I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage that the Bloc Quebecois is the only party fighting for maintaining the mandates of the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada, but that we are opposed to a CBC tax.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As the CBC faces cuts amounting to $150 million over two years, could the heritage minister finally tell us how she intends to go about funding this crown corporation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the Leader of the Opposition is open to new ways of funding the CBC. What is unfortunate is that the Leader of the Opposition's open-mindedness was not reflected by his own critics who, the day after the Juneau report was tabled, rejected any form of funding other than the current parliamentary appropriations.
If the Leader of the Opposition is willing, I, of course, will work in co-operation with the Minister of Finance to try to find new ways of funding the CBC in the long term and I would expect the Bloc Quebecois to support our efforts instead of blocking them as they have done so far.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage should remember that, not so long ago, her predecessor's careless answers hurt his career.
My question is extremely serious and if we had an answer once and for all, we would move on to something else. The president of the CBC clearly stated-and he was the second president to do so-that they could no longer absorb $150 million in cuts without the corporation's mandate being affected. Yet the minister asserts that the CBC's mandate will be maintained.
Our question is very simple and quite legitimate and it deserves an answer: How will the minister allow the CBC to carry out its mandate if she cuts another $150 million?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talking about careless remarks, it is not the government who, the day after the Juneau report was tabled, dismissed all funding recommendations. It was the Bloc Quebecois who immediately refused to consider any of the long term funding alternatives as proposed in the Juneau report.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we in government are now considering all long term funding alternatives for the CBC. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will at least lend his support, even though his former and current critics have not endorsed any new funding methods.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage that what we formally object to is the creation by the government of a new tax that would make Canadians pay twice for the CBC. We object to this. I understand that she is looking for ways to fund the CBC, but in the meantime the corporation itself is facing some serious problems. The minister should understand this.
This is not a trick question, but a request for information. How can the minister impose another $150 million in cuts without changing the mandate of a crown corporation which, at least according to its last two presidents, is unable to do what is required of it? What does she intend to do? It is her responsibility, and we want an answer. Is it possible?
(1420)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see that the Leader of the Opposition still rejects the new funding methods recommended in the Juneau report, as they were by both the former and the current Bloc critics.
That said, when I work with the Minister of Finance on a new funding alternative, it is precisely so that we can achieve one of the major objectives in the Juneau report, namely the long term funding of organizations such as the NFB, Telefilm Canada and the CBC.
I think it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to consider new funding mechanisms that could in the long term, as proposed in the Juneau report, eliminate the need for an annual budget review of the CBC.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. The Bloc Quebecois recognizes, and joins with others in recognizing, the importance of the CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada as cultural institutions, as set out in the Juneau report. Second, we also recognize the report's insistence on the need to settle the long term funding issue.
The Bloc is clearly opposed to a CBC tax being levied. Last week, the minister herself told me in this House that she was against imposing a CBC tax, but at the same time she is establishing a cultural production fund. My question is clear: What is the source of this cultural funding? Where will she get the money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the idea put forward by the member opposite, to support the recommendations made in the Juneau report while not rejecting any new method of funding, as the Juneau report proposed, is typical of the politics practised by the Bloc Quebecois by constantly talking from both sides of their mouths. In fact, we agree with the Juneau report that long term funding should be provided through instruments other than parliamentary appropriations. And that is precisely what my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and myself are looking into right now.
This lack of open-mindedness on the part of the Bloc Quebecois is unfortunate.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple, we are asking the minister to tell us what scenarios are being contemplated and what she is working on in terms of where the funds will come from. Given that both the past and the current presidents of the CBC agree that an extra $150 million in cuts will affect the CBC's mandate, are we to understand from the minister's response, since she stated that the mandate would not be modified, that the CBC will be allowed to run deficits, to be absorbed by the consolidated revenue fund?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I am not surprised the Bloc Quebecois is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.
The day the Juneau report came out, one of its important messages was that for the survival and the growth of the CBC, alternate methods of financing must be sought in the long term. That is precisely the work I am now undertaking with my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
What is sad is that a party that claims to support public broadcasting has turned its back on looking at new and innovative methods of funding such public broadcasting.
There is only one problem with that. Canadians still have copies of the Liberal campaign pamphlets from 1993. Two weeks ago the member for Niagara Falls said he did not promise to scrap the GST but his election flyer has just surfaced from 1993 and he promised in it to fight to eliminate the GST.
My question is this. Which Liberal is telling the truth? The Liberal candidate for Niagara Falls or the Liberal MP for Niagara Falls?
(1425 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of Liberals throughout the campaign and the position of the government have been very clear. It was stated in the red book on page 22. It is conceivable that members of the Reform Party have not read the red book. I would suggest they do so as it would give them very good insight into what the country is all about.
In 1990 the leader of the Reform Party said that he would rip the GST out. Was he speaking for the Reform Party? Was he speaking for the Reform when he said it could not be repealed immediately because it would increase the deficit? Was he speaking for the Reform Party when he commended the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yes we did say that and we still say that it should be phased out. We need to cut spending, that is the problem. We stand by that.
Liberal candidates across Ontario ran on the promise of killing, scrapping and abolishing the GST. Once they were safely in power they broke that promise. Now they are busy trying to bury the evidence.
After the minister of immigration gets through shredding her predecessor's pamphlets, there are 98 other ridings of Liberal propaganda and broken promises for her to get to work on with the shredder.
I ask the Prime Minister this question. Why did the Liberals break their promise on the GST? How many other Ontario Liberals are going to have to start shredding their campaign pamphlets?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every Liberal who ran in the last campaign ran on a platform that was very successful, which was the red book. The promise is on page 22. As it was tabled in the House, it is available to every member of Parliament. If some members do not want to read it there is not much I can do about that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what amazes me is that when the Liberals fall back on the red book now, the member from Niagara Falls, in his local newspaper last week, said: ``I guess I could say that we were a little over-zealous and little over-anxious. I guess you could say it has haunted me''. Those are words from a Liberal MP, not me.
I ask the Prime Minister this. How many Liberal MPs has the Prime Minister haunted with his promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST and then totally turn around on that? It makes no sense.
[Translation]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat once again that, in 1990, the leader of the Reform Party said very clearly, when he was trying to get the member for Beaver River elected, that he was going to rip the GST out, to get rid of it. One year later, he wanted to keep it. Now, his position is exactly the same as ours in the red book, in that he wants to replace the GST with a harmonized tax. It took him three years to get to where we have been since the very beginning.
[English]
The Reform Party can go through this charade time after time on what the government's position is. The government's position has been very clear. The difficulty the Reform Party has is that it is caught by its own contradictions year after year on the GST, on social programs, on the commitment to bring in a new budget, on how fast it would reduce the deficit, on medicare and on virtually everything.
There is no consistent philosophy from Reform Party members. They only have one objective which is to confuse. The only people they confuse are themselves.
The CBC's 1994 annual report tells us that the English network's budget was $750 million, compared to $275 million for its French counterpart. Yet, the two networks more or less have the same number of viewers and, according to their presidents, production costs are the same for both.
(1430)
Since the Minister of Heritage agrees with the Bloc Quebecois that taxpayers should not have to be taxed, can she tell this House whether her magical formula to fund the CBC will allow her to eliminate the discrimination between the two networks and ensure that both cultures are treated on the same foot in this country?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is wrong. Canadians currently do pay taxes to support the CBC.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister missed my question, and such a good question too.
Since the Juneau report proposes, among other measures, to decentralize CBC's French language production and take it to regions outside Quebec, will the Minister of Heritage confirm that, to avoid a weakening of French language television in Canada, this recommendation will not be implemented, unless she minister allocates new funds to fund it?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered the member. The premise of her question is false. What she said on Radio-Canada was that Canadians would not be taxed. In fact, Canadians are currently being taxed to the tune of some $900 million, specifically for the function of Radio-Canada.
What was recommended in the Juneau report was a different method which would see reductions of parliamentary spending being taken up by a more direct tax.
[Translation]
It takes money to promote CBC's activities in both official languages. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois flatly rejects, without even giving it any consideration, any new funding method that would ensure, in the long term, the promotion of French and English programming from coast to coast.
Is the minister so desperate to get the provinces to sign on to his harmonization proposal which, of course, is a breaking of their election promises, that he is willing to pay them off even when we have a $600 billion debt? And where is he getting the money to do that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been having discussions with a number of provinces which essentially recognize that it would be good for their small and medium sized business communities and their consumers if the GST were replaced with a new single tax.
We can go back and forth as the member plays games. Is the Reform Party adopting a fourth position? Is it reneging on the
position it stated in the finance committee that it sought to have a single tax and that it recognized that it would be a very difficult negotiation?
What is the Reform Party's position? Are you in favour of a single tax?
The Speaker: Sometimes the hon. minister forgets me. Please do not forget me.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on national television the government, the minister, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to scrap, to kill, to abolish the GST. Those are their words. If they hang on them, it is their fault.
The Liberals are not willing to create jobs by cutting premiums from the $10 billion UI surplus but they are willing to try anything, including spending money they do not have to save the Deputy Prime Minister's job.
Why is the finance minister attempting to salvage his government's pathetic attempt to fudge on their election promise at the expense of Canadian taxpayers?
(1435 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has always said that she would replace the GST with another tax. That is it. The words in the red book are very clear in black and white.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Why is the Reform Party deliberately trying to distort very clear statements that have been made in the past and a position that is rock hard?
Is it because the Reform Party is embarrassed by its own internal contradictions? Is it because the Reform Party does not know which way to turn? Is it because the Reform Party has lost virtually every item of its agenda? Is it because the Reform Party is no longer relevant to the Canadian political scene?
In Halifax, in May 1995, the Minister of Heritage announced his decision to raise from 20 per cent to 33.33 per cent the figure for foreign participation in broadcasting parent companies. In November 1995, he repeated that commitment formally. To date, however, the order in council to authorize that harmonization with the telecommunications sector has not yet been issued.
Can the Prime Minister explain to us why his government is still dragging its feet on this order in council despite its repeated commitments to do so, while it knows very well that this delay puts broadcasting companies at a disadvantage compared to telecommunications companies?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we wish to guarantee Canadian content in the broadcasting policy. This is something I believe even the Government of Quebec endorses.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Since the telecommunications and broadcasting industries are fighting for the same turf, can the Prime Minister assure us that they will be treated in the same way when it comes to regulations on foreign ownership levels?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member wishes broadcasting and telecommunications policies to be the same because, when the former Bloc critic organized a meeting with Télé-Québec on the subject, she agreed with the Government of Canada's policy on this.
As far as broadcasting is concerned, Canadian content is not the only important thing. It is also important for Canadians to own their culture.
However, this time it is $50 million that is unpaid and it does not appear we are going to be getting payment in the near future.
Will the government assure taxpayers that it will not sign any more blank cheques for the UN until this matter is taken care of?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that this year alone we have already received a $72 million payment from the United Nations, even during a time when it is desperately strapped for cash because of the very substantial arrears by other countries.
One of the most important initiatives that Canada is taking is to try to get the refinancing of the United Nations so it can continue on its peacekeeping missions.
It is an issue that the Prime Minister brought up at the G-7 during the last meeting in Halifax. I intend to raise it with the secretary of state for the United States while I am in Washington this week. It is very important that all those who have not paid their bills, pay their bills, so the UN can continue to do its job.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians have a great deal of difficulty understanding that sort of accounting.
The minister guaranteed that the command for our troops in Haiti would be 100 per cent in Canadian hands and that the mandate was for four months only. Now we find out we are paying the entire bill, the mission may be extended, the mandate is clouded and the control may be within the Haitian government.
Will the minister deny these reports, guarantee that this mission will be over in four months and that command decisions will remain in Canadian hands?
(1440 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me explain first that this was an authority originally given by the United Nations Security Council. The extension is also under the United Nations.
We were asked as a country to take responsibility for the command. Canadian Brigadier General Daigle is in command of the UN mission. He is also responsible for the additional forces we put in to supplement and ensure the mission had sufficient resources to continue to fulfil the task set for it. We are working exactly under the UN mandate as established by the security council. The Canadian troops that are there as auxiliaries are subject to exactly the same mandate. They both report to Canadian Brigadier General Daigle.
In this case it is very clear that we are still following the fundamental principle that we want a multilateral international solution to these problems.
Does the minister recognize that what makes New York and Chicago attractive to Canadian investors is the greater savings available in the U.S. as well as higher prices for an initial issue of shares, and has nothing to do with purely political motives like his excessive taste for centralization that makes him interfere in this exclusive provincial jurisdiction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I never used the word ``invade''. I talked about co-operation, about creating partnerships and working together. In fact, the hon. member is right when he talks about the premium paid by American investors and the U.S. capital markets. There is a threat not only to Canadian but also to European stock exchanges.
That is why we must work together, we must co-operate. The idea is not to invade, but there is no doubt that it costs a great deal of money to send prospectuses to 10 provinces. We must find a way, as suggested by the Montreal business community, to co-operate to give the Canadian financial community a strong bargaining position.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to justify his interference in the area of securities, the minister mentioned normal competition between stock exchanges but not reasons that might encourage investments in that area, something the minister could act on. One thing has strictly nothing to do with the other.
Will the Minister of Finance not admit that there is no need for him to interfere in the area of securities, since all the problems he mentioned, including how complex the share issue process is, will be resolved by next September, when a harmonized system designed by the provinces will be put in place without the federal government getting involved?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): The hon. member knows full well, Mr. Speaker, that we are in favour of harmonization, in terms of securities as well as taxation. That said, the situation is much more complicated and the problem much deeper that a mere matter of co-operation between stock exchanges.
This is not my own observation but rather the observation of the Montreal stock exchange president. In fact, the vast majority of stock brokers operating in Montreal know very well that co-operation is necessary. That is what we want to do, and I do not understand why the Bloc Quebecois is stalled in the sixties. They must stop looking at the future with their rear-view mirror. We must give the people of Quebec and Canada the ability to compete with anyone.
Given the outcome of Saturday's presidential election in Taiwan, the first direct democratic election in that nation's 5000 year history, can the minister indicate to the House any foreign policy implications for Canada in southeast Asia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know this country and its people support the emergence of the democratic process everywhere in the world. We want
to take this opportunity to congratulate the people of Taiwan for the very important step that was taken on the weekend.
The completion of the election provides a basis for the reopening of dialogue between the mainland and the island to ease the tensions that have been there, to begin developing the very extensive relations that were in place before the latest round of problems. We will use every opportunity we have in our discussions with both parties to encourage them to show restraint, to build creative relationships and we will offer all our good services toward that objective.
Why is the minister so intent on fast tracking this process?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I would say that after 100 years this is hardly a fast track.
In the process leading up to the agreement in principle, very sincere efforts were made at consultations in over 200 public meetings, open houses and other consultative mechanisms. Now that the process has moved to and through the next stage of actually signing the agreement in principle, the effort to keep all parties informed and to make sure that consultations are sincere and genuine will continue. I would certainly welcome the support of the hon. member and his party in helping to encourage this process toward a historic and successful conclusion.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has become very apparent that governments do not want public input into this deal.
During the five weeks since the Nisga'a deal was made public, many groups have struggled to digest the complex contents. No comprehensive independent analysis has yet been completed.
There is one sure way to tell if the public has a comfort level with this massive undertaking. Will the minister join with us in endorsing a provincially initiated binding referendum on the Nisga'a agreement in principle?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs has obviously been participating in a genuine process to lead to a successful conclusion an outstanding matter that has been a glaring discrepancy for over 100 years. I think the hon. gentleman and his party would be well advised, rather than raising ideas and suggestions that could well scuttle the whole process, to be a slight bit more constructive and try to bring this to a successful conclusion as this government is trying to do.
Last week, the Coast Guard commissioner claimed that his new proposal for marine service fees was largely accepted by all stakeholders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Marine stakeholders from the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes firmly oppose the new service fees.
How can the minister sweep away the objections of the majority of industries and stakeholders in these two areas, considering that they represent close to 50 per cent of Canada's commercial marine traffic?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nothing has been swept away, as the hon. member knows. I would not call the consultations that have gone on since January the sweeping away of anything. There have been very sincere and very delicate consultations with all members and all interested parties.
Despite what the hon. member says, there is general agreement that the system we are now using is much better than the system we started out with. That was the purpose of the consultations.
I want to assure the hon. member that even though the prices may have fluctuated on a tonne basis, in the case of Quebec we are dealing with a one cent difference in the consultation that has taken place. I would not exactly call a one cent difference a sweeping away, particularly with respect to the consultations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some consultations may have taken place, but I am not sure that the minister followed up on what was said.
(1450)
I remind the minister that, last week, the commissioner himself admitted that the Coast Guard needs adequate impact studies regarding these new service fees.
Will the minister recognize that it is unthinkable to impose new service fees while being totally unaware of their impact on the
marine industry, including shipowners in the St. Lawrence, and on related industries?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member I would like to make three points.
The first point is there is an agreement in principle that access to public facilities managed at public expense has to be charged a fee. The second point is we are graduating these marine service fees at $20 million, $40 million, $40 million, $60 million over a period of four years. I want to remind the hon. member that we are dealing with a service that cost $384 million and we are charging only $20 million for it.
The impact studies he talked about will be done between the imposition of the collection of the $20 million and the $40 million. There simply is not time to do all the studies. We have done the consultations. We will impose the fees. We will do the impact studies before we go into the $40 million fees for services that cost $384 million. That is not a bad deal.
The people of Toronto are now familiar with what kind of garbage this Liberal government dumps in their back yards. West Toronto residents were outraged to learn last week that Bobby Oatway had been secretly flown into their neighbourhood, leaving B.C. at five o'clock in the morning to avoid outraged residents and victims in my riding.
This pedophile originally faced 41 charges, mostly against children. Why did Corrections Canada shuttle this walking disaster out of B.C. and why were the Toronto police or the community advisory group in Toronto not advised?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that Oatway reached the statutory release period of his sentence.
I am further informed that the Toronto police were advised that Mr. Oatway would be placed in the Keele centre the day before he arrived and that the advisory committee was informed the day after. I am further informed that Mr. Oatway is to be kept under strict supervision in the centre. The correctional service is taking his presence as a very serious matter.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is my point. This man is not rehabilitated and I have the corrections and parole documents to prove it. I have a couple of quotes. March 1996 from the parole board: ``The concerns about your risk to reoffend remain'', and September 1994: ``The board concludes that you present an undue risk to reoffend, therefore day parole is denied''.
Why will the solicitor general not give his people the tools they are asking for to keep our streets safe? Why will he not give them the power to keep pedophiles like this one behind bars until they can prove they are safe to law-abiding Canadian citizens?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in point of fact as the hon. member has indicated, Oatway was not released on parole. He is in the statutory release period of his sentence. Furthermore, there is a provision in the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act whereby, if there is a referral for that purpose to the parole board, the parole board can rule that somebody in Mr. Oatway's category can be held to the end of their sentence.
I further add that the Minister of Justice and I, after consultation with law enforcement and other groups, are working on measures to deal with the issue of post-sentence detention of high risk violent offenders. Furthermore, we do intend to bring forward a number of measures to make the dangerous offender provisions more easily usable by prosecutors at the time of conviction. We also indicated that we want to present to Parliament measures to create a new category of long term offender.
If my hon. friend is serious about his concern, I look forward to him giving his full support to the measures we want to take to deal with public concerns about this kind of issue.
The House declared lacrosse to be Canada's national summer sport and at the same time Sports Canada stopped funding the Canadian Lacrosse Association. Will the minister recognize the more than 200,000 participants in this sport and acknowledge its place in our heritage by restoring funding to lacrosse?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work of the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton who, in the first instance, introduced a private member's bill that was supported by all sides of the House which declared lacrosse as our national summer sport.
As the hon. member knows, there are 200,000 Canadians, including many in his own area, who are involved in the sport. We have been happy upon receiving his intervention and the intervention of many other members to increase and restore funding levels to lacrosse. It is not only a sport which is important to the national fabric, it also has great cultural significance.
In the throne speech, the government announced that it intended to introduce a bill on the protection of endangered species. When speaking to the media, the Minister of the Environment added that he was even prepared to extend the scope of the bill tabled by his predecessor, which for once respected Quebec's jurisdiction.
Is the minister aware of the serious warnings from the former Quebec environment minister to his predecessors, exhorting them not to provoke a new battle in an area of responsibility that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that the government through its throne speech made a very determined effort to make the introduction of the endangered species legislation a priority. We make no apologies for that.
This issue is not one which should be posed as being of federal-provincial jurisdiction. Rather, in addition to federal legislation, there should be a determination across the country to have a national framework in place so that those endangered species as well as their habitats may be protected and that the federal-provincial jurisdiction take second seat. Of all the issues the public responds to in my ministry, this is the one issue which elicits the strongest and most emotional response by adults and young children alike.
The Krever inquiry is ready to make its final report and there are specific allegations that the federal government has done something wrong. If the federal government is innocent of all wrongdoing, why is it taking such forceful legal action to prevent Krever from making his report known to every single Canadian?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's description of what we are doing is not right.
We have said from the outset that we have done nothing to interfere with Mr. Justice Krever's findings. If he has the intention of making findings of wrongdoing, that is entirely up to him. We have supported and encouraged the inquiry at all points.
The only reason we are in court, and we are there on a very narrow ground, has to do with procedural fairness. We have made a submission to the court, which is best argued in court, with respect to the fairness of the way in which the commission went about its business in terms of providing late notice to certain individuals that they may have findings made against them.
As to the right of the commissioner to make findings of wrongdoing, we have never argued with that. We are happy to have him make his findings and to learn from the very good work he is doing.
The GATT signing in Marrakech set in motion an ambitious round of trade talks to begin in 1999 aimed at agricultural subsidies, but also targeting state trading entities.
Since department of agriculture officials have begun to use the term ``state trading entities'' when describing the Canadian Wheat Board, having done so recently at the CFA convention, has the government already decided to rid itself of the wheat board, the dairy commission and the supply management boards by defining them out of existence through GATT as it did with the Crow rate?
(1500 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman can be absolutely assured that, as I have said in the House on many occasions, the government will defend staunchly those vital marketing agencies and institutions that are so valuable to Canadian farmers, including our supply management system and most certainly the Canadian Wheat Board.
Could the minister of agriculture outline the measures he took to protect the safety of Canadian beef, consumers and producers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to food safety there is no room for smugness or complacency.
The attitude we have always adopted in Canada is one of great vigilance and care. We set and we enforce standards which are among the highest in the world. That is why we can say with confidence that Canada's meat supply is safe.
Under our surveillance system BSE has not been detected in any domestic Canadian cattle herd. The one reported case, in 1993, occurred in an animal imported from the United Kingdom. During 1993-94, as the House knows, the government took extraordinary measures to protect Canada's livestock industry and consumers to eradicate that disease in Canada, even though those measures were criticized by some, including both the opposition parties in the House.
I would like to receive assurances from the Prime Minister that neither he nor his office intend to intervene directly or indirectly in the decision that is taken and that the three cities concerned will have an equal chance to make their case.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a result of comprehensive reviews the department has been looking at its services and operations. As a result of technology and changes we have been able to consolidate offices in different parts of the country.
We will definitely consider all aspects of the consolidation moves and they will be done in a fair and equitable manner.