This is an area in which Quebec would like to have its fair share. It is certainly more positive on the economic level for our tax dollars to come back to us for research and development instead of unemployment insurance.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How, under these circumstances, can she justify her department's choice of priorities in cutting off funding for the Tokamak project in Varennes, when this adds to the inequity from which Quebec has suffered far too long already in R&D?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House before, this government confronted with a significant fiscal crisis has been forced to make very difficult choices. We have to set priorities as a government.
We are an energy rich nation and I am sure the hon. member appreciates that fact. In this energy rich nation, unfortunately fusion research is not a priority. Therefore, when asked to reduce my department's budget by some 60 per cent over three and one-half to four years, we had to set priorities. We set priorities and unfortunately fusion was not one of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify her decision to end investments in the Tokamak project without any consultation with her partners, including the Government of Quebec, despite the fact that they funded 50 per cent of the project?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point that we have to make choices and we have to set priorities. In this country we have done that in relation to energy research.
I am not suggesting that fusion research does not have a place. I am sure that the people who do this work do good work. Unfortunately it is not a priority when we look at the other energy sources this nation possesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to tell the minister that everyone in Quebec is opposed to her decision and would offer as proof the unanimous resolution by the National Assembly condemning her decision. That makes it twice this week that the federal government has managed to turn Quebec unanimously against it.
How can the minister persist with her decision to cut off her $7.5 million involvement in the Varennes basic research project, in which she is involved with other partners, while last June she added $15 million to the TRIUMF project in B.C.? This is also a basic
research project, and one in which the federal government is the sole investor. Why cut back in Quebec, where there is already anR&D deficit, while stepping up investment elsewhere?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that my department has not contributed any funding to the TRIUMPH project.
Let me come back to the basic point. Government, especially in these difficult fiscal times, is about choices and setting priorities. We all must do this. The government has set those priorities.
My department, facing a 60 per cent reduction, set priorities and made choices. In this country fusion as a possible energy source is not a research priority.
Can the minister confirm that such an agreement has been reached and, more importantly, that $1 billion will be paid to the maritime provinces as compensation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are negotiating with several provinces. This being said, there is no final agreement to date. When we have one, I will be pleased to make an announcement in this House.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that, if indeed the maritime provinces receive compensation, he will be asking Canadians in the other provinces to pay for it out of their own money? He will reach into their pockets to compensate for a tax people in the maritimes will no longer be paying. This is quite a present.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if ever there were compensation, it would be for losses incurred. As a matter of fact, if we look at federal adjustment programs, as in the case of the Crow benefit, even if they were adjustments in transportation subsidies to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, adjustments were made.
This is what our country is all about, the federal government together with the people of Canada provide assistance to those regions or parts of the country in need. Is the member saying that when compensation was specifically geared to Quebec, it should have been denied? I believe this to be a rather absurd notion Quebecers would find totally unacceptable.
Chief of Defence Staff Boyle is up to his ears in the Somalia scandal cover-up, and yet the defence minister continues to allow Boyle to act as suspect, star witness, judge and jury in the Somalia affair.
Will the defence minister, in the name of fairness and justice, ask Boyle, who should never have been made chief of defence staff in the first place, to step aside until the Somalia inquiry gets to the bottom of this whole affair?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the name of fairness and justice, the hon. member should allow the inquiry to do its job.
It is quite alarming when the hon. member comes to the House day after day and attacks a hard working public servant who is unable to come into the Chamber and defend himself.
The chief of defence staff will be able to give all of his views on matters relevant to Somalia when the commission begins its hearings. That is the way Canadians expect justice to be handled, not by answering such libelled questions coming from the hon. member day after day.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the chief of defence staff. I blame the Minister of National Defence for this mess.
(1425 )
Canadians will not be surprised if the defence minister refuses to take any action against his friend Jean Boyle. The defence minister and the Prime Minister could not have appointed Boyle as chief of defence staff with the recommendation of the privy council office.
Will the minister admit that the privy council office had serious reservations about Boyle's suitability for the position of chief of defence staff? Can he tell the House what concerns the office expressed and why he rejected them?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is absolute nonsense. I ask him, with all
decency, to cease and desist these horrible personal attacks on a man who is serving Canada with distinction.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in view of the attempted cover-up of data relevant to the Somalia inquiry, the Somalia inquiry had to shut down this week. The commissioners continue to be concerned about the integrity of the documents they received from the minister's department and they are now concerned about the integrity of the work the commission is able to do.
When will the minister accept responsibility for this entire scandal and cover-up and resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most Canadians understand that when one gives the answer no, one means no. Obviously the Reform Party cannot understand that barest of two-letter words.
With respect to the question of documentation, the department has met the deadline established by the commission. The commission is now evaluating the department's response. The commission, I assume, will have something to say about this tomorrow.
The commission will have to decide if it still requires documents essential to its work which have not yet surfaced. Then it is its job as a commission, quoting the terms of reference, ``to investigate all matters, including allegations of cover-up and destruction of evidence''. The matter is for the commission to investigate and to decide what has happened to those documents.
For some weeks now, Quebec has been trying to reason with the Minister of Natural Resources. In a letter dated April 2, three Quebec ministers argued that the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion represents one of the biggest scientific projects ever undertaken in the province of Quebec and asked the Minister of Natural Resources to reconsider her decision.
Does the minister realize that her decision to cut off the $7.5 million federal contribution to the Tokamak project in Varennes will entail the loss of about 100 high tech jobs in Quebec, including some 40 international level research jobs in greater Montreal, and will jeopardize the future of a centre of excellence set up in Quebec and recognized world wide?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, government involves setting priorities and making difficult choices. Unfortunately expenditures on fusion by the government at this time are not a priority.
The hon. member talks about high tech jobs and benefits for the province of Quebec. As I have already mentioned to him on a number of occasions, Candu research by AECL and the sale of one Candu reactor in the export market potentially delivers $100 million worth of economic benefits to the province of Quebec. It delivers 4,000 potential person hours of employment to the province of Quebec.
I come back to the point I made before that government is about choices. One of our choices is to develop the export market for the Candu reactor. That will lead to significant economic opportunities and high tech, high skilled jobs for the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is reminding us of the benefits the province of Quebec is getting from CANDU. She should know that these benefits amount only to 12 per cent, well under what Quebec should receive in benefits.
(1430)
The minister always talks about priorities. The province of Quebec is sick of paying for this government's priorities. Quebec has had enough of the federal government making miserly economies at its expense.
Given the unanimous motion passed yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly and the overwhelming negative impact the minister's decision will have on the economy of Quebec and on its international reputation in fundamental research, will the minister agree to reconsider her decision and to reinstate the $7.5 million federal subsidy that can save the Tokamak project in Varennes?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about concepts like fair share and priorities. My department spends 25 per cent of its R and D budget in the province Quebec. That is proportionate to the population of the province of Quebec. We spend that R and D in part in areas that are an energy priority for the country such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and remote community energy efficiency.
As a department we do more than our fair share in the province of Quebec, and that money is spent on the government's priorities.
During the election the Liberals campaigned up and down streets promising that if they were elected the GST would meet its end. That was then, this is now.
I want the finance minister to make something very clear for Canadians and for the House. Was it his position that when they were campaigning on doorsteps around the country they were telling Canadians that if elected they would spend $1 billion to permanently weld into place the most hated tax in Canadian history by integrating it with the sales taxes of the Atlantic provinces? Is that what he expects Canadians to believe?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position during the election campaign was set out very clearly on page 22 of the red book. I suggest the member read it. It talks about ease of administration, it talks about simplification, it talks about harmonization with the provinces. It talks about making the tax system more responsive to consumers and to small businesses, which is clearly the intention of the government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the finance minister expects Canadians to believe that when his own caucus does not even believe it. That is why it is voting against him.
The finance minister knows there are many Liberals in the government who would not be sitting where they are today if they had not promised their faces off that the GST would be gone under a Liberal government.
Why does the finance minister not just ask for the public's forgiveness and admit the Liberals made a promise they knew they could not possibly meet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how many members of the Reform Party does the member think would have been elected if they had known that last year Reform would come forth with a budget which would eviscerate medicare?
How many members of the Reform Party would have been elected if they had known Reform would virtually eliminate the old age pension? How many members of the Reform Party would have been elected had they known that what this party really stands for is old age pensions for the rich but nothing for the poor and had they known it would cut transfers?
How many members of the Reform Party would have been elected if the true colours of that party and the divisions that have been made manifest had been clear to them at the time of the election?
The conflict in Lebanon is getting worse. Today, the Israeli army attacked a refugee camp under UN protection. Sixty-eight people, mainly civilians, including children, and also UN peacekeepers, are reported to have been killed. Although Israel did acknowledge its mistake, the fact remains that such mistakes are unforgivable and could be repeated as long as the conflict rages on.
(1435)
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to intervene with the Israeli government as soon as possible to demand an immediate ceasefire?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and the people of Canada, I wish to express our deep sympathy and regret to the families of the victims and the people of Lebanon. This morning's attacks, which killed civilians, including children, and members of the UN peacekeeping mission, are unacceptable to Canada.
We called a meeting with the Israeli chargé d'affaires to convey this message. We asked for a ceasefire, a cessation of hostilities, and the reinforcement of the peace process in Lebanon.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister undertake to intervene with the UN to have the Security Council present Israel and Lebanon with a plan for a lasting peace?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the suggestion from the hon. member. The security council will take up this matter sometime this afternoon based on a resolution from the Egyptians.
We are not at present a member of the security council. However, I will certainly have our ambassador there make the position of the Canadian government known, as I have stated it.
There is a meeting scheduled for Monday in Luxemburg of all the foreign ministers whose governments were part of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting a month ago involving a number of Arab states, Israel, the Palestinians and us.
We will use that forum as well to express our strong concern about the attacks, to put in place actions against terrorism, to promote the development of peace and to initiate the kinds of aid or assistance which my colleague, the Minister for International Co-Operation, is working on to help the development of the peace process in the West Bank, for the Palestinian authorities and in Israel itself.
would be difficult to do that if the federal tax becomes integrated with provincial taxes.
If harmonization was bad then, why is it not bad now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, harmonization obviously leads to a better tax for consumers and for small business.
With a harmonized tax one still has all of the flexibility required to administer the tax system both at the federal level and the provincial levels.
I cannot believe the hon. member is actually suggesting we should not try to rationalize the system, that we should not try to reduce the costs, that we should not try to develop a tax system that would be far more efficient and make us far more competitive as we face the opposition that exists outside our borders, not inside.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the short version of that answer is he is now enlightened.
Not all the Atlantic provinces have jumped on the harmonization band wagon. The MLAs of Prince Edward Island are seeking further input because, to quote one, ``a blended levy would broaden the tax base moving into areas not currently taxed by the PST such as electricity, heating oil, drugs, some clothing and footwear, equipment for the physically challenged and textbooks''.
Is this what the finance minister wants to do, tax the physically challenged?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the GST one will see there is an extensive line of rebates to take care of physically disadvantaged people or lower income people. This is a great advantage that exists within the GST that does not exist within the PST.
Mr. Speaker-
(1440 )
Mr. Silye: Do not choke on your own words.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): It was a rough trip to Thailand.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: What happened in China?
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I am sorry, Jim. This is not working out well for either one of us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just stay tuned. We may come back to it some day.
Those concerned continue to oppose the coast guard's new fee structure. One of the major points raised by a majority of stakeholders is that, if the minister goes ahead without measuring the impact of the new fee structure, our marine sector will become less competitive vis-à-vis the U.S.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the coast guard's new service fee structure will not apply to ships using the St. Lawrence Seaway to deliver their cargoes to American ports on the Great Lakes?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the actions of the ministry are based on very careful consultation with the industry, based on the principle of user pay, user say.
I should, however, remind the House and the hon. member that this matter is now the subject of an inquiry by a parliamentary committee which is currently sitting. It will complete its very extensive hearing of witnesses from all parts of the country this afternoon and will write a report this evening.
The minister has engaged himself to read the report, to wait on it before making decisions. It would be a lack of conformity to the comity that the government owes to this House and its parliamentary committees to attempt to anticipate the report. Therefore, further statements should wait until the minister has read the report.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow me to put a second question to the Deputy Prime Minister, as the commissioner himself continues to express his views on this matter.
Since fees will be charged to the ships going to Canadian ports but not to those bound for the U.S., does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that the new fee structure threatens to divert marine traffic to U.S. ports?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat more succinctly what I have just said. The question is out of order, the matter being before a parliamentary committee which is to report and the minister must properly wait on that.
However, the evidence given to the committee, I would suggest, is at variance with the facts as presented by the hon. member.
The Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg and the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington are facing severe budget cuts, threatening one of Canada's greatest assets, namely fresh water.
Can the minister commit to maintaining the 1993-94 funding levels of these two internationally renowned institutions for fresh water science?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for his question.
Members of the House will know the distinction the hon. member has earned by his years of service.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. McWhinney: No one has spoken more eloquently before the House and in international arenas in support of principles of environmental protection and conservation of scarce natural resources.
The hon. member will understand that the government is committed as a top priority to reducing the deficit, to balancing the budget. Our treasurer has brought in a magnificent budget that has commanded general support. This has involved, however, in the interests of achieving that, across the board economies in all departments imposed.
(1445)
Consistent with this-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of respect, the hon. member for Skeena.
The Government of Canada has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the east coast fishery through a variety of programs for the last decade.
Recently the minister announced an $80 million licence buy-back in British Columbia. He is aware that virtually all of this money was contributed by west coast fishermen through licence fee increases they have had to pay for the past 25 years.
Can the minister of fisheries explain the disparity of treatment between the east and west coast fishing industries by his department where billions of dollars are dedicated to the east coast but only $80 million is dedicated to the west coast, which is really only a return of fishermen's contributions in the first place?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situations on the east coast and the west coast are not cognate. On the east coast we face the disappearance of an industry and the loss of 40,000 jobs. The situation on the west coast is one that involves a crisis in the year 1996 with the expectation that the industry will get back to better times in 1997 and 1998.
The measures taken by the government have been taken with the advice of a round table of 70 people representing all segments of the industry. We believe they are enough to carry us through this difficult time.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister has tried to determine how many jobs on the west coast will be lost as a result of his plan.
There is a delegation of people here from British Columbia today representing half a million British Columbians who are very concerned about their future and the future of their communities in the wake of the minister's plan. These people participated in these round table discussions and state unequivocally that their recommendations in that process were ignored.
Can the minister explain how it is that although he claims wide consultations with all the stakeholders, there is a delegation representing half a million British Columbians here today demanding that he withdraw this plan? Will he listen to them and do so?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure the hon. member that I have met with this delegation today on behalf of the minister. I believe, after a number of years of experience outside Parliament, that I am good at listening to representations.
The government is very concerned with the fate of the industry on the west coast. Urgent measures are being taken to meet the situation in 1996. The plan put into operation, about which we are still receiving advice and looking for advice, will carry us to the better times in 1997 and 1998.
Tran Trieu Quan, a Canadian citizen, is still rotting in a Vietnamese prison. We learned this morning that the Office of the Prime Minister knew the whereabouts of Paul Morgan. Moreover, Excel Cotton, a company owned by Mr. Morgan, submitted its financial statements to Canada's Department of Industry last January.
Why is it that, while both the current Minister of Foreign Affairs and his predecessor claim to have been looking into this matter for more than a year, the federal government hid from Mr. Quan's family and the Vietnamese authorities the fact that they knew where Mr. Morgan was?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is hiding nothing. All the information we had was shared with the lawyers of the family, the family itself and with the respective authorities.
This is a matter of very serious consequence. I have watched with some dismay the statements of the hon. member who rather than trying to provide a solution simply tries to provoke more misrepresentation and misinformation.
(1450 )
If we are going to find a solution to this problem we should be working together, not trying to provoke the kind of uninformed reaction the hon. member is promoting.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is apparently about to announce the appointment of a special advisor to deal with cases such as that of Mr. Quan. But his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, stated yesterday that there was nothing more that the federal government could do to resolve this matter.
How credible are the minister's alleged initiatives, given that his remarks are contradicted by his own colleague's statements and that the government keeps developing trade relations with Vietnam without demanding that human rights be respected, as they should be in Mr. Quan's case?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in any one year some four to five million Canadians travel abroad in a wide variety of circumstances. In most cases when they need assistance it is provided through the consular services of the government. From time to time there are special or difficult cases where people get entrapped in local laws, requirements and regulations.
For that reason I am announcing today that we have set up a special adviser on consular matters who will take on the responsibility for dealing with the kinds of cases on an active-proactive basis such as the Quan case or the Spencer-Lamont case so that we can provide the full attention of government. That as much as anything else demonstrates our real commitment to ensure the full protection of the rights of Canadian citizens when they go abroad.
Yet when I look at the fine print on page 1.16 of the public accounts what do I find? ``The government's authority to pay pensions and benefits is limited to the balance in the account.''
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the government prepared to put its money where its mouth is and demonstrate its commitment to the Canada pension plan by reporting the unfunded liability of $500 billion in the public accounts of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the way in which the government provides for its accounts is obviously established by a tradition and also by generally accepted accounting principles established by the auditor general. We will continue to provide for accounts in that way.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was as an eloquent reply.
The point I am trying to make is that we hear all kinds of verbal commitments from the government, but when we look at the fine print we find out there are all kinds of loopholes for it to escape through and walk away from its obligation to people.
Can the Minister of Finance preserve the Canada pension plan for seniors and maintain their faith in the government's pension plan by putting the unfunded liability in the public accounts of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment about my eloquence. After my answer to the member from Calgary I needed that.
The government stands four square behind the Canada pension plan. The unfunded liability, as the member describes it, is a natural consequence of a pay as you go plan. One of the options that is being looked at by the commission is to fund it a great deal more and that is something we will be discussing with the provinces.
The fundamental point is that the government is engaging in these consultations because it supports the Canada pension plan. The government believes it is important to have a Canada pension plan there for all Canadians, not simply wealthy Canadians. The government supports the Canada pension plan because it does not agree with the position of the Reform Party which is to have pensions only for the rich and to leave the poor, poor.
[Translation]
The hearts of thousands of Canadians of Lebanese origin are filled with sadness and despair today because of recent events in the Middle East. I was approached by their local leaders.
(1455)
I would like to know if the minister intends to contact his Israeli and Lebanese counterparts to condemn this carnage and to insist that hostilities should cease and, above all, that resolution 425, which was passed back in 1978, be implemented.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I met with Lebanese officials. I conveyed to them the Canadian government's concern about the events taking place in southern Lebanon.
We are doing all we can. Today, I sent the Israeli foreign affairs department a letter stating Canada's position against raids on civilian populations in southern Lebanon.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate Canada's support for UN Security Council resolution 425.
The Minister of Health and those who attended yesterday's raw milk cheese tasting organized by the Bloc Quebecois and several cheese producers were able to see that the various products currently on the market are simply excellent. In that regard, I am pleased to see that the Minister is the picture of health.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Picard: Does the minister realize that, according to data from his own government, the consumption of raw milk cheese has not resulted in any case of poisoning in Canada, unlike several other food items, including cabbage in Nova Scotia? Will the minister also prohibit the sale of cabbage from Nova Scotia?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I accepted the invitation of my colleague. She is quite correct. I did attend a very good reception put on by the producers of cheese in the province of Quebec. I also shared with my hon. colleague some good wine from the province of Nova Scotia.
As for my side effects, that is probably demonstrable in the answer I am going to give. The information that we have from the scientists has now been put out to the scientific industry and the various experts. They are going to examine it. After their examination, we will then be in a position to make our decision.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this issue to our attention. However, I want to say to her and to all hon. members, it is important that we keep our rhetoric down so that we can make the most appropriate decision for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister realize that there is no problem with raw milk cheese, that the current standards are very adequate, and that the real issue concerns his public servants who have nothing better to do than bug people to justify their employment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again raises the question. As the minister responsible for health, it is my duty, my fiduciary obligation, that when scientific evidence and information becomes available I have to share it with the Canadian people and take the appropriate action on that information.
In my view, no minister of health, federally or provincially, can take that scientific information and throw it in the garbage can. It is very important that we examine it. We will examine it thoroughly with all the various experts and we will make the appropriate decision based on scientific information.
The Minister of Finance has said here today that the government wants to guarantee the Canada pension program. When one reads the public accounts, not so.
(1500 )
What will the Minister of Finance do to guarantee to pensioners across Canada that they will have their Canada pension guaranteed most likely in writing by the government and the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon. member taking interest in the
preservation of the Canada pension plan. That is the reason we set up, along with the provinces, the consultation process which is now under way.
As the hon. member knows, a number of options are being looked at within that consultation process, one of which is to increase substantially the degree of funding so that it will go from simply a two-year reserve to a much greater degree of funding, which may well be an option the provinces and the federal government will come to. It is premature, but it is one of the things being discussed.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance indicate that in follow-up public accounts this unfunded liability will be noted and that the government is prepared to accept it on a long term basis, rather than the present situation where there is not a commitment either by public accounts, as noted, or by the finance minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there very clearly is a commitment to the Canada pension plan. It has been stated unequivocally by the government, in terms of young Canadians coming along, that the Canada pension plan will be there for them. That is the purpose of the consultation.
I believe the member's question goes beyond that, that he is talking about the way accounts of this government or any other government are provided. That is a valid debate, the outstanding liabilities of any national government or any provincial government of this country or any other. That certainly is a debate in which we are prepared to engage. It is precisely to deal with those kinds of problems that the government is dealing with the problems the country faces today and also anticipating those in the decades ahead.
Since she knows that these employees are not supportive of this plan and that if it fails it threatens the very existence of some of our parks and historic sites, is she prepared to postpone these foolhardy plans at least until such time as she has clear evidence of support for her proposal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a meeting I held yesterday with my assistant deputy minister, in response to the concerns expressed by employees about their futures, I issued a directive that we look at a number of options.
The first option would be to seek further economies, as required under the program review, the possibility of economies from within. The second option would be to pursue a number of expressions of interest by employees interested in takeovers. The third possibility would be to examine whether there might be an application for a strict commercialisation of services which would guarantee employees not only their long term jobs but also their current union status. Those three options are being explored by the department.
Canada was the first country to have a national parks system, and I certainly do not intend to be the minister responsible for in any way impinging on it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This brings question period to an end. We will now hear Thursday's question.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if necessary, tomorrow and Monday the House will continue with third reading of Bill C-11, concerning HRD reorganization.
When that is completed we will call third reading of Bill C-18, concerning the health department reorganization, and Bill C-19, respecting internal trade.
If these bills are completed we will commence second reading debates of items we have discussed with our friends opposite and which we will discuss further before setting the precise order.
(1505 )
Tuesday will be an allotted day. Also on Tuesday the government intends to introduce the bill implementing the budget and it is our intention to commence second reading debate on that bill on Wednesday.