Charlesbourg has any evidence to substantiate this kind of allegation, he has a duty as a member of this House to bring it forward to that committee so that it can be examined.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this goes beyond the allegations concerning the member for Charlesbourg. It goes beyond the matter that will be placed before the committee presumably next week. This is a very serious matter. I find the minister's answers to date unacceptable.
The BQ letter and the PQ secret negotiations are exactly why we have been trying to open it up and get the government to discuss the terms of separation well in advance but it has chosen not to do that. That is precisely why we are in a problem right now. Before the final showdown with the Quebec separatists, the government cannot continue to sit on the fence; it has to come out.
Will the minister make it perfectly crystal clear in whatever public domain to the Bloc Quebecois, to Lucien Bouchard and to every member of the Canadian Armed Forces that the Canadian forces are off limits in the debate on Quebec sovereignty?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was a very distinguished general officer in the armed forces. He knows that the role of the Canadian Armed Forces is to support the duly elected Government of Canada and the Constitution of Canada. I am confident that the men and women of Canada's armed forces are doing exactly that.
The burden of proof about any actions of members of the armed forces as alleged by the hon. member for Charlesbourg is on that member to come forward and give us that proof. Only at that time will we launch a greater investigation other than the one I have in a sense launched in the last number of hours with the chief of the defence staff who has assured me that these allegations are unfounded.
In response to a question from the official opposition, the minister recognized and confirmed that several amendments to the UI program will result in greater numbers on the welfare rolls, since thousands of newly unemployed workers will no longer be eligible for UI benefits.
Does the minister not find it scandalous that people who lose their jobs are forced to turn to a form of assistance of last resort,
instead of receiving UI benefits to which they have contributed and to which they are entitled?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the hon. member can say that I agree with opposition members. This is not the case at all. What happens is that, with the legislation as it was proposed, the calculation is to be based on the number of accumulated hours.
(1135)
However, I think that, with the amendments that will be moved during the course of the legislative process, we will end up with a system whereby many part time workers will not have to turn to social assistance and will in fact be eligible for UI benefits. Some employers, for all sorts of reasons, provide less than 15 hours of work per week to their employees. These workers are currently not eligible for the UI program, or for other support programs that are in place to help the majority of Canadian workers.
Hopefully, and contrary to what the hon. member implied, these amendments will reduce the number of people who have to turn to social assistance.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that, since new entrants will now have to work 910 hours instead of 300 to be eligible for UI benefits, these young people will be forced to turn to social assistance.
Will the minister recognize that, in addition to being a terrible measure for the unemployed, this is a roundabout way of making the provinces pay part of the costs of the UI reform?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his colleagues are working very hard trying to create a situation. They talk about people who are going to go on social assistance. Then in the question the hon. member talks about new entrants onto the system.
If a person is already connected to the unemployment insurance system then he is not not a new entrant unless he or she has been out of the system for a number of years. Then that person becomes a re-entrant.
We are not advancing the quality of the debate or trying to deal with the problems facing real people by trying to raise all kinds of unnecessary concerns. The requirement for new entrants into the system is not based on just the 52 weeks of the calendar we have normally applied it to. They can actually bank the weeks, or hours as the case will be after January 1, 1997, from the previous year's work.
If the hon. member wants to put forward his arguments in a place where we can sit down and look specifically at what he is proposing and what concerns him and how we can respond to his questions, we will be happy to do that. However that is not the interest of the hon. member and his colleagues. They want to continue to provide ammunition to those who, for all kinds of other reasons than protecting those at the bottom end of the income scale, want to agitate and make even more anxious real families with real problems who want real solutions.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain how the government could spend $20,000 of taxpayers' money on producing partisan propaganda and then pay civil servants to destroy it?
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the new minister for the department, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was within her right and it is her prerogative to refuse a document which was prepared by her predecessor which did not reflect her prospectus or her priorities for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Therefore, the document was not distributed and her staff took the appropriate action and means to have the document destroyed.
As the new minister of the department it is her prerogative to decide what the priorities of the department are.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is reported that the new immigration minister turned to CSIS to destroy these potentially embarrassing documents. If this is true, it would be another example of CSIS involving itself in partisan politics by protecting the party in power.
Before the solicitor general comments on these allegations, would he explain whether he has given any instruction to CSIS that it is no longer responsible for investigating threats to the security of Canada but rather that it is responsible for concentrating its efforts on investigating threats to the Liberal Party of Canada?
(1140 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been advised that the allegations made by the hon. member that CSIS was asked to destroy these documents and did so are
totally false. CSIS was not asked to destroy these documents and it did not destroy the documents.
Furthermore, I am confident that CSIS is very well aware of its responsibilities under the law established by this Parliament and is carrying them out.
Two Ontario women are currently challenging, in court, the parental leave provision of the unemployment insurance plan, which treats adoptive parents very differently from natural parents. There is a huge difference, in that adoptive parents are entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave.
In light of the fact that the purpose of parental leave is to nurture the child, how can the minister explain this double standard for biological and adoptive parents?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult question. As the hon. member said, there is a matter before the courts so I do not want to specifically address that problem.
This is a question that has to be dealt deal with in the most sensitive way possible. I have been informed of the decision to move in this direction and I have been trying to become better acquainted with the rationale behind it.
On the question of maternity benefits, as the hon. member says it has the component of taking care of the child. It also has the very obvious and significant element of taking care of the natural mother as she goes through the process of childbirth.
I understand the concerns raised by people who feel there should be as much opportunity as possible for nurturing a newborn child or a newly adopted child in those situations. However, it would seem to me, and there is no doubt of the decision of the government in terms of how to deal with this issue, that there were differences not in the needs of children to be cared for by their mothers for as long as possible, but in the difference between the situation faced by a natural mother in terms of her own physical capacity to deal with a birth as opposed to that of an adoptive mother dealing with an adopted child.
I do not think there are ever any easy solutions to these questions. I hope my hon. colleague would understand there is at least that difference between the two situations of a natural mother and an adoptive mother, and the need to look at them somewhat differently.
[Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is always a timely topic. Before Christmas, the Government of Canada made a proposal to the provinces and territories, suggesting that a national day care system be established.
It will come as no surprise to my hon. friend to learn that several provinces, including Quebec, have expressed serious reservations about the appropriateness of federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction. I agree with this reaction. What we are suggesting to our partners from all the provinces is that we need to sit down together and try to figure out how the Government of Canada could help resolve, at least in part, the problem raised by my hon. friend, while at the same time respecting the provinces' jurisdiction.
In this context, I promise, not only the hon. member who asked the question, but also the representatives of all governments across the country, that we will do our best to fulfil the commitment made by the federal government in the throne speech not to interfere unilaterally, through its spending power, in an area of provincial jurisdiction.
(1145)
We will nonetheless try to find, within these parameters, a way to co-operate with the provinces in order to help those who need the kind of support that a financial contribution to day care would provide.
Pierre Pettigrew has decided that he may have trouble winning his seat so he has decided to try and buy it. He does not have the portfolio which would allow him to spend millions of dollars in his own riding, so he has decided instead to spend $3.8 million in Haiti in an attempt to buy votes in Papineau. Apparently he is shameless.
On behalf of Canadian taxpayers who will have to foot the multimillion dollar bill for this, I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he will bring this matter to the House of Commons for
debate so that we can see whether the $3.8 million is for the benefit of Haitians or for the benefit of Pierre Pettigrew.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find the question absolutely incredible. Canada is very proud of its longstanding commitment to Haiti and to the people of Haiti.
The announcement made yesterday by the minister who has the responsibility of the francophonie, of which Haiti is a member, is also the minister responsible for international co-operation. He made the announcement in a series of Canadian government announcements in support of the people of Haiti.
The two projects announced yesterday will be implemented by two Canadian NGOs, CECI and CESO by name. They will be working in collaboration with Haitian non-government organizations.
All of the funding is for the benefit of the people of Haiti, not for the people of Canada, whatever their origin, and certainly not for the personal benefit of the minister.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when a minister does not yet have a seat in the House of Commons, how convenient it is to spend money to buy a few votes in one region of his riding.
Canadians are justifiably proud of their commitment to Haiti. We have sent many people to Haiti. We continue to send money. We want to help to restore democracy in Haiti.
However, it is unconscionable that Pierre Pettigrew would funnel $3.8 million at this time, in the middle of a byelection, at a critical moment, in order to help himself in a byelection attempt.
Does the minister personally condone spending money 10 days before a byelection in an obvious attempt to buy-
The Speaker: Even by the furthest stretch of the imagination, the question does not fall under the purview of the minister's administrative responsibilities. It is out of order.
On February 28, the community of Kanesatake voted a resounding no to the following question: ``Do you want Jerry Peltier as grand chief and chief negotiator?'' Yet, the minister seems torn since Mr. Peltier wrote him that he wanted to remain as chief.
Since the minister has long supported the principle of Native self-government, when will he recognize the Kanesatake community's inalienable right to choose its own leaders?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question last week.
That community had an election. We hired Coopers and Lybrand to oversee the election. The report was returned saying that it was a proper election of Jerry Peltier.
The community had a meeting a few weeks ago and they now have a second chief. However, Mr. Peltier's term is for three years and he has not resigned. In the spirit of self-government, I am hoping the community will work itself through the process.
On the upside, the difficulty in the community has not affected the fact that there are seven members on the council. Six are still there. The majority is still working.
(1150 )
Why do Bloc members always pick on Jerry Peltier and the Mohawks? They are back to Mohawk bashing. Why do they not pay some attention to the Algonquins or the Abenakis? They do not have any interest north of here. It is always the Mohawks. Why? The Mohawks see through this party for what they are. They see them as ideologues and they will continue to ask these questions about the proud Mohawks.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the minister that I am a member of the Bloc Quebecois and not the Reform Party, thank God.
Does the minister not agree that, by continuing to protect former chief Jerry Peltier-who, may I remind you, used to work for his department-and by failing to acknowledge the February 28 vote, he is showing disrespect for the community of Kanesatake and treating all Native communities in Canada like children?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I face the separatists and the Bloc every day and I know they are very concerned about territorial integrity and the political position of the Mohawks.
These are not my words, these are the words of Daniel Turp, the candidate for the Bloc in Papineau and the man who gives this party advice. He said: ``If Quebec were to object to sovereignty measures democratically approved, these native nations could undoubtedly claim that their democratic rights to self-determination and to secession have been violated''. This party is violating this.
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conference that took place in Egypt this week sent a very important message to the international community that collectively people, including those who historically were sometimes antagonists, can come together to confront terrorism, violence and the cowardice of that in our world community. It is an important message, particularly to the Middle East peace process, at this time.
The summit was a very short process. There was agreement that a working group be formed. Canada will participate in that working group to find other ways in which the international community can improve its efforts and collaboration toward ending terrorism and violence around the world.
Our departments are meeting to see how we can, in fact, prevent fundraising and the organizational work of terrorists in our country.
For example, Mark Phillips got a management job for $33,000 and pocketed another $7,500 as a part time consultant. His qualifications were that of a cook and president of the Digby Liberal Association.
My question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Will the government disclose the criteria and qualifications for selecting the board of the Cornwallis Park Development Agency besides being Liberal, or do we have to dissect this whole operation piece by piece?
The Speaker: Colleagues, in question period I try to give every latitude in the framing of questions. I would ask members to be very careful in the preamble.
(1155 )
I have to wait until the end of the question to see if it is in order. That is what we are dealing with here. Sometimes in the questions and sometimes in the answers members are taking, in my view, a little bit of licence. I would ask them to please try to compact the preamble to questions so the wait is not so long before I can intercede and make a decision.
This question is in order and I will allow the solicitor general to respond if he wants to. I saw him on his feet.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): I will follow your admonition most closely, Mr. Speaker.
I will say simply that I do not accept in any way what I consider to be the unwarranted insinuations and premise in the hon. member's question. I do not see why his question should start out with an unwarranted attack on a very distinguished and hard working member of this House.
I will be happy to take these allegations, in spite of their unwarranted nature, and bring them to the attention of the minister responsible for ACOA. I understand the new agency is in place and its administration is being put in place in the proper way. I am sure the minister responsible for ACOA will have full answers when he is back in the House.
In the meantime, I see no reason why the hon. member should make these unwarranted attacks on a very distinguished, hardworking and effective member of this House.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): I guess, Mr. Speaker, when you are dealing with facts, you are dealing with facts and I do not see them as unwarranted at all, having already undertaken an investigation.
We have unsolicited bids, we have hiring of unqualified people and we have political patronage which are commonplace in this particular agency. The vultures have started picking at the carcass of a closed military base.
Will the minister agree to a public inquiry of the Cornwallis Park Development Agency? If he will not, will he allow the opposition to review the records of ACOA and the Cornwallis Park Development Agency with respect to its finances and its operations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in answering this question I want to make it clear that I do not accept in any way the premise, the insinuations or innuendos in the hon. member's question.
This matter will be looked into by the minister responsible for ACOA and he will be in a position to report back in the appropriate way.
In the meantime, in spite of the hon. member's reference to facts, he has not demonstrated in this House that he always has a complete grasp of them himself.
[Translation]
The minister recently claimed to have given $80 million to the Davis Inlet community. However, according to information provided by Innu leaders from Davis Inlet, the actual amount given to the community is $7 million, not $80 million as claimed by the minister. Moreover, it seems that the 35 consultation reports that the minister boasts about were paid with moneys targeted for emergencies and vocational training.
How can the minister consider Davis Inlet as a success for his government, considering that the Innu live in abject poverty and that, according to their leaders, they are still being exploited? Which version are we to believe?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will start taking advice from the Bloc on Davis Inlet when they send as many members of Parliament to Davis Inlet as the Liberal Party has.
We have been there several times. We have a plan over a term of years to deal with health, to deal with housing. I have crawled under those houses myself to see what was being constructed. When the Bloc gets under a house at Davis Inlet and looks at what is being done, then I will start listening to them.
The figure is over a term of years. We are working with the very unfortunate people at Davis Inlet. We hope that this will be a success story in Canadian history where the Government of Newfoundland, the Government of Canada works with native people. Unlike the Bloc, we work with native people, not against them.
(1200 )
The new health minister in Japan, after taking on the portfolio, very quickly apologized publicly both on behalf of his government and the companies involved. In Canada the new health minister is subverting the process of Judge Krever.
The question is straightforward again to the novice health minister. Why will he not let Judge Krever speak?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is inaccurate, false and erroneous. To give credibility to that question would be giving credibility to a member who has no credibility.
Last week in his budget the Minister of Finance announced changes to the country's child care expense provisions. Would the Minister of National Revenue please explain to the House how the child care expense provisions have been modified?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of last week's budget there have been changes to the child care expense deduction.
First, the age of eligibility for children has been increased from 14 to 16, recognizing that there are parents who do work night shifts and need to have support in the home for their children. Therefore those costs should be deductible.
Second, we know there are single parents who are enrolled in full time education and who have not been able to use the deduction in the past. We have changed this process so that they will now be included. These reflect the changes in Canadian society. I believe the changes will be appreciated by Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Thank you for that timely point of order.