Yesterday the Prime Minister linked federal intervention in the Bertrand case to the fact that the Government of Quebec may or may not defend itself in court, saying that, if the Government of Quebec did not participate, it would be easier for his government to not participate.
By using this sort of blackmail to induce Quebec not to defend itself before the courts, is the new strategy of the Prime Minister not, in the end, to make the courts the sole arbiter of the right of Quebecers to decide their future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say first that I was happy to be in Montreal yesterday. I met with the premier of Quebec.
This is a matter for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, who is, under the law, the Constitution and parliamentary custom, the defender of Canada's Constitution.
I would like to quote what appears on the first page of Le Devoir this morning. On page 1A of Le Devoir, Mr. Bouchard is quoted as saying: ``It seems rather difficult, if not impossible, for a government to lose interest''. The attorney general represents a government. Mr. Bouchard said it was difficult for a government to lose interest. So the attorney general represents the Government of Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by tying Quebec's participation to Ottawa's, by telling the Government of Quebec that, if it forgoes defending Quebecers' right to decide their future, it will then be easy for the federal government not to participate, is the Prime Minister not resorting to blackmail and is he not revealing by so doing his new strategy, which is to let the courts alone determine whether Quebec may decide its future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was in fact the position Quebec took in this matter that caught our interest. We have no interest in Mr. Bertrand's position nor in the points he raised.
However, the Government of Quebec said clearly, a few weeks ago, on this case, that neither the Constitution nor the courts of Canada had any say in Quebec's sovereignty.
(1420)
This is quite extraordinary.
So, as the Attorney General of Canada, I must consider whether I can help the court with this question, because the position of the Government of Quebec is extraordinary.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Government of Quebec may be extraordinary, but the responses of the minister are very ordinary indeed.
I would like to know from the Prime Minister why he is suddenly so concerned about the legality of a referendum in Quebec, when he took part in those of 1980 and 1995 without ever questioning their legality or the right of Quebecers to decide their future. Why suddenly now has it become so important for him, unless his back is up against the wall and he knows it?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is not the legality of referenda. That is not the issue that has attracted the attention of the national government. Nor have we the least interest in the various positions by Mr. Bertrand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand started his civil proceedings a number of months ago, in August of last year.
[English]
We have not been involved in that litigation at all. We have no interest in the various positions taken by Mr. Bertrand. Our interest is in the position taken by the Government of Quebec during these past several weeks.
That has not to do with the legality of referenda. It has to do with whether the Constitution of Canada or the courts have a role to play in the whole process by which the separatist Government of Quebec aspires to sovereignty and independence.
That is a fundamental issue. It is one on which the Attorney General of Canada may well be able to assist the court. We are considering intervention on that point in the public interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the government forgets that, in the Bertrand case, the Government of Quebec is the respondent, while the Government of Canada is only a third party. Perhaps a distinction should be made between the two.
Unable to deliver the goods or to give clear answers to our questions, the Prime Minister continues to improvise his constitutional position, as is obvious again today.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, by referring to the federal government's possible involvement in the Bertrand case, he is putting himself in a position of confrontation not only with the Quebec government, but also with his federalist allies in Quebec, Daniel Johnson first of all, who recognize the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Government of Canada was named as a third party by Mr. Bertrand in his civil suit, so we are involved in the legal proceedings.
[English]
The hon. member speaks of improvisation. What the House of Commons and the Canadian people are seeing is follow through. The government said in the throne speech in February that if there is to be another referendum the consequences will be clear and all Canadians will have a say. We are acting on that commitment. This is follow through on that commitment.
If we do decide to intervene in the case it is because we are responding to a proposition which is wrong in principle and wrong in law because it is impossible to say the Constitution and the courts have no relevance to the process by which some would see Quebec accede to sovereignty.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada is only a third party, it should let Quebecers decide their own future and withdraw from this case without going to a higher court, period.
(1425)
How can the Prime Minister-since the Prime Minister is here, I take this opportunity to question him-how can the Prime Minister reconcile his provocative attitude toward Quebec with the mandate he gave his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to travel across Canada preaching the gospel of national reconciliation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a case before the courts. The parties will present their arguments to the court. If the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are so sure of their legal position, they should have no fear of going before the courts. If their arguments are sound, they will prevail. If there is a lawyer representing the federal government and if he is wrong, he will lose. That is how the courts operate. When I was a practising lawyer and I had a good case, I did not ask my opponents to withdraw. I was very happy to argue with them.
However, this is not a political but a legal problem at this point. It is not us but the Quebec government that filed the motion before the courts, arguing that there was virtually no longer a Constitution in Canada. So we will defend our legal position, should the Minister of Justice decide to do so.
As for reconciliation, we had a very well defined program in the throne speech and we intend to discuss its implementation with the provinces at the first ministers' conference in Ottawa next month. The reconciliation plan we put forward, which is being stickhandled very adroitly by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, will be on the table and show that we are in favour of renewed federalism and not Quebec's separation.
In order to maximize the benefits of Ontario's tax cuts consumers have to be convinced the dollars will stay in their pockets and not be picked by some other government.
Will the Prime Minister today promise that his government will not raise federal taxes and negate the stimulative effect of Ontario provincial tax cuts?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last three budgets have shown to the Canadian people that we have managed to reduce the deficit from 6.2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent with no tax increases. In many cases there were reductions in taxes.
We are very happy the Ontario government has tried to copy us.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you will excuse us for not believing the Prime Minister when it comes to pronouncements on the subject of taxation.
The government's own record with respect to tax relief is abysmal. The only thing worse than its record on tax relief is its record on keeping promises. Canadians deserve to know that money left in their pockets by provincial tax cuts will not be sucked up by the federal government to pay for things like a $1 billion GST harmonization.
Is the Prime Minister willing to enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure tax relief given by provincial governments remains in the hands of Canadian taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question remains the same as the last 10 times the leader of the Reform Party asked it. We have discussed this
extensively at the federal-provincial finance ministers meetings. There is a general agreement that it would be counterproductive for any one level of government to fill in tax room simply because of the negative effect it would have on the Canadian economy.
Let me remind the hon. member that not only in the last three budgets did the government not raise personal taxes, but in the last budget we very clearly nailed our colours to the mast. We did not raise corporate taxes, we did not raise excise taxes, we did not raise taxes at all, and we still kept bringing the deficit down.
(1430)
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just a simple question. If there does exist a federal-provincial agreement on taxation not to invade each other's territory, as the minister says, will the minister table that agreement in the House?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well what I said. There was a discussion by the finance ministers. There was general understanding around the table.
Let me ask the leader of the Reform Party something. In its most recent budget the Reform Party talked about cutting old age pensions. It talked about cutting health care. It did not talk about cutting taxes.
Why is the member raising it here and now if he was not prepared to advocate it himself?
The Deputy Prime Minister resigned over this broken promise and the Minister of Finance apologized again on behalf of the government. Only the Prime Minister refuses to admit that his government pulled the wool over Canadians' eyes by running on the promise of abolishing a tax whose scope he is now broadening.
Since the Prime Minister still insists his government did abide by its promise regarding the GST, could he tell us why his finance minister has made public apologies on behalf of the government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that, whenever a minister speaks in this House, he speaks on behalf of the government. As a matter of fact, that is what I did just the other day, when the Deputy Prime Minister and member for Hamilton East gave her press conference. She has put the situation very clearly. Incidentally, I would like to report to the House that I spoke with the member for Hamilton East this morning; she is doing well and she will win the election.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the person the Minister of Finance should be speaking with is not the former Deputy Prime Minister but the Prime Minister.
I would like the Prime Minister, who is in the House today, to tell us if he agrees with what his finance minister said when he admitted he had made a mistake; that is what he said. The Minister of Finance said he was speaking on behalf of the government; the Deputy Prime Minister was also speaking on behalf of the government, and she resigned.
Could the Prime Minister speak on behalf of the government and stop acting like the old breed of politicians who always had to be right and were incapable of acknowledging their mistakes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated at the time of her resignation, what she had promised was more than what the red book stated. Our promise is stated on page 22 of the red book, where we say that our goal is to harmonize the tax, to simplify the system, to have in Canada a sales tax system in which businesses need not be visited by auditors from two levels of government. This was stated very clearly on page 22 and remains very clear.
What the Minister of Finance said and what I have been repeating in this House is we wish we could have put this system in place sooner. That is what we were hoping to do. But since the provinces were involved, we had to get their consent.
So far, four provinces have consented. This does not apply to Alberta. We expect the remaining provinces to get on board shortly and we are disappointed that all the provinces did not readily endorse the program, as we had hoped. We had said we wished to achieve this goal this year and we hope that the provinces that are still not involved in the process will be by the end of this year.
(1435 )
Today's Ontario budget will fulfil two major election promises, a firm date for a balanced budget and tax relief.
When will the finance minister follow the example of eight provincial ministers and commit to a firm date for a balanced budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that it will proceed on a set of rolling two year targets because it is that procedure which has given us the success in deficit reduction that we have had, a success that has been recognized by markets around the world.
For the first time in an awful long time a Canadian government has not only consistently hit its deficit targets, it has beaten them, and we will continue to do it. It is too bad for the Reform Party because it has lost its agenda.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad for the Canadian taxpayer that when the Liberals talk about going from 5 per cent, to 4 per cent, to 3 per cent of GDP they do not mention $40 billion and $50 billion of interest payments that it is costing Ontario taxpayers.
The lack of resolve on the part of the federal finance minister to eliminate the deficit is a cause for concern among Ontario taxpayers. They are asking whether a tax cut provincially will be swallowed up by a federal tax grab.
Canadians are judging their finance ministers by their ability to balance their books. This finance minister is dead last in that concern. When will he start leading by example?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree with the hon. member that there are times when one should cite the province of Ontario. On the GST let me simply cite the premier of Ontario.
He said in 1994 that in terms of GST the manufacturers and the businesses in Ontario would save over a billion dollars by being able to deduct these costs they could not deduct at that time on the sales tax in Ontario. He also said it has been one of those areas of major competitive disadvantage that Ontario manufacturers have had. He went on to say that Ontario businesses have had it.
I repeated this last week but perhaps the hon. member forgot. The premier of Ontario said: ``Stop the rhetoric, stop the politics, stop the finger pointing, get on with harmonization and simplification of the GST''. That is what he said and he was right.
Yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration admitted in this House that the operation conducted in Quebec on the eve of the referendum, to speed up the issuance of certificates of citizenship, was of a particular nature and required unprecedented efforts.
However, whenever he was asked about this operation, the former immigration minister always downplayed it, saying that it was similar to those conducted in other provinces before an election.
How can the Prime Minister explain that his former immigration minister tried to downplay the operation conducted in Quebec just before the referendum, if not to hide from Quebecers the fact that Ottawa was doing its utmost to influence the outcome of the referendum?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I made myself very clear yesterday and I will do it again today. My predecessor, the current Minister of the Environment, did not deny at all the fact that we were making a special effort in Quebec, before the referendum, to issue certificates of citizenship to those who were entitled to them, just like we are making a particular effort now in British Columbia, where a provincial election will soon be held. Again, efforts are being made in British Columbia to speed up the issuance of citizenship certificates.
The right to vote is a fundamental one in our country and if people have such a right, we must do our utmost to make sure they can exercise it.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government is really pushing its limits. The minister should read carefully what her colleague said, which is the opposite of what she claims.
Of course he said that it was the same for any election. However, the government made a special effort in the case of the referendum. On checking, we found out that, in the case of the election held shortly before in Ontario, nothing special was done. As for British Columbia, if they did something special, then they only started yesterday, because as of last week nothing had been done.
(1440)
I ask our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, to do what is necessary to deal with the issue of those who have money owed them.
How can the Prime Minister tolerate the fact that his government is once again floundering, with his two immigration ministers formally contradicting each other, one claiming that the operation was absolutely normal and the other confirming that the federal government did make a particular effort?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between the two statements made. As evidence of that, one simply has to look at the number of
citizenship certificates issued in 1995 in Quebec, in comparison to the 1994 figure. In 1994, about 40,000 certificates were issued, while the total number for 1995 will be around 43,000. As for British Columbia, 27,000 certificates were issued in 1994, while 8,000 more will have been issued in 1995.
I realize that the Bloc Quebecois has a great capacity for indignation, but it should really look at the facts.
On page 2 of this holy harmonization hymn book it states: ``The GST is not dead, buried and scrapped''. I guess that would be revealed truth.
The finance minister, Sheila Copps and the Prime Minister's holy harmonization hymn book all state that the promise was broken. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he, not God, snookered Canadians when he told them he would kill the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that the policy of the government was very clear. It was written on page 22 of the red book. They do not want to read that but they keep accusing the government of breaking its promises.
What about the national infrastructure program on page 60, the cancellation of the helicopter program, meeting the deficit's 3 per cent goal, appointment of an ethics counsellor and passing gun legislation? Do they want some more?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there but for the grace of God goes I.
There is some information in the Prime Minister's little hymn book that we cannot find. We all know how the Prime Minister likes to cite page 22 of his red book. Could he now tell us on what page of his new holy harmonization hymn book he admits to forcing Canadians to pay a billion dollars to keep this tax that everybody hates? Where is that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member I think of the phrase there but for the grace of God goes God.
The hon. member ought to begin to understand that when we bring in a process of profound structural change it is the responsibility of the federal government to help the regions of the country adjust to that change.
This is what we did in 1972 with tax reform. It is what we did in western Canada when we helped the western grain farmer. It is the basis upon which the country has been built; the regions of the country help each other.
It may be very difficult for members of the Reform Party to understand but they should understand that they should be speaking for a united Canada, not a Canada that simply abandons-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Laval East.
[Translation]
The organization Development and Peace recently collected 163,500 names on a petition condemning the terrible working conditions that prevail in the factories of certain foreign subcontractors of clothing giants Nike and Levi's. The main victims are women, adolescents and even children.
Can the minister tell us what Canada is doing to keep products such as those sold by Nike and Levi's, which are manufactured under deplorable working conditions, from coming into the country?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about issues of labour. It has been a key part of our discussions with Chile about the free trade agreement. A concern with respect to child labour has been raised by the Prime Minister and my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on a number of occasions.
We continue to work with our trading partners, particularly through the International Labour Organization and the World Trade Organization, to try to bring about a greater involvement, a greater respect for human rights and for good labour standards.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the concerns and preoccupations of the minister, and fine sentiments such as those expressed by the Prime Minister in China, the situation has not changed in the slightest. I would like to know: Can the minister tell us if he intends, in the near future, to require that foreign operations of Canadian companies observe humane standards of work, in particular by prohibiting child labour?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly found in the case of Chile and our discussions there, because it has been a matter of some controversy for the Canadian labour movement, that Canadian companies were acting most responsibly. They are leading the way in terms of working conditions, wages and benefits.
I expect that Canadian companies would act responsibly abroad. We have had many occasions to encourage that and will continue to do so.
On March 30 of this year, the Canada Gazette printed draft regulations on raw milk cheese. Numerous Quebec manufacturers and some Italian delis in Vancouver have expressed their concerns about these proposed regulations.
Can the Minister of Health bring this House up to date on the situation concerning raw milk cheese?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, other members of my caucus and members opposite for raising this issue in the House.
On a previous occasion I had an opportunity to consume products from raw milk cheese and found them to be very good products.
It is not the intention of the Government of Canada to abandon the industry, the producers, the consumers or the scientific community in any way. There is a process in place, an expert advisory committee, to review all options that will come forward including technological enhancements and labelling.
We look forward to the deliberations, some of which will take place in Quebec City tomorrow.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why did the government take two and a half years to close a secret loophole that has cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues while refusing to back off one inch on the GST?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the new Minister of National Revenue I can say that I welcome my first advice from the auditor general.
The case in point refers to two tax rulings in 1985 and 1991 reviewed by the auditor general which predate our government. He raised some very important issues. I sat down with the auditor general. I went through his report line by line to be sure that I was clear what his concerns were and to ask him for his views on appropriate action.
(1450)
I am glad to say he was clear and identified three areas of concern. His ideas for action were consistent with my own and along with the Minister of Finance we have been able to implement that action as we speak.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we really need to know whether the minister or the auditor general is running the department. That is the type of answer we want.
When we take a look at the facts we find that every bureaucrat involved in decision making said that in a way it was a tax loophole. That is well documented in every meeting they had, but when it got to the final meeting with senior bureaucrats and perhaps even politicians-we do not know-there were no minutes, no record, and the decision was reversed.
Will the minister explain to the taxpayers of Canada why they have to pay their income taxes while the rich and powerful can get a backroom, under the table deal to save hundreds of millions of dollars?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this occurred in 1991. I want the hon. member to understand that we have taken the matter extremely seriously.
Let us be clear. The auditor general has said that he has some concerns about potential ambiguities in the Income Tax Act. He wants them to be clarified. So do we.
We have asked that the finance committee review these particular aspects of the Income Tax Act and report back to us. We will look forward to its recommendations.
According to information obtained today from the Auditor General's report, the Department of National Defence has sustained a total of $80 million in equipment losses in the various peacekeeping missions in which Canada has played a support role.
How can the Minister of National Defence explain that his department has written off its equipment losses at $80 million, when it has been unable to provide the auditor general with the supporting documents to explain those losses?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question I should point out that some of the documentation has been forthcoming. There is an ongoing discussion with the auditor general on this matter.
It is true that some equipment does get lost during missions. We are trying to verify whether the figure that was actually tabled today is accurate. We will know once all the facts are known.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the auditor general considers that this $80 million hole is in large part unexplained, will the Minister of National Defence be starting up another search operation to locate the missing documents, as he did for the Somalia inquiry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question in the spirit in which it was asked.
My question is for the acting solicitor general. If the most important aspect of the two-part mandate of CSC is rehabilitation, why is it spending a mere 7 per cent of its $1 billion budget on rehabilitation while the bureaucrats squander another 93 per cent on operating costs?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general's report came out this morning. The solicitor general has looked at the report and welcomes its recommendations.
We also recognize, as the report states, that Correctional Services Canada has made tremendous positive gains in its rehabilitation programs. Some of the programs that have been implemented have received international recognition.
(1455)
Could the Minister for International Trade outline what the problems are and what he is doing to stand up for the interests of all Canadians?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last 50 years under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade we have made substantial progress in terms of the world trading system.
We have a system that is much more open, liberalized, clearer and with fairer rules than ever before. We have had substantial leadership from the United States and we continue to need that leadership.
We do not need the Americans to pull back into a protectionist mode. That will not serve their interests or anybody's interests. We do not need bills like the Helms-Burton bill wherein they start to take action against their friends, their neighbours and their major trading partners because they are trying to get at another country such as Cuba in this case.
We continue to protest that action. That is not leadership, but we still need their leadership in terms of having liberalized and clear rules based trading system.
According to the auditor general's report tabled today, senior officials met several times so they could issue an advance ruling on the taxation of capital gains from family trusts. The auditor general questions the validity of this ruling by finance officials.
What does the Minister of Finance intend to do to correct the situation and prevent the government from losing the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes it will forgo if nothing is done in the next few weeks?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the concern of the auditor general that perhaps our documentation was not as complete as it might be, my deputy minister met with the deputy minister of finance and we have implemented improvements to our documentation for important rulings.
At the same time it allowed a senior military official to spend an outrageous $250,000 on a change of command party. That is a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars spent by Major General McInnis on a party for himself.
Obviously the chain of command at the defence department has completely broken down. Why did the minister fail to prevent this outrageous waste of taxpayers' money?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is an example of a flagrant waste of money. It is extravagant. It is unacceptable.
I disagree with the conclusion of the hon. member. We have a new commander of the army. We have a new chief of defence staff who has laid down the rules in no uncertain terms to senior military officers that they have to behave in a way with the public's money as the public would have them behave.
I would like to know, on the one hand, whether the Prime Minister can tell us today the agenda of the proposed conference, which is to take place very soon, in June, and, on the other, whether he intends to move on respecting his referendum promises, including the promise to enshrine in the Constitution the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agenda is not ready at this time. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs met with representatives of most governments and consulted them regarding the agenda, which will be made known when we have finalized it. I will meet next week with the premier of Quebec. The minister will be in Quebec City on Thursday of this week, and we must also speak with representatives of other governments.
The agenda is not ready yet, but when it is, we will be happy to table it in the House.
As for the promise I made, I submitted a resolution in this very House to that effect. In order to enshrine it in the Canadian Constitution, the consent of the Government of Quebec is necessary. I would be only too glad if Bloc Quebecois members across the way could arrange to have the premier of Quebec tell us that he wants distinct society enshrined in the Constitution.
(1500)
I am certain that the House of Commons will be delighted to pass the bill, with the approval of the required number of Canadian provinces. But the Government of Quebec must tell us that that is what it wants. We cannot do this unilaterally, because the Constitution does not allow us to.
Can the minister assure the House that he has sufficient regulatory and enforcement powers and means to prevent the use of the remains of infected livestock in feed for other livestock so as to protect the health and safety of Canadians?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. gentleman's question is in relation to the disease known as BSE.
The key point which bears repeating is that there is absolutely no evidence that BSE exists in Canada and therefore it cannot enter the food chain.
Recently the World Health Organization has made certain recommendations to countries about what they might do with respect to BSE. I am pleased to note that the vast majority of those recommendations were introduced in Canada a long time ago, well before the fact and not after it.
The WHO's most recent recommendations are under discussion right now between my department and the relevant livestock organizations in this country.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the harvesting capacity increased the last 15 years by anywhere from three to eight times. He knows that fishermen are losing money in all sectors. He also
knows the difficulty with the salmon is that the stocks are in a severe and critical situation.
That is not the issue, that is the problem. The issue is to come up with an effective plan to address this problem. This will be done. I can assure the House that we will end up with economic viability and an environmentally sustainable plan that will address this problem.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for question period has expired.
I want to bring to the attention of the Chair a question asked of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General. I would ask the Chair to review the blues to determine whether the amount of time allotted to the parliamentary secretary was in keeping with our traditions or even with the other questions that were asked today.
I would contend that the question was far longer than the time allotted for the parliamentary secretary to answer. I hope that the Chair would take this under advisement, examine it with a view to ensuring that this is done in the usual fair and equitable way.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. whip to the government. In fact the parliamentary secretary probably was cut off a little quickly.
The Chair was trying to get a lot of members on who did not get on today. If the parliamentary secretary had not said the word three and had just gone into the points, he probably would have got a couple of them out.