While the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is currently on a big cross-country tour seeking a solution to Canada's constitutional impasse and finds that all of Quebec has joined forces within 24 hours to tell him no, does he intend to work toward getting the government to backtrack from this dead end path on which it has embarked?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is this backtracking the Leader of the Opposition is referring to? It is very clear that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. It is very clear that the Government of Canada intends to recognize that reality by all necessary means.
The Government of Canada will make every effort to convince Canadians to reconcile, for there is indeed an element in this English speaking North America, in this bilingual Canada, that is called Quebec, an admirable society which is able to affirm itself as a great reality, a reality which Canadians wish to keep as part of their country.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the Prime Minister of Canada's strategy, which has always involved dumping on Quebec to gain votes in the rest of Canada. At the time of the Liberal Party leadership convention, he trampled roughshod over the Meech Lake accord in order to gain votes in the rest of Canada. During the 1993 elections, he presented himself as the man who could put Quebec in its place, in order to gain votes in the rest of Canada.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not in the process of adopting his leader's strategy as his own, that is to say bringing together all of Canada against Quebec, with this proposition he is defending?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to take more of an overview, for 30 years now Canada has been trying to survive the threat of secession. We are the only democracy that has been faced with this problem for 30 years, yet the same values are shared by Canadians in all provinces and in Quebec; they share a desire to live together. Those in Quebec do not want to have to choose between their Quebec identity and their Canadian identity. They want to remain both Quebecers and Canadians, and that is what they will do.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not embarrassed to associate his name with a proposal that is already doomed to failure, and which is most certainly the biggest piece of meaningless nonsense concocted by a federal government in the past 30 years in the area of federal-provincial relations?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is this I hear? Acknowledging Quebec's difference would be meaningless? What the opposition fears is that we might manage to reconcile Quebecers and Canadians so that they
may join together in the same country to face the formidable challenges of the 21st century.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
As reported by the media, it is obvious that the new intergovernmental affairs minister was not consulted before the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada passed its new resolution replacing the notion of distinct society with a narrower concept which only recognizes Quebec as the principal homeland of French language, culture and legal tradition in North America.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have any credibility during his Canada-wide tour, given that, at the first opportunity, the Prime Minister leaves him out of the discussions on the new constitutional resolution?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering since yesterday whether or not the hon. member can read or hear. It is stated in the resolution-and I want to put it on the record, because the Prime Minister himself pointed it out yesterday-that the Liberal Party of Canada supports the enshrinement in the Constitution of the principles recognized in the parliamentary resolution passed in December 1995 defining the distinct society.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the comment made by the minister applies to himself because he never answers the questions put to him, even though he is only starting his political career.
Does the minister realize that, by supporting the 1982 patriation of the Constitution and giving his unconditional support to this resolution, he is totally isolated in Quebec, since both the Quebec federalists and sovereignists are opposed to it?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have little to say on that, except perhaps that this is wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member.
According to the commissioner, these investigations have not had all the relevant documents necessary to reach sound conclusions. The defence minister was very quick to trumpet the information commissioner's report when it appeared to clear General Boyle of any direct involvement in the Somalia cover-up but now the information commissioner has expressed concern that all the facts were not on the table.
Can the defence minister categorically state that General Boyle played no role whatsoever in DND's efforts to cover up Somalia documents?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not need me to state that. The general stated it himself last week very clearly. I can assure the hon. member that what the general said last week was absolutely correct and absolutely true.
I was somewhat concerned yesterday with what the counsel for the commission said with respect to documents. It gives us some concern. However, I think we should keep this in perspective because the department has provided about a half million pages worth of documents. Further documents were requested and those have been turned over.
(1425)
Last week the chief of defence staff initiated a search unparalleled in national defence history. It bore great fruit because many documents did surface and were given to the inquiry.
If by Thursday the inquiry is still dissatisfied with the question of documentation and what it has available then it is within its mandate and its power to get to the bottom of what happened to the rest of the documents.
I would ask that after the inquiry sees the results of the further search by the department that it continues with its hearings and get to the bottom of things because that is what Canadians want. They want the truth to come out and only the inquiry will get to the bottom of it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister moved very quickly from the discussion of General Boyle on to other subjects and yet General Boyle is at the heart of this controversy.
The public affairs branch of DND hatched an elaborate scheme to rename, hide and even destroy Somalia documents. General Boyle was the head of public affairs. The Somalia Inquiry Liaison Team, SILT, is accused of deliberate foot dragging and misleading commissioners. General Boyle was involved in SILT. The military wants to court martial Colonel Geoff Haswell who says that top soldiers knew of the cover-up. General Boyle is part of that military justice system. The defence minister's hand-picked chief of defence is up to his eyeballs in the Somalia affair.
Given all of this, will the defence minister ask his appointee, General Boyle, to step aside until the inquiry determines his role in the Somalia affair?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is at the heart of this matter is justice and fairness for everybody in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Althouse: What about honesty?
Mr. Collenette: The leader of the Reform Party obviously does not know what justice and fairness means in Canada.
Justice and fairness means that everyone gets a chance to give his or her point of view in a setting that is impartial. The commission has decided to look at the documentation issue, including the public affairs issue, which will start next week.
Only then, after the chief of defence staff and everyone else has the ability to put the facts on the table, will Canadians be able to judge. We should not prejudge the matter on the floor of the House of Commons.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks a lot about justice and fairness and yet by siding with General Boyle he could very well be aiding and abetting a cover-up that prevents justice and fairness from being done. His hand-picked chief of defence is not an innocent bystander. He headed up public affairs at DND. He had a hand in the operations of SILT and he is the head of the military justice system. General Boyle cannot be impartial in a case in which he is both a witness and a suspect.
If the minister is committed to justice and impartiality, even the appearance of justice and impartiality, will he ask General Boyle, his hand-picked chief of defence staff, to step aside until the Somalia inquiry finishes its work?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I heard the hon. member correctly, he made a blatant accusation against me that I am a party to a cover-up. Does he have evidence of that fact? If he has evidence of that fact then he should submit it to the inquiry.
This is what is wrong with the Reform Party and the approach that it is taking. It is slandering and libelling people here in the House of Commons under parliamentary immunity and not allowing the commission process to get at the heart of the matter. That is not what Canadians expect.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
We heard yesterday that, in spite of the search within the defence, department, 20 per cent of all documents relating to the Canadian mission in Somalia are still missing.
(1430)
While records of daily activities of the first commando were allegedly too damaged by sea water, key records of the second and third commandos are still missing.
After the wide search which cost taxpayers several million dollars and where some 100,000 employees of the defence department were mobilized to go through all their files with a fine-tooth comb, can the minister tell us what he intends to do to locate the files that are still missing?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question a little earlier. There has been an unprecedented search of DND files.
Half a million pages of documents have been sent to the commission. If, by Thursday, the commission is still dissatisfied, it is the commission's job and within its mandate to find out why the rest of those documents are not available.
The commission has to do its job. It has to analyse all the data and then come forward with recommendations, which the government will consider.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, beyond the cover-up operation, which is becoming increasingly obvious, and regardless of all the muddle and the incompetence surrounding the management of the Somalia issue, how can the minister justify to the population that such important documents have disappeared and are still nowhere to be found? Are we to expect another search?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is basically repeating the earlier question. The commission will get to the bottom of the document issue. Let us wait to see what happens on Thursday. Let the commission do its job.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The minister has allowed cover-up to become a standard operating procedure at the Department of National Defence. Military police investigations have been compromised. Access to information documents have been consistently violated.
General Boyle, who is at the centre of the Somalia scandal, has been put in charge of the entire department. DND has been totally unco-operative with the inquiry.
The media knew there was a cover-up in the minister's department. The inquiry knew there was a cover-up in the minister's department. The Canadian public knew there was a cover-up in the minister's department.
How is it that the minister was not aware of the cover-up in the Department of National Defence?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want everyone in this Chamber to work together to find out the truth and not play partisan politics with this very difficult issue.
It is very difficult to take the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt seriously in his guise as the defence critic when he has been all over the map on this inquiry.
In October of last year he said that the commission is headed by top notch people and will come to conclusions. On April 2 he said that the inquiry should be shut down, that it had outlived its usefulness. This morning, he said that the commission is doing a fabulous job.
If the commission is doing a fabulous job, then let the commission ask all these questions of the relevant witnesses. Do not ask them every day in the House of Commons.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Somalia commission is fed up with the cover-up by this minister's officials. The minister is no better.
According to commission counsel, the minister knew last October that key evidence was missing. He did not inform the inquiry until just recently. The minister deemed it unnecessary to proceed with that information.
Will the minister of defence acknowledge his responsibility for this cover-up, do the honourable thing and resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not need the hon. member to tell me about my responsibilities.
Once again, the hon. member has blatantly distorted the facts from yesterday's submission by the counsel for the Somalia inquiry. This is a pattern that this member follows for his own partisan ends.
This morning on ``Canada A.M.'' he said, contrary to the facts, that the commission had asked the RCMP to look at the computer disk. I said yesterday that it was the department that brought in the RCMP to look at the computer disk.
Do not believe me because he does not believe me. Believe commission counsel, Simon Noël. When he was asked yesterday about who requested the RCMP to come in, it was the military police. This member is distorting the facts every day and that undermines the integrity of his questions.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Somalia affair is turning into an endless saga. First, we learned that documents had been tampered with or destroyed. Then, there was the great cover-up, which may have been masterminded by the chief of the defence staff himself. And then the whole army was mobilized and sent scrambling for lost documents. It has been the army's version of a treasure hunt. Twenty per cent of the documents are still missing, though. Nothing could be more ludicrous.
The minister of defence says that even worse could be expected. Does the minister have information or documents he has not handed over to the inquiry commission, for him to be saying that the worst is still to come?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these are just variations of earlier questions. I do not want to take the time of the House to repeat the answer at any great length.
The department has handed over thousands of pages of evidence that were required by the commission and were further requested. I am very concerned that the commission has said it is still dissatisfied. The department has been requested to make a statement on Thursday. It will make the statement. If the commission is still dissatisfied then it has the full power to find out what actually happened.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are making some progress. We now know the minister has not found anything because he has not concealed anything.
Since the minister is telling us that he has not concealed anything from the commission, let met ask him once more how he can tell us that the worst is still to come? What could be worse than what is already known?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult problem for all Canadians. It is difficult for the Canadian Armed Forces. It is creating a considerable pall over the operations of the forces, over men and women who are serving with distinction every single day, whether at home or abroad. Because of certain incidents which occurred three years ago everybody has been smeared and tarnished.
To get at the truth, the government discharged the commitment made by my colleague the minister of fisheries when in opposition to put an inquiry in place.
I would ask in the spirit of fairness for the opposition to allow the commission to do its job.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the pride and confidence of our military has been shaken, not only inside Canada but it is now being questioned internationally.
Colonel Geof Haswell has accused Canada's UN ambassador, among others, of instigating a cover-up, and I say a cover-up, in the Somali affair.
It is critical that those who were at the top in DND at the time these events occurred be brought back to Ottawa until these allegations are resolved.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree to recall Mr. Bob Fowler until all his testimony before the inquiry is complete and he has been cleared of these serious allegations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I had the opportunity to be in Bosnia where our military is conducting, in a the most exemplary way, a security operation designed to help that country achieve a system of democracy and the protection of rights that we enjoy here in Canada.
One of those fundamental rights is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, I totally deny the suggestion of the hon. member that all of a sudden we charge the ambassador to the UN with some kind of allegation until the commission of inquiry has had a chance to look into those areas. That is what the military is defending in Bosnia and we will defend it here.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about charges. We are talking about questions that were asked two years ago before the appointment of this ambassador.
(1440 )
This systematic denial of reality is really where the whole problem started. Not only must there be a full investigation into these charges, but until it is complete it will be impossible for us to maintain our position in the UN with this tainted ambassador at the helm.
Why will the minister not spare Canada more embarrassment from future revelations of the Somalia inquiry and immediately reassign Mr. Fowler to Ottawa until all of the allegations against him are cleared?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only embarrassment this country is facing is the constant disregard for fundamental rights and liberties expressed daily by members of the Reform Party.
The Minister of National Defence has clearly pointed out that an inquiry was established to get at the truth of what happened in Somalia. The evidence has been presented. Mr. Fowler will appear under oath before the inquiry to give all the information he knows, as will others.
It seems to me that the hon. member is incapable of understanding the basic rights of decency and justice, that a person is not charged or tainted until they have had a chance to defend themselves.
With their draft regulation on banning raw milk cheese, federal officials are interfering against everybody's wishes and threatening the future of a flourishing industry.
How can the minister accept that an official can refuse to make available studies on raw milk that were carried out by the health department at public expense and thus belong to the public and not the public service?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the official not making information available, I have instructed the deputy minister to make all information in the department, all of the scientific evidence, available. Of course there is information which cannot be released because of commercial confidentiality.
I want to share the words of my colleague in the province of Quebec, the minister responsible for agriculture and fisheries, who said that he believes it is essential to protect the health of consumers. Since there are some client sectors at risk, such as pregnant women, the committee he is going to strike in his province will have to make the necessary recommendations in order that the production, transformation and sale of milk products made from non-pasteurized milk will be monitored well. The Quebec health and social service ministry will sit on that committee. I welcome the support and the confidence of the minister in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I invite you and the minister to come tomorrow to a raw milk cheese tasting right here in Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Picard: Does the minister not recognize that his department officials are threatening a growing industry which creates many jobs in Canada, mainly in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two responses to the question.
The first response is that I would be delighted to join with my colleague in having a taste of good cheese from the province of Quebec.
The House should understand very clearly that on May 30, 1995 individuals under the national liaison group of milk products quality reviewed this particular issue and found no difficulties with the proposal that was being made. The officials who formed that group were from Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the province of Quebec, and other representatives from the province of Quebec.
(1445 )
As of March 30 we have gazetted a regulation thereby giving everyone in Quebec and across the country the opportunity to make representations, to make sure that our regulation which may be out of date addresses the concerns of all Canadians and protects the health of all Canadians.
The hon. member does not have to believe me, she can believe the big cheese in the province of Quebec.
Canadians want the various levels of government to simplify, co-ordinate and avoid overlap. In Windsor and Essex county we see through our American neighbours what violent crime can do to a society.
Is the government taking any steps to clear up jurisdictional overlaps in the criminal justice system to make it more efficient and to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, upon the initiative of the solicitor general's office as well as the office of the Minister of Justice, this Sunday and Monday a workshop was organized in Ottawa on the delivery of information on the justice system and the application of new technology. This workshop was attended by senior federal and provincial leaders. They are meeting in Ottawa to discuss the application of new technology which has been accepted by all jurisdictions as important to the delivery of the information system.
A concrete example of an initiative the solicitor general recently announced is the flagging of high risk offender systems. This is an initiative by the federal government as well as the provincial and territorial leaders. It is being administered through the police information office.
We have a serious dereliction of duty with respect to the Canadian Armed Forces in the case of the cover-up of the Somalia affair. Instead of the senior minister accepting responsibility for that dereliction of duty, he tries to pass it on either to an inquiry or to senior officials who then pass it on to the lower ranks.
Will the minister explain to the House exactly what his concept of ministerial responsibility is? Does he accept responsibility in the case of the Somalia cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not a political science class at a Canadian university. If the hon. leader of the Reform Party does not know what ministerial responsibility is, he obviously does not know much about the Canadian parliamentary system and far be it for me to educate him.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1978 a Liberal Speaker of this House who is now an associate to the chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal made a ruling on what ministerial responsibility is. I would like to read it to the minister: ``It is the responsibility that when serious dereliction of duty by an official of a minister takes place, the minister is expected either to assume responsibility for that in the House or alternatively to advise the House of the appropriate disciplinary measures which have been taken''.
Can the minister understand that? Does he assume responsibility for the Somalia cover-up, yes or no? If no, will he advise the House what disciplinary measures have been taken against those whom he does hold responsible?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once a day the leader of the Reform Party has made accusations. He has not bothered to get the facts. He has drawn conclusions and he wants to mete out punishment.
(1450 )
We established an inquiry to look at this matter, to decide if there was wrongdoing. If wrongdoing is identified, the civilian or the military police authorities can take action and bring the discipline the hon. member wants.
I do not believe the hon. member after allegedly agreeing with the government that we did the right thing in establishing the inquiry really believes the inquiry can do its job. His very
questions show that he has no faith in the whole inquiry process and I think that is sad.
This morning, we learned that some postmen from Longueuil photocopied envelopes sent to clients by private courier services and sent those names and addresses to Canada Post, so that it could approach those very same clients.
Does the minister think it is acceptable for Canada Post to resort to photocopying names and addresses in order to gain unfair advantage over the competition?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think this it totally unacceptable. I have contacted Mr. Clermont, the president and chief executive officer of the Canada Post Corporation. I have asked him to look into this situation right away, to see that such practices stop immediately and to undertake investigations throughout Canada to ensure that these tactics are not used elsewhere.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House that she will ask the president and chief executive officer of the Canada Post Corporation, her former colleague André Ouellet, not only to put a stop to this practice, but also to stop anything that can jeopardize the confidentiality of the mail?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the hon. member's request. Of course, we take the services provided by Canada Post throughout Canada very seriously. I have communicated with the president, Mr. Clermont, to ensure that he will do everything possible to protect the confidentiality of all mail items in Canada.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. What is the government's position on protecting pensions to seniors?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is confusing two principal components of the pension system in this country.
With respect to the Canada pension plan, as the member well knows, consultations are under way across Canada and she is welcome to participate if she has any creative suggestions on how to improve that system. With respect to the seniors benefit she spoke about, today's seniors are protected. The new seniors benefit will be of great advantage to seniors in the future. We are taking steps to ensure the sustainability of both aspects of seniors benefits, the seniors benefit and the pension plan in the long term.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the member appears to me to be waffling.
In essence we have been waiting now for almost three years for direction. Could he please be specific on just what is the government's position?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I first want to underscore the work that has been done by the member for Mission-Coquitlam in terms of her defence of seniors and her defence of grandparents, which is certainly very well known. It is unfortunate that her position is not reflected by that of her party.
She asked in her previous question about the status of the Canada pension plan. I can assure the hon. member that unlike the Reform Party which has a policy to abolish the Canada pension plan, it is the policy of the Liberal Government of Canada to protect the Canada pension plan for seniors and its viability in the long term.
As the minister knows, Toronto and Collingwood will jointly host the 1997 Special Olympics World Winter Games. The games will be the largest multisport event in the world that year involving 2,000 mentally challenged athletes from over 80 countries.
How does the government intend to show support for this important world sporting event?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and several colleagues have been working very hard to make sure that the 1997 Special Olympics World Winter Games, which will be staged in Collingwood and Toronto, will not only be celebrated by 2,000 participants, 3,000 volunteers and people from some 80
countries, but that there will also be financial participation on behalf of the Government of Canada.
I can assure him that there will be specific financial participation. We have accepted his request that the funding from the federal government as suggested be $500,000.
Could the minister tell us how much the Liberal government is prepared to spend to defend its buddies, specifically former health ministers Monique Bégin and Jake Epp?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is a little unclear. I have to tell the hon. member that we are engaged as counsel for the Government of Canada before the commission of inquiry and we are going to be there as long as we can be of use to Mr. Justice Krever.
The minister said recently in the House that a readjustment of her priorities was behind the closure of the Canadian centre for magnetic fusion in Varennes, one of the rare federal investments in research in Quebec. At the same time, the minister maintained funding for the ambitious research project of the neutrino lab in Sudbury, Ontario.
Can the minister explain why the Ontario project found favour with her while the sole financial involvement of the federal government in a long term energy research program in Quebec was cut?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that the project to which he refers is not the only energy research project funded by my department or this government-
Mr. Bergeron: Long term.
Ms. McLellan: Nor long term, in the province of Quebec. In fact I would like to reassure the hon. member that approximately 25 per cent of the regional R and D spending in my department is spent in his province.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the minister that those are not long term research programs.
Will the minister admit that the new priorities of her department will mean nothing but minor spinoffs for Quebec, which has only one of the 28 Candu reactors and where no research is done in this sector?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I would not admit that.
As I have indicated to the hon. member before, AECL has determined that its priority is the Candu reactor and the export sales of the Candu reactor.
Let me assure the hon. member when he talks of benefits to the province of Quebec, the sale of one Candu 6 represents potentially $100 million worth of business in Quebec and 4,000 person years in work.
The real obscenity is the fact that the commissioners received $300,000 split two ways. Who was it in her department who approved this obscene payment of $150,000 to those commissioners for eight months of part time work?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed but not surprised that with all of the challenging issues facing the CBC over the next number of months the member for the Reform Party can think of nothing else but to criticize the cost of the Juneau report.
In fact, the three members involved in the Juneau report included their travel and per diem costs which were in line with others that are paid by government. They passed all Treasury Board guidelines.
What I think is really sad is at a time when public broadcasting really needs the support of the Reform Party, I wish its members would get together with the government in support of long term stable funding for the CBC.
The member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the current Minister of Health, said on October 7, 1993: ``If elected, the Liberals would want to increase coal production at Cape Breton Development Corporation. With an increase in production no downsizing would be executed''.
A delegation from Cape Breton has come to Ottawa to stop the Liberals from adopting a plan that would see DEVCO eliminate growing export markets and would result in DEVCO's privatization and the loss of jobs and to adopt instead a plan that offers both jobs and profits.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources give her assurances that DEVCO's management will work in close co-operation and partnership with the community and the union to fulfil the pledge by the Minister of Health of increased production and no loss of jobs?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the hon. member is that the management and the board of directors of DEVCO will work in partnership and consultation with the community and with the unions.
In fact, in a virtually unprecedented exercise of consultation, last week the board of directors and the management of DEVCO met with community representatives and with representatives of the union to talk about the long term future of DEVCO.