Despite the latest ultimatum given the Department of National Defence Monday by counsel for the Somalia inquiry, frustrated at having to beg for documents that never appear, we learn this morning that a number of essential documents have still not been produced, including the registers for the first and third commandos.
How does the minister explain the fact that, despite the 12 boxes that arrived five minutes before the deadline, key registers have still not been supplied at the request of the inquiry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two issues have to be addressed on the documentation question and one on the public affairs issue.
A counsel for the commission this morning said that they were satisfied that the department had produced all the relevant documents and that the subset of hearings within the general commission mandate can start on Wednesday.
With respect to the specific question of the hon. member on the Somalia related documents, there has been some considerable progress made on the logs and other documentation that came forward as a result of the search that was conducted under the auspices of the chief of defence staff.
The Somalia liaison team of the department is cataloguing that and will report to the commission. The commission is satisfied that the report, combined with testimony that will be given in subsequent hearings, will get to the bottom of the documentation issue.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is high time the minister stopped mocking everyone. He has been sweet talking the House for the past two and a half years. Nobody believes him anymore. Enough is enough.
Counsel made it clear this morning that gaps remained and documents were still missing. Would the minister explain why it takes so much effort and time and so many warnings and ultimatums for the department to deliver, bit by bit, some of the documents the commission of inquiry has repeatedly asked for? When exactly is the minister finally going to assume his responsibilities, for once?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this minister and the government took its responsibility by setting up the Somalia commission specifically to deal with issues such as documentation.
There were documents altered. There were documents destroyed. Was there a cover-up? These are the matters on which the inquiry will get to the bottom.
What the commission asked us earlier in the week was to produce a cataloguing of the documents themselves. It said that they were dissatisfied at that point in time with the explanations of the department.
(1120 )
I think some real progress has been made. It has been reflected in what the commission counsel has said this morning. I understand the commission counsel has said that the documents which have come forward and which are now being catalogued in the report by the Somalia liaison team together with testimony under the auspices of the mandate of the commission will get to the bottom of it and will address the specific question of the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we were reminded this morning that the military police were told last fall by a second officer, who confirmed the statement of Colonel Haswell, that the army chief of staff along with other officers developed a plan to change the name of documents requested under the Access to Information Act.
As this new information considerably undermines the credibility of the minister and the chief of staff, why is the minister refusing to relieve General Boyle temporarily of his duties, at least for as long as it takes the commission of inquiry to thoroughly examine this whole sad affair and people to regain their trust in the army and the government?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answers to that specific question were given earlier this week in replies to questions put forward by members of the Reform Party. I will not take very much time of the House to go into that except to say that we in this country believe in due process. Due process means that people have a right to give their views, their side of a story to defend themselves against accusations.
On Wednesday the Somalia commission will start hearings on the specific issue. I would ask for patience because I think Canadians understand that all the answers will be forthcoming at the commission, not here in the House of Commons.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why does negotiating the harmonization of the GST with the sales tax in the maritime provinces require all Quebecers and all Canadians to foot the bill for a portion of the consumer taxes currently assumed by the people of the maritimes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in response to the hon. member's question, there is no announcement yet. We are currently negotiating. I shall be pleased, if the negotiations are successful, to answer specific questions on the agreement, if one is reached.
Nevertheless, the hon. member will understand that I am going to defend the principle that the regions of this country must help each other. Otherwise, this would be a denial of such things as equalization, where three of this country's provinces help out the other seven.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is mixing applies and oranges. If he wants to have an equalization formula with his new GST reform, let him say so. We are talking of two totally different things.
The GST and the provincial sales tax have already been harmonized in Quebec. There was no negotiation on compensation. Do you know what kind of a message that sends to Quebec? That any time you co-operate with the federal government, you end up paying for it. If there is a $1 billion compensation payment to the maritime provinces, that means Quebecers will be paying $250 million to the governments of the maritime provinces, to their treasuries, as compensation for those governments' lower tax receipts. Where is the logic in that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's position is totally ridiculous, perhaps because of his lack of understanding of Canada. Canada is a country in which the regions help each other out.
For example, if Canada decides to help out the aeronautical industry, Montreal will reap the benefit, not Saskatchewan or New Brunswick. Or, another example, if it decides to help out the pharmaceutical industry, as in fact it has, Montreal will reap the benefit, not Alberta or Prince Edward Island.
(1125)
That is the principle of what a country is. We have enormous assets and should place those assets at the service of the country as a whole.
The minister desperately wants Canadians to believe that the military brass did not try to cover up the Somalia scandal. He desperately wants us to believe that missing and altered documents were simply the result of computer error or clerical error. Twelve boxes of documents. That is what senior defence officials were forced to grudgingly turn over to the Somalia inquiry.
The commission counsel announced this morning that there are still gaps. How much more evidence does the minister need before he takes some action, any action, on the Somalia cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again continues to make very serious allegations which do not reflect what was said this morning by the commission.
I answered his specific questions which were posed a little earlier with respect to the documentation, but I will briefly repeat them.
On the public affairs issue, those documents will be the subject of discussions and hearings beginning on Wednesday. The commission is satisfied that all the documents that have come forward, together with testimony, should enable the commission to reach the goal of its mandate, which is to get to the bottom of the entire-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister tries to make us believe that this was a timely delivery of documents when he knows full well that these documents should have been delivered a year ago to the Somalia commission.
Along with the 12 boxes of information turned over to the inquiry, we also learned from Roberto Gonzales, a former director general of public affairs at DND, that General Boyle approved of a
plan to hide important Somalia documents. This confirms earlier allegations made by Colonel Haswell who said that Boyle, de Chastelain and Mr. Robert Fowler knew of the planned cover-up.
Can the minister confirm today that General Boyle had nothing whatsoever to do with the cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I really should refuse to answer such innuendo. The hon. member has made selective accusations every day in the House. He has maligned a public servant, who is the chief of defence staff.
All of these matters will be dealt with by the commission starting next Wednesday. That is the place where all the evidence should be submitted. That is the place where people should be heard. That is the place where conclusions should be drawn.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why will the minister not show some leadership and take the bull by the horns instead of dragging the bull into the House each and every day?
General Boyle said he had no knowledge of a plan to alter, rename and destroy documents related to the Somalia affair. Colonel Haswell and Roberto Gonzales say that is not true. They say that all Somalia information requests had to be approved by General Boyle. Boyle's signature even appears-
The Deputy Speaker: The member will please put his question directly.
Mr. Hart: Why is the minister allowing Boyle to stay in charge when all of the evidence indicates that Boyle is involved in this cover-up?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be assured that I certainly have taken the bull by the horns. I have done that by answering his questions all week.
The hon. member has gone through a number of contortions. I have pointed them out on the utility of the inquiry.
The hon. member has gone from the position that the chief of defence staff should never have been appointed, to the chief of defence staff should resign, to the suggestion that he should step aside, and to the fact yesterday that he does not blame him. Today he is back to the earlier accusations.
The member and his party have no credibility on the issue. Canadians understand that the inquiry will deal with the matter and will get to the bottom of it with all the answers.
[Translation]
I listened with interest to the finance minister saying a moment ago that Canada was willing to help Quebec. I do hope that his good intentions will materialize with respect to the issue of nuclear fusion.
(1130)
Since we started asking the natural resources minister questions on the tokamak project, she has been giving us rubbish for answers. For instance, she said that in Quebec the loss of this project would be balanced by the manufacturing and sale of Candu reactors, which is false, since this will benefit mainly New Brunswick and Ontario.
Moreover she told us that Quebec is getting 25 per cent of her department's expenditures. We checked, the actual figure is 8 per cent, and it will fall below 6 per cent with the cancellation of the tokamak project.
Can the federal government bring its Minister of Natural Resources back to her right mind and make sure that Quebec is no longer penalized in such a way, starting with re-establishing its $7.5 million contribution to the tokamak project, the product of 20 years of efforts, research, investment and world level expertise?
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member says, fusion research was not only cut in Quebec, it was also cut in Ontario. The Quebec component cut was $4.4 million; the Ontario component cut was $7.2 million, nearly twice as much.
We are not abandoning Quebec. Natural Resources Canada R and D initiatives in Quebec are, and I will read them: Energy Diversification Research Laboratory in Varennes; Quebec Geoscience; Candu; Val-D'Or laboratory; Canada Centre for Geomatics-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a supplementary.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope that one of these days someone in this government is going to rise and give intelligent answers to our questions. The parliamentary secretary should know that the amount the federal government is withdrawing from the tokamak project is $7.5 million.
Is the federal government finally going to decide to answer, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, a letter dated April 2 and signed by the deputy premier of Quebec-
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the member to put his question immediately.
Mr. Bergeron: I will repeat my question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government finally going to decide to answer, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, a letter dated April 2 and signed by the deputy premier of Quebec, minister of state for natural resources and minister responsible for industry and trade?
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the member it is not only the federal Liberal government that is making difficult choices. He should look in his own backyard.
The PQ government has cut $350 million from hospitals, from the sick; $65 million from Cégeps, junior colleges; $300 million from primary-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Centre.
He said yesterday that harmonization will lead to a better tax for consumers and for small business. How can that be, given that the combined tax increases taxes by 8 per cent on goods and services in areas that were untaxed before, areas like children's textbooks, wheelchairs and medical supplies, just to name a few?
The finance minister is willing to spend a billion dollars from the federal coffers to compensate three Liberal provinces for any lost revenues. Who will compensate the taxpayers of these provinces for their extra personal costs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the fundamental problem with most of the provincial sales taxes is that they are embedded in the price at each successive stage. Therefore the consumer pays a great deal more in tax under most provincial sales taxes than under the GST. The net result of this will be a lowering of the tax on all of those items that are currently taxed under provincial taxes.
(1135)
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then why are all the provinces saying there are lost revenues?
The finance minister is wreaking havoc in the Atlantic provinces with his bad harmonization tax. It is putting Prince Edward Island at a competitive disadvantage. Conservative provincial governments have said no. NDP provincial governments have said no. Only three Liberal provincial governments have said yes, thanks to a billion dollar bribe just to keep the deputy minister around a little longer.
Why does the finance minister not do the right thing and for the sake of all Canadians get rid of, abolish, kill, eliminate, scrap and agree to quit if he does not, this monster he is creating called harmonization with compensation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the principles upon which this country has been built is that one region of the country helps another whether it be through equalization, the social transfer or the way in which stabilization payments are made by the federal government to help provincial governments that have had difficulty.
I find it very difficult to hear members of the opposition, whether they be from the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party, essentially say that certain regions of the country should not help the others when there is a process of adjustment. I do not share that view. This is one country and one country in a multitude of others. We are going to stand up to the rest of the world because we will stand together. We will not be divided.
The Commission of inquiry into our national blood supply is caught in a legal tangle, because of all the confusion surrounding the mandate of the commission. There is no agreement over the authority of the Krever commission to issue notices of possible misconduct, hence the court proceedings. The opposition reminds the government that its priority should go to the victims of tainted blood and not this legal battle.
For everyone's benefit and because this is a federal inquiry and a public health issue-
The Deputy Speaker: Was the question put?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, at the time the people across the way were calling for my question, I was putting it. What more do you want?
Again, here is my question: For everyone's benefit and because this is a federal inquiry and a public health issue, can the minister dispel the confusion surrounding the mandate of the commission by clearly stating his position on this matter?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever inquiry was set up to inquire into the problems that were faced with the blood supply. It is the desire of the government and all provincial governments to see that the report is finalized and brought forward.
The member will note that the interim recommendations have been acted upon by the federal government. An extension has been granted to Mr. Justice Krever and the commission to allow their work to be completed. The reason for the court proceedings is to ensure that the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness are applied throughout the proceedings. We are also hoping for a finalized report as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if the commission will in fact be entitled to issue notices of possible misconduct?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the matters that are now before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter. However, it is the desire of this government and all parties involved to ensure that the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice are applied throughout the proceedings from start to finish.
We look forward to the decision of the court and ultimately to the report of Mr. Justice Krever.
The west coast fishery is being assaulted by the minister. Fishermen are being told to sell their licences back before the government discloses what the fish harvest quota will be.
(1140)
Fishermen cannot possibly make a rational decision about whether to get out of business when they are not being told how many fish they will be able to catch. This is more than absurd, it is an insult.
On behalf of fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake, will the minister delay the buy back until the fishermen know the future of fish quotas in British Columbia?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could give a short answer but I know the hon. member is sensitive to the needs and concerns of commercial fishermen.
This program is designed to address the very sad state of the salmon fishery in British Columbia. I know he is aware of that. It is also designed in such a manner that although it is tough medicine and a bold program, it has to address in a very specific manner the reduction of the capacity, which everybody agrees is the problem in the industry.
Nobody has been told to return their licences. This is a voluntary program which has been championed by the industry. We believe the program will work. I certainly would appreciate the hon. member's support.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is not aware that there was a delegation of people here from British Columbia yesterday representing half a million commercial fishermen, people in small communities who do not agree with his plan.
When I asked him the other day if he would set quotas before implementing the buy back he said ``regrettably not.'' What is regrettable is the total disregard the government and the minister continually show for the fishermen on the west coast.
The minister has the power to delay the buy back until the quotas are set. Why he is refusing to do so I do not know. Why is he refusing to ensure the stability of the industry and the stable income of families that depend on the fishery?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not to set a fine point on this, I want to make sure the hon. member knows and the House realizes that it is 500,000 people in the communities. The number of commercial fishermen, including workers in the plants, is 20,000. I am sure he would not want to leave that impression.
The parliamentary secretary met with these concerned groups yesterday. It is my intention to meet with them after question period to hear their concerns.
I also remind the hon. member there are many groups in his area that support the fishermen. I quote one British Columbia fisherman: ``Fleet reduction is too important to the survival of the west coast salmon industry not to be implemented''.
I will stick tough with this program and it will continue.
The reputation of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute is firmly established. This institute employs 280 people at the present time and offers, among other things, a fish stock evaluation program as well as hydrographic services. Yet, its future is threatened.
The Maurice Lamontagne Institute's hydrographic service is one of its main components. Can the minister confirm to us that his department is about to shut down this service and transfer the activities to Cornwall, Ontario, which would mean the loss of dozens of jobs in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question and the courtesy he has afforded me by discussing this beforehand.
The institute is a well respected one which essentially looks after research in the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence estuary. It is an institute that regrettably has come under the program review and there have been program reductions.
The work continuing in the valuable research in his institute will continue despite the cuts. We will have to cut back in certain areas. However, I assure the hon. member and the House this valuable institute, so highly respected, will continue to exist.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Maurice Lamontagne Institute has to continue to exist, but it is getting smaller and smaller each year, and Quebecers are really concerned about that.
Is the minister telling us that, just like in Varennes, the federal government is reducing even more its financial participation in advanced research in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member this is not the case.
(1145)
There have been similar institutes oriented in areas other than marine science. For example, we had the same program at the freshwater institute and the Great Lakes experimental stations.
It is all part of the requirement of my department to reduce our operation by 40 per cent. It applies from one coast to the other.
Will the minister assure the House the sentinel fishing program will continue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and congratulate him on his first question in the House. The question is important. As everybody in the House knows, the state of the cod stocks in Atlantic Canada is dangerously low, particularly the northern cod stocks.
The purpose of this program is to have commercial fishermen who are properly trained to measure, under controlled circumstances, the inshore fishery by actually setting nets and counting fish. This is a valuable complement to the scientific surveys carried out offshore and in other community areas.
The real purpose is to measure the abundance and the migration pattern, to have real biological data which complement scientific data and to work in harmony with scientists in close consultation for the systematic betterment of-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Crowfoot.
The Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. member please not refer to matters in committee and put the question directly. Rephrase the question.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my question for the justice officials is why has the government ignored victims' pleas by refusing to publish the names of violent young offenders, abolish the minimum age of 12 for young offenders and hold parents financially responsible for children's criminal actions when appropriate?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As the hon. member is aware, the government has acted in relation to the Young Offenders Act already, increasing penalties for the most serious crimes and reversing the onus as to whether a youth case should be tried in adult court.
We are now engaged in a process in the justice committee to hear input on further possible changes. He is part of that committee and will sit with us as we-
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Crowfoot.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the jury is in on many of the obvious reforms to the Young Offenders Act. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice explain to the parents of victims why the minister under Bill C-37 reduced the parole eligibility of a young offender convicted of second degree murder from a maximum of 10 years to 7 years?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, we have implemented changes to the Young Offenders Act to stiffen the penalties in the most serious cases.
We continue to review the matter through the justice committee and we look forward to hearing the results of that report.
Quebec's Minister of Transportation and the seven mayors of the cities with the biggest ports in Quebec, together with representatives of the aluminum industry and all stakeholders in the marine sector, stated very clearly that the minister's new fee structure would likely have a disastrous impact on the Quebec economy.
(1150)
Can the minister of fisheries tell us if his government intends to respect this Quebec consensus against a new fee structure that could have disastrous consequences on the Quebec economy and on all ports along the St. Lawrence?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He is aware we have been through this procedure since January. We have consulted with the industry. We have taken recommendations from the Marine Advisory Board.
The hon. member is involved in the final report of the fisheries committee on this very important subject. I appreciate his co-operation and the contribution he is making.
One more time, I assure the House and the hon. member that in this project as we ratchet up from $20 million, $40 million, $60 million over a period of four years, we will put together a system that is the most fair and equitable to all parts of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, apart from the problem with the figures the minister just quoted, the consensus I referred to in my first question also reflects that problem.
Does the minister of fisheries admit he is duty bound to respect such a broad consensus against his proposal as drafted, which affects not only Quebec but also Ontario and many stakeholders in the maritimes, including Newfoundland's Oceanex and the port of Halifax?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I may have missed the intonation of the last part of the hon. member's question but I do not think it is important to the answer.
All these aspects have been taken into consideration. Nobody wants to pay any more for anything. The regrettable part of this is we have to go forward with it. It has been passed by this very Parliament.
If the hon. member is trying to derail this issue and defer it for another time, it will cost the industry more money. I am sure he would not want to be part of something to do that.
Will the minister assure the House banks will not be allowed to expand their business until they are also forced to face more competition?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware there will be a policy paper put out by the government in a little while which will treat many of these issues.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all the minister's recent announcements are about demands from the banks for more business.
The demands by others for more freedom to compete with the banks are never mentioned. I am sure this has nothing to do with the banks' generous financial support for the Liberal Party and the government's $105,000 grant to the Canadian Bankers Association.
Will the minister assure the House that the up-coming white paper will level the regulatory playing field between banks and their competitors?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he will have to wait for the white paper to see what it says.
For over two years now the people of Lebanon have made immense sacrifices to rebuild their beleaguered country, which has been laid waste by foreign invaders.
The reopening of the Canadian embassy inspired great hope for the Lebanese people, but an excessive military reprisal by Israel destroyed all that and the mounting debt toll is a disgrace. The decisive attack on an electrical power plant in the populous city of Beirut is an example of the excess.
(1155 )
I ask the minister what the Canadian government intends to do to come to the aid of hundreds of thousands displaced Lebanese people. In particular, what influence can it bring to the United Nations to assure that resolution 425 will be respected once and for all?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada deplores the attacks against the civil population of Lebanon and the peacekeeping base within Lebanon in recent days.
We have received a request from the International Red Cross for assistance to the people of Lebanon and we are at his moment considering what we can do to come to their aid. It is something we intend to do.
Canada is not a member of the security council of the United Nations. Yesterday we did support its resolution deploring the attacks against Lebanon and we have asked for an immediate ceasefire on the part of all parties. We want to see negotiations bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation there.
Canada does support the integrity of Lebanon's territory through resolution 425. We will do everything we can to assure that integrity is achieved through ongoing negotiated peace accords in the area.
Based on the foregoing, does the Minister of Transport recognize the facts stated in the letter written by the Clerk of the Privy Council and could he at the same time recognize that, until the property transfer has been completed, the federal government is still fully responsible for restoring the Quebec bridge?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has shown great interest in the pont de Québec. We have to realize this is a magnificent structure. I have seen it from a boat underneath, et cetera.
However, CN is the owner of the pont de Québec and CN is responsible for it and charged with paying for the renovations to the bridge. It fully intends to, with $1.5 million to $2 million in bridge repairs this summer. More could be had if the hon. member can impress upon the minister of transport in the province of Quebec to talk to CN to get more funding to maintain that wonderful, beautiful structure, the pont de Québec.
The Supreme Court of Ontario has already ruled the contract was valid and that the government was in breach of that contract. Subsequent government appeals have been lost by the government.
Can the minister explain how he can justify reintroducing this unconstitutional bill so that history can be rewritten to suit the Liberal Party?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes it is the intention of the federal government to reintroduce on behalf of the Minister of Transport the so-called Pearson bill in its original form and at the stage it was at prior to prorogation. It then will move on immediately to the Senate for first reading.
It was a bad deal then and it is still a bad deal. Maybe it is more in the interest of the member to support what is important to the Canadian taxpayer than to support the interests of his friends the lobbyists.
are feeling betrayed by the minister of fisheries in imposing the so-called Mifflin plan as a solution.
There were 500,000 coastal representatives on Parliament Hill yesterday, saying his plan is wrong. Will the minister listen to the people of British Columbia this time and pull back from implementing his plan? This would allow British Columbians to have proper input into the decision on how to deal with the fishery crisis.
(1200)
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that I will be meeting with a group from British Columbia. I have great sensitivity to their concerns but I have to tell the member that in this matter the fish come first, the fishermen and then the politics.
What are the direct benefits to Canada from the money we spent to host this conference?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member not only for his question but for the interest he has consistently displayed since being elected to this Chamber on the whole question and file of the environment.
The Globe conference was probably the premier conference anywhere in the world that very eloquently showcased environmental technologies. There were representatives from 60 different countries and 123 officials just from China. It says that there are 4,500 small and medium size Canadian firms employing 200,000 Canadians in good jobs, jobs for the economy. It also underscores that it is not a question of a good environment or jobs; we can, we should and we will have both.
Why does the minister want to make the lives of dairy producers, and those who make cheese from raw milk in particular, even more difficult with a study aimed at banning cheese made from raw milk?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to respond in a way which is somewhat repugnant of the kind of question the hon. member has put forward. Is the hon. member suggesting that the Minister of Health, federally or provincially, when they become aware of scientific evidence which suggests that the risk will be increased that we not share that information with Canadians?
The purposes of gazetting the information is to consult with the industry to make sure there will be no ill effects in terms of health for any Canadian.
I hope the hon. member who is a reasonable individual most of the time would want to support that kind of approach.
Stephan Zbikowski, a Canadian citizen from the riding of Verchères, who was arrested in Venezuela in December 1994 for cocaine trafficking, has been held in Carabobo maximum security penitentiary ever since. Note that no charges have yet been laid against Mr. Zbikowski by Venezuelan authorities and that, while awaiting trial, he is being held with inmates considered to be dangerous offenders.
In light of the fact that Mr. Zbikowski has been detained for 16 months without trial and that the actions taken by Canadian officials were unsuccessful, does the minister plan to exert diplomatic pressure to speed things up so that this Canadian citizen can finally be tried?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Department of Foreign Affairs provides very good consular services to Canadians in trouble abroad.
I am not familiar with the details of this particular case but I would be very happy to put our department in contact with the hon. member so that he can receive some answers about this case.
(1205)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.