[Translation]
The Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to all their election promises, because of what he called acts of God. The Prime Minister added, with regard to his government's failure to settle the GST issue: ``Sometimes, in the course of a mandate, you run into situations where you cannot deliver the goods''.
My question is for the Prime Minister or whomever speaks on his behalf on this day of crisis for the government. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is finally admitting that he and his government missed the boat in the matter of the GST and were unable to deliver the goods?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in 1990, Quebec signed a harmonization agreement with the Government of Canada. This said, it was far from clear whether the new government would continue the process.
With the first Campeau budget, the Government of Quebec not only made it very clear, but in fact put measures in place that eventually resulted in total or near total harmonization of the Quebec sales tax and the federal tax.
Now, if I understand the hon. member, because, really, an event changed the game since the election, as we have to admit, does the member think the federal government should have created a completely different tax that could not be harmonized with Quebec's tax?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has days when he is effective in this House, but this really is not one of them. I thought, however, that he had already prepared to take over for the Prime Minister, but I realize this is not the case.
My question is serious, and I do not want an answer from him on the Quebec sales tax or on anything else. I want him to answer my question. Are we to understand, when the Prime Minister says that politicians should not be forced to sign contracts to keep their promises, what I would like to know is, in saying this, is the Prime Minister referring to the fact that, as far as the Liberals are concerned, politicians can say whatever they like during election campaigns and then invoke an act of God to justify their inability to deliver the goods?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I admit I am just as guilty as the Leader of the Opposition, but being effective does not always mean getting excited. I think it is possible to have a debate and be effective by responding calmly to a question.
Obviously, when Quebec, representing 25 per cent of the population, decided to harmonize, it put the federal government, to some extent, in the position of not being able to harmonize any new tax it developed with Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Landry, told us at the meeting of finance ministers that we must not come up with another tax, because it was important for Quebec and its economy to have a harmonized tax. So this is what we did.
(1420)
So I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that we did the best thing for Canada's economy and, specifically, for Quebec's economy.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a limit. The government is in a full blown crisis of confidence. The Minister of Finance, a few days ago, apologized for failing to deliver the goods. The Deputy Prime Minister had to resign because she did not keep a promise. The Prime Minister keeps saying he kept his promises and, this morning, he tried to tell us that sometimes we should let politicians make promises and not keep them.
I ask the government represented here by the Minister of Finance-it is not my fault there is no one else here to answer questions-whether the Prime Minister, in doing so in this day of crisis, wanted to acknowledge outside the House of Commons that the government was unable to keep its promises?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, do the members of the Bloc who said they would resign if the referendum did not pass intend to resign?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let him find such a statement, just for the fun of it. We have said we would be here until the referendum goes through, and it will go through some day. We, unlike others, can live with the statements we make. The problems are not on this side of the House, but on the other side.
Mr. Young: Four out of seven!
Mr. Duceppe: Do not worry about the Minister of Human Resources Development. We will find some nice statements he made about the GST in the days he debated the issue with Mr. Wilson. His turn will come.
Last week, the Minister of Finance recognized that his government had make an honest mistake by promising to abolish the GST. He cannot deny it, we heard him on every TV channel. His leader was not too pleased, but the minister said it. In fact, during his career, he has made many statements that did not please his leader. Last week's admission was unquestionably one of them.
Today, following the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister and his leader's flip-flop, I ask the Minister of Finance if he stands by his statement of last week that his government, and himself as Minister of Finance, made an honest mistake by promising to abolish the GST? Does he maintain his statement?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I not only maintain that statement but, when I made it, I was speaking on behalf of the government. That statement was endorsed by the government.
I want to take this opportunity to praise the courage and integrity of the hon. member for Hamilton East, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps. I am also extremely confident that she will be back here after June 17, exactly in the same seat.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is another example of a statement made by the Minister of Finance that will not please his leader. The minister just told us that he spoke on behalf of the government. That is what he just said. Speaking on behalf of the government, he said: ``The government made a mistake when it promised to abolish the GST.'' For three or four days now, the leader of the same government has been saying that there was no mistake. This is a good one.
(1425)
I would like to know who speaks on behalf of the government. Is it number three? Number two is gone because she had talked too much. Who speaks on behalf of the government? Which version is right: that of the Minister of Finance, or that of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the government, the Minister of Finance speaks on behalf of the government, all cabinet ministers speak on behalf of the government. Not only that but, as a government, we speak on behalf of all Canadians, including those who live in Quebec. We speak for a country that is one and united.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Sheila Copps resigned because she broke an election promise to Canadians on the GST. The Prime Minister tried to tell us yesterday that Ms. Copps had to go because she overstepped the red book.
During the last election the Prime Minister promised Canadians time and time again that he would abolish the GST, kill the GST, scrap the GST.
What is the difference between Sheila Copps' promise to scrap the GST and the Prime Minister's promise to scrap the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Hamilton East, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage, stated her position with what we all thought was an enormous amount of courage.
What she stated was that the measures taken by the government in terms of the sales tax were in keeping with the statements in the red book but that in certain of her statements during the election campaign she had gone beyond that.
In those circumstances, because she is a person of tremendous courage, she resigned her seat in order to demonstrate that courage and credibility before the people of her riding.
Yesterday on television we saw elector after elector in her riding state their great confidence in Sheila Copps. There is no doubt that on June 17 the people of Hamilton East will demonstrate their recognition of the great courage, the great credibility and the great integrity of the member for Hamilton East.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a week ago it could have been described as courage. One week later it is convenience. It has nothing to do with courage.
On September 10 the Prime Minister stated quite clearly: ``There will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep''. That is the campaign, not the red book.
On the campaign trail the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would abolish the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister made the same promise and resigned because she did not keep it.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that he, like Sheila Copps, broke his campaign promise to the Canadian people on the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how can the member, a representative of that party, talk about courage, credibility and integrity when the former chief whip of that party, who made a statement that cast dishonour upon every one of us in the House, refused to resign?
What did the former chief whip do? Did he resign his seat? No. What he did was resign as chief whip. That party changes chief whips every week.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister can try to duck election promises all he wants, but
the government promised Canadians from one end of the country to the other he would abolish, scrap and kill the GST.
Page 22 of the red book was not good enough for the Prime Minister on the campaign trail and it was not good enough to keep Sheila Copps on the front benches.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept responsibility for the promises he made during the last election? How can he expect Canadians to believe that his promise to abolish the GST was different from the promise made by Sheila Copps?
(1430)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Reform members stand up here every day fulminating against the GST, making statements about their preparedness to abolish it, to scrap it.
After the finance committee said it is simply unacceptable that Canada have 10 sales tax systems, how could those members stand up here and say they commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces? How could the Reform Party have been so right then and so wrong now?
Can the Minister of Justice confirm this morning's news reports to the effect that Ottawa is about to intervene in court on May 13 to question the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a long time now, the federal government has been following the situation with regard to Mr. Bertrand's litigation. In his case, Mr. Bertrand has raised several constitutional issues of great significance. So, it is important for the federal government to examine the case and the issues, and that is what we are doing.
I hope to be able to make a recommendation to my colleagues in the next few days. We have not made any decision yet, but we are examining the situation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government is interfering with the most legitimate right of all Quebecers to decide their own future.
How can the Minister of Justice justify such a decision, because he did say that he would make it, when shortly before the last referendum he stated that the right of the Quebec people to express their will concerning their own future was a political position and not a legal issue?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the substance of the Bertrand litigation has to do with constitutional issues. It is passing strange to suggest that the Attorney General of Canada would be disinterested in constitutional issues. The Government of Quebec brought a motion and has taken a legal position in relation to the issues in the action.
It is part of my responsibility as chief law officer of the federal government to look at the issues in that case and to recommend to my colleagues and to the Prime Minister a position in relation to the case. This is not interfering with the expression by the population of Quebec of its will or its position on a question. This has to do with constitutional and legal issues, the very substance of the Bertrand litigation. That is the reason we are looking at it and preparing ourselves to decide.
Before they were elected the Liberals claimed they cared and would not tax these things. Why did they stop caring once they were elected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously when we have 10 different retail sales taxes across the country resulting in different tax bases we have to start somewhere. The general understanding was that we would start with the one common base which existed across the country, the federal sales tax base.
We made it very clear in negotiations with the provinces that we were prepared to examine this whole area and we will do so.
I have a little difficulty with the question from the member of the Reform Party who in the finance committee called for an expanded sales tax base. Perhaps the member might tell us what he would expand it to, food, pharmaceuticals and various other things?
(1435)
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in all of Canada second hand dealers in everything from books to jewellery to boats are fuming about the change in GST regulations that wipes out the tax credits they used to get.
The government's budget bragged ``no tax increases''. With the nationwide tax increases I just mentioned, is this statement, made so proudly in the budget, still true?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not increasing its tax take. The rate stays at 7 per cent. The federal base stays the same. As a result of this there is no increase in revenue to the federal government.
If we look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada, there is obviously a substantial decrease in the tax rate as it applies to Atlantic Canadians.
I return the question to the hon. member. During the finance committee they said they would expand the base to food and pharmaceuticals. How can the member now stand up and essentially say he would tax the basic necessities of life and then criticize the government for trying to introduce rationalization into the system?
We also learned today that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have also recommended to the Prime Minister that he challenge the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.
Does the minister not realize that, by denying the people of Quebec the right to decide their own future, his government is demonstrating that it has nothing to offer Quebec and that the grand plan for national reconciliation is nothing more than a big hoax?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no intention of preventing the people of Quebec from expressing their position on these matters. This is not why Mr. Bertrand launched his suit. Let us be clear about Mr. Bertrand's case. He began it as a private citizen, and he raised important constitutional questions.
As the Attorney General of Canada, it is my responsibility to prepare and to give advice to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues on the question of participating in this case. In fact, the federal government has been made mis en cause by Mr. Bertrand. We are therefore already involved in the case before the courts. In the days and weeks to come, we will be examining the matter and deciding whether we will participate actively with the other parties before the court in order to determine the important points in the case.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Minister of Justice would give such a long winded non-answer to a very simple question. Does the government intend to challenge the Quebec referendum or not?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the referendum is not in issue in the Bertrand litigation. The court documents revealed that what is in issue is the constitutional validity of l'avant-projet de loi. That is the issue before the court, and it raises questions of legal significance.
As I have already told the House, it is my responsibility as Attorney General of Canada, having been made mis en cause in the litigation, to prepare and give advice to my colleagues and the Prime Minister, which I shall give.
Is the minister planning to give a break to the rest of Canada by lowering the tax rate on the GST to 5.5 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transition funding provided to Atlantic Canada does not represent a cut in the federal sales tax rate. That rate remains at 7 per cent from coast to coast.
This a cost sharing with the Atlantic provinces. They pick up the first 5 per cent loss on their own provincial sales tax revenue. But it a cost sharing over four years. In other words, this is transition funding. It ends at the end of four years. It is not permanent.
The kind of rate cut that the member is talking about would be a permanent rate cut. Obviously he is comparing an apple and orange. I am sorry but it is not on.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it sounds like fruit salad to me. Even if I could not sing, for a billion dollars I could learn to harmonize too.
The pay-off to the Atlantic provinces is unfair. It taxes the rest of Canada in order to subsidize taxation in another area of the country.
When will the finance minister admit that this is not a business deal, it is a political deal? The harmonization deal asks other
Canadians to keep paying 7 per cent while people in another part of the country pay only 5.5 per cent.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, try as he might, the hon. member is not going to be able to make this stick.
It was not the federal rate that came down. It was the provincial rate that came down. The provincial rate came down because the Atlantic provinces, albeit using a certain amount of transition funding, are absorbing that cut and expect to make it up as a result of increased activity.
Let us take a look at what is being said here. The government is providing transitional funding on a four-year basis on an average to the three provinces of $250 million a year. A cut in the national rate from 7 per cent to 5.5 per cent would cost about $4.5 billion a year.
What the hon. member is asking for is the equivalent of $250 million transition funding leading to a $4.5 billion cut which is simply nonsense. The fact is in B.C., it would be $725 million and in Alberta it would be $485 million. The numbers simply do not stand up.
What is more important-Mr. Speaker, you want me to stop?
This minister is responsible for promoting competition. Yet, over the last month, the price of gasoline has increased by more than 25 per cent.
To protect consumers just as the American government is doing right now, what is the minister waiting for to use his powers under the Competition Act to order an investigation into the possibility of collusion among companies?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will look closely at this investigation in the United States to see the results. As the member knows full well, the power of the Minister of Industry to give an order to the director of competition is seldom used. In fact, it has been used only once in Canada.
At this time, we do not have enough information to justify such an order, but if the member wants to ask questions to the director, I think he will be appearing before the industry committee. Moreover, the member has the right, with five of his colleagues, to submit a request directly to the director.
(1445)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to forget that this responsibility ultimately falls on his shoulders. He himself has the power to intervene under the law.
If the minister thinks the evidence is not sufficient, why then does he not decide to launch an investigation into this since he has the power to do so?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long the line would be if we were to issue directions to hold investigations every time somebody made an allegation.
As the hon. member knows, there have been a number of situations with respect to gasoline prices that have been investigated by the director of the competition bureau. That has led, in recent months, not only to charges having been laid but successful prosecutions under the provisions of the Competition Act.
The director has also established a 1-800 number so that consumers who have concerns about gas prices can make those concerns known directly to the bureau of competition so that action can be taken where it is warranted.
Finally, I remind the hon. member that he with five of his colleagues has the ability to ask the director to investigate issues where he thinks there are facts that warrant it.
Today the minister tabled the Firearms Act regulations which have 30 days of consultations. Having read the regulations, I and many of our colleagues see the need for some changes and some modifications.
Is the minister prepared to listen to representations and make changes to the regulations which we feel will make it less burdensome on legitimate gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a strong sense of déjà vu when I answer questions having to do with the Firearms Act, but the simple answer is yes.
Today I tabled the first segment of regulations which will help implement the Firearms Act and bring its principles to life. The purpose of tabling them at this time and having 30 days before the committee is to permit us to solicit and collect reactions.
The hon. member was kind enough to express already today some of his reactions to the draft regulations. I want to assure him and all members of the House that we will be taking note of the views of those who read the regulations and have an interest in them. We are more than prepared to make changes and adjustments in these draft regulations to deal with any reasonable concerns that are expressed.
B.C. salmon stocks are rapidly shrinking. Fraser River stocks are almost gone and this year's Alaskan catch will severely hurt our northern runs. One would think the government's plan would include a strategy to save the salmon but it does not. The minister of fisheries is fiddling with licences while the B.C. fishery burns.
My question for the minister is very simple. Will his plan preserve salmon stocks in British Columbia or not?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that a parliamentary committee has been considering the plan and it does involve consideration of a long range strategy.
In fact, as a result of fruitful discussions between the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the main stakeholders in British Columbia in the salmon industry, the parliamentary committee will be hearing expert witnesses in the next week. It will be advising on the development of a strategy.
We are faced with two problems, an immediate short run, a 1996 problem that is near crisis dimensions, and a long range one. There are all these matters. For one month there has been a continuing process of discussion with the main stakeholders. Continuing input, including input from the hon. member, will all be part of the final plan.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the delegation to which the minister's representative refers has told the committee and the members of Parliament that the measures in the Mifflin plan will not conserve salmon in British Columbia. The minister admitted as much in the House yesterday in response to a question from this party.
(1450)
His admission flies in the face of what the minister said when he announced the plan in March. He emphatically told British Columbians that conservation was the overall objective, and now he admits it is not.
Why is the government spending all its bloated bureaucratic energy on a plan that does not stop the pie from shrinking, but just gives bigger pieces to fewer people?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is too selective in his recourse to witnesses. We have heard many people, many strongly in support of plan, many critical. The government is open to a dialogue, to discussion, and we are considering all these matters.
As far as the industry is concerned, it has been made clear by the minister that the first priority is the conservation of the fish. But the good health of the industry is dependent on conservation. Let us get through 1996, then 1997-98 will be a more normal season.
Quebec environment minister David Cliche yesterday announced that, for the moment, he is unable to give the go ahead to the operation to refloat the Irving Whale, because federal employees have been unable to provide satisfactory answers to a number of questions, in particular four key questions on the safety of the operation.
How can the minister explain the inability of the environment department's employees to provide answers to Quebec's questions?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec, through its minister, has indeed raised questions that are highly technical in nature and are related to certain studies already carried out. I assure my colleague opposite that all of these questions will be carefully studied and answered. We are confident that we have the information in hand to reply to them.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Irving Whale refloat is scheduled to begin May 15, so these answers must be received as promptly as possible, before the operation is begun.
Does the minister commit to not beginning the refloat until such time as the environment department's employees have provided satisfactory answers to all of the technical questions raised by Quebec?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ministers with responsibility on the federal level, that is the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of the Environment, have issued directives for federal and provincial officials to meet as
soon as possible with a view to finding answers to all of the technical questions raised.
I assure the hon. member that these answers will be found and that, in the case of the Irving Whale refloating operation, nothing is being taken for granted, and every effort will be expended to reassure all those with concerns about the operation.
Further to yesterday's discussion, it is becoming abundantly clear that the government's CPP hearings are a sham and that the government has already made up its mind to double the CPP payroll tax.
Consider the structure of the hearings. Only Liberal MPs are allowed to sit on the panel. Only one MP, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is attending all of the hearings, and this one MP has already said that he advocates an immediate doubling of the CPP payroll tax from 5.5 per cent to 10 per cent.
Will the minister admit the obvious? The fix is in on these hearings.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I have had many discussion about this to ensure that the process from the federal government's point of view is properly conducted.
To correct the impression left by the hon. member, the member of Parliament who is representing the Government of Canada is the chairman of the industry committee but is certainly no longer the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and is actually acting our behalf.
(1455)
Even with the flexible federalism being practised in this country, it would be impossible for one federal member of Parliament to put the fix in with 10 provinces and the territories. This is a co-operative arrangement. It can only be changed, as I recall off the top of my head, with the agreement of seven of the provinces, representing 70 per cent of the Canadian population. Not even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can put that kind of a fix in.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, despite the hon. member's remarks to me, I would like to read into the record a statement made on April 14 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said: ``My own view is if we reorganize the program and stabilize the contributions at somewhere in the range of 10 per cent, it would be a more adequate solution''.
This amounts to an additional 5 per cent payroll tax taken from the pay cheque of every Canadian from coast to coast. Will the minister state for the record that he will not implement this, the worst of all possible scenarios?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I keep trying to reassure the hon. member that it is not going to be a unilateral decision of the Government of Canada.
There is another side to the coin. When the hon. member who was involved in the hearing process expressed his views, I have no doubt he was saying that, depending on the need to maintain an appropriate level of support for recipients of the Canada pension plan in the future, there will have to be some hard decisions made. That was his view. As indicated in the quote, it was a personal view. However, his personal views will have to be seen through the prism of all of these hearings, with all of the provinces being involved.
At the end of the process, whatever the recommendations may be of the government and the various provincial governments involved, it will be brought to the House where all members will have an adequate and appropriate opportunity to express their views on the matter.
[English]
People in my riding are outraged about the placement of a convicted dangerous sex offender at Keele Street Correctional Centre. The public is justifiably concerned about the safety of their families.
In the platform book and in the throne speech the government made commitments for greater security for our communities. When can my constituents and other concerned Canadians expect tougher legislation for dangerous sex offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I know the hon. member is aware of the measures already taken. The Solicitor General of Canada has implemented measures through Bill C-45 which could result in parole being denied altogether to certain offenders, particularly sex offenders, who must serve their full time. There have been measures in bills which I have brought forward which provide for stiffer sentences for crimes of violence.
The question which the hon. member raises deals directly with the issue of how to manage high risk offenders. As the hon. member knows, because I have told the House before, the solicitor general and I are preparing proposals for cabinet which I hope to
introduce before we rise at the end of June to deal with high risk offenders, that is, for people who may not be categorized as dangerous within Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, but who, because of their violent conduct, are at a high risk to re-offend by harming others after their release from prison. These proposals would empower the court to impose periods of supervision as long as ten years after their release.
That and related changes, I hope, will deal with the concerns that the hon. member has raised. I will elaborate on those proposals with the solicitor general in the weeks ahead.
In the last federal election the Liberals promised in the red book and across Canada to implement, together with the provinces, an affordable, accessible, national child care plan. In view of the fact that there are no more federally earmarked dollars for child care under the CHST, will this be another broken promise like the GST promise, or will the Liberal government and this minister finally recognize that there is a desperate need for quality accessible child care in every province and territory in Canada? Will the minister finally live up to that promise?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an attempt was made by the government before Christmas to try to find a way to come to the assistance of people who understand, as the hon. member knows, the need for child care across the country.
(1500)
The response to that initiative, led by the Government of Canada, was less than warm. Governments across the country, practically without exception, said that although they recognized the need for child care, they wanted to make sure the Government of Canada understood the jurisdictional questions and that whatever the Government of Canada did it would be compatible with what the provinces saw as their needs and based on their capacity to provide resources.
I assure the hon. member we have had conversations with representatives of all governments across the country. We believe there is a very good opportunity to continue to play a national role in the provision of child care.
I look forward to working with individuals and groups, people who are interested in this matter, as well as with provincial governments to ensure the Government of Canada plays a significant but acceptable role in the provision of child care support across the country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government intends to continue consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, until its completion.
[English]
If the bill is not concluded when Bill C-33, the human rights amendment, comes out of committee, we will interrupt the debate to conclude Bill C-33. Then we will return to Bill C-12.
If at some point before next week's business statement we either complete both of these bills or are, for procedural reasons, unable to consider either of them, we will call Bill C-19, the internal trade bill, followed by Bill C-26, the ocean legislation.