How can the Minister for Human Resources Development explain that the administration of a $21 million program supposedly aimed at helping young people is being entrusted to a highly political and extremely partisan organization?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without addressing all of the details in the hon. member's comments on the Council, allow me to point out that Experience Canada is a partnership. The bulk of the funds to be spent on helping young people everywhere in the country, young people in all provinces, comes from the private sector.
Companies and stakeholders in the private sector are prepared to assume their responsibilities and to contribute to the development
of our youth throughout the country, through exchanges and workplace learning experiences. I trust that everyone will support a partnership of this type between the private sector, the governments, and our young people.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a motherhood issue; of course we have nothing against partnerships. Quebec is, as the minister well knows, a pioneer in such arrangements. That was not the question.
The federal government is telling us that it will be withdrawing from the manpower field. This was a commitment made in the throne speech, but in practice it is adding another player, the Council for Canadian Unity, a body that is not all that neutral, and one not generally involved in employment.
How can the minister justify one more finger in the manpower pie? How can he justify this, except as an intention to use money earmarked to help our young people for political ends, because the Council for Canadian Unity is a propaganda machine, pure and simple?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just the day before the announcement, which once again demonstrated the private sector's willingness to help young people everywhere in this country, who are having a really hard time finding work, one of the key stakeholders in the Council made some comments. What he said, in my opinion, ought to clearly demonstrate that there is a fairly wide range of opinions within the Council for Canadian Unity.
Peter White was the person in question, and what he had to say demonstrates, in my opinion, the divergence of opinions about the future of the country and about what ought to done to ensure its survival.
The entire Experience Canada exercise is focussed on young people, and I trust that all those who are interested in doing something to help young people will do so, whether in the private sector or in some coalition or other, and whether they share our vision of Canada or that of the hon. member.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, granted there may be a whole range of opinions within the Council on Canadian Unity but, regardless of their differences, they are all playing the same tune. It is, after all, the Council for Canadian Unity. It is a body involved with Canadian unity, with the Constitution, it is as simple as that.
(1120)
I would like to ask the minister how the Council for Canadian Unity has suddenly acquired expertise in training young people. Let us face it, that is really a bit far fetched.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not trying to tell us that in my department we ought-and it is the furthest thing from my mind-to go over all of the applications from all of the hon. members in this House, from all parts of Canada, with a magnifying glass. That we should scrutinize all requests to assist organizations working with young people, in order to find out whether these young people belong to a separatist organization or to some organization that is working for Canadian unity?
I have sufficient respect for young people to allow them to do what they have to do, and to gain experience. I trust-and am not in the least hesitant to say so-that all of the young people, whether from Quebec or from elsewhere, will come to appreciate Canada, as so many have before them, for so many decades.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The new federal government initiative called Experience Canada has not done much to eliminate the numerous cases of overlap in the area of manpower.
How can the government justify the fact that millions of dollars officially set aside for training young people have in fact been used to indoctrinate them instead?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, although we managed this year to double the federal funds available to help young people, it was obviously not enough. The demand largely exceeds our resources.
I should point out to the hon. member that, as a result of this initiative, which comes partly under the responsibility of the Council for Canadian Unity, we managed to double these funds in partnership with the private sector. I think the truth is that we receive many more applications than we have resources.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of wasting public funds in this way or financing task forces that are not representative of young people, what is the government waiting for to settle the manpower training dispute between Canada and Quebec, which is the only way to give some real hope to Quebec's young people?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that we must all work together to try to find a way to ensure that young people in Quebec and elsewhere have as many opportunities as possible to join the workforce.
That is why I reiterate that we in the Government of Canada are developing a position which, I hope, will be acceptable to the Quebec government. We are currently drafting a proposal that, I
hope, will not only reflect the Quebec consensus on manpower but also benefit young and not-so-young people across the country.
The Minister of National Revenue said it would be revenue neutral. When is she going to admit that consumers in Atlantic Canada and across the country are going to be paying through the teeth for this broken Liberal promise?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question which we have heard over and over again. Maybe at some point members will hear loud and clear that what we have done is good for Canadians, good for consumers. The Atlantic provinces realize and businesses throughout the Atlantic provinces realize that a national harmonized tax as we proposed and as is being implemented is good for Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a tax grab and it is that simple.
I want to ask the minister about her views on Quebec's plans to present the federal government with a $500 million bill for the costs incurred when Quebec harmonized its sales tax. It is Quebec's opinion that if the government can find a billion dollars for Atlantic Canada, then it can find half a billion dollars for it.
(1125 )
My question is for the same minister. Is it the intention of the federal government to compensate Quebec for its harmonization costs?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because he has asked questions before about the formula of adjustment assistance, that it provides assistance to provinces that incur losses in excess of 5 per cent of their tax revenue under their existing PST. That formula applies across the country. That is the formula which has been applied in Atlantic Canada. It would result in adjustment assistance to some provinces and not others. It is a consistent formula.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the government is not planning to compensate Quebec, given how free it has been with taxpayers' money with respect to Atlantic Canada.
The truth of this Liberal GST fiasco is that consumers are going to end up footing the bill. New Brunswick is planning to create a new business tax to make up for the harmonization shortfall. Nova Scotia has already boosted its corporate taxes. Newfoundland said that it plans to make up the revenue somehow.
The government can saw it in half, can pull it out of a hat, can try to make it disappear, but the truth is that this harmonization plan is bad for consumers. When will the minister admit that it is not revenue neutral and it will cost billions in higher prices and higher taxes for Canadians?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the hon. member's supplementary question. As members of the committee, his colleagues were with us on the road when Canadians said this is what they wanted to see, harmonized taxes, not two sales taxes in this country.
He talks about Doug Henning the magician. A more appropriate analogy for him is King Canute trying to roll back the waves.
Two days ago, we questioned the Minister of Defence about the questionable circumstances under which the army arrested Corporal Michel Purnelle to prevent him from making information available to the Somalia inquiry. A mere five hours after question period, seven charges were laid against him for having had the courage to disobey an order from a superior who wanted to stop him from speaking.
How can the Acting Prime Minister justify the fact that, a mere five hours after the Minister of Defence stated that no member of the armed forces would be prevented from giving information, seven charges were laid against a member of the armed forces who had to disobey orders so he could speak to the commission's attorney?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has said on many occasions in this House that no member of the Canadian forces will be penalized for testifying before the commission. Indeed, any member with information must come forward and volunteer that information before the commission.
That being said, part of the duties of a person in the armed forces is to stay at their post. Until I see the details upon which this corporal left his post, I cannot answer the member's question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we hear in this House and what takes place outside is equally appalling. The chairman of the commission himself, Mr. Justice Létourneau, expressed great concern about the turn events were taking in this matter.
What message does the Acting Prime Minister think this is sending to our military when anyone who attempts to give evidence at the inquiry faces a court martial?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the operational effectiveness of the Canadian forces depends on a discipline based society. When members of the forces ignore basic rules about leaving their posts without authorization, there could be anarchy in the armed forces.
Until we have the full details I cannot answer the question.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence has just laid seven charges against Corporal Michel Purnelle. His crime? He wanted to testify before the Somalia commission. Yesterday the inquiry chairman said he was troubled and strongly disappointed by the decision to detain and charge Purnelle.
Why does the minister allow his department to intimidate potential witnesses?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the minister has stated in this House that no member of the Canadian forces would be penalized for appearing before the commission. Indeed, any member who has information that would assist this inquiry should appear before the commission.
(1130)
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on October 27, 1995 the minister told this House and Hansard states: ``Every member of the Canadian armed forces has an obligation to come forward to that commission. The government will not tolerate any intimidation toward any of those people''. These are fine words but Purnelle listened to the minister and is being punished for coming forward.
Why is the government talking out of both sides of its mouth by publicly encouraging soldiers to come forward by permitting-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to say again that the ethos of the service is based on a discipline based organization. People who join know and are trained not to leave their posts without permission. As for further details, I cannot answer that question.
Earlier this week, the auditor general said that, because of decisions made by Revenue Canada, the government will not tax capital gain transfers. This situation, which the government could correct in a matter of hours, will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions. However, the comments of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue indicate that the government will not budge on this issue.
Will the Minister of National Revenue use her authority to immediately put a stop to this tax loss which only benefits the very rich?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having yet another opportunity to remind the House that we are a government of action. Let us look at what really happened.
On Tuesday the auditor general brought to our attention that he had concerns about particular legislation with regard to the Income Tax Act. He wanted it clarified and we said that we wanted it clarified so on Tuesday we asked the finance committee to put it on its agenda to review it. He said he had some concerns about lacking documentation. That same day I directed my department to improve the standards for documentation. He noted that he was glad that from now on we will be tabling our rulings for all Canadians to see.
I do not know what more the hon. member wants. This government has acted directly and expeditiously.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the minister is talking, billions of dollars are being transferred out of the country every day.
The minister has the power to revoke the decisions made by Revenue Canada and to collect hundreds of millions, if not billions, in taxes owed to the federal government. Will she act responsibly or will she condone these decisions?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general himself pointed out how difficult and complex this tax legislation is.
We feel that the appropriate strategy is to have that tax legislation reviewed in an open forum at the finance committee where members of Parliament from all parties have an opportunity to state their case, review it and make recommendations. We look forward to those recommendations.
Why is the government proceeding with a brutal restructuring plan when it admits that it does not know if a single fish will be saved in the process? What is the real agenda?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know the point my colleague wants to make. All along members have been saying that the minister should listen to the industry, should listen to the stakeholders. That is exactly what the minister has done.
Last week he went out there and met with groups, with all the people who had a stake in the salmon fishery. He met with some people again this week. As late as yesterday he issued some fine tuning points to his plan which will reflect the preoccupation of the people in the industry. The minister is listening. The minister has made accommodations for those people.
The plan will work. The plan is supported by the industry. Some people have come out this week in support of that very same plan.
(1135 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): All two of them, Mr. Speaker.
More than fine tuning is required to rejig this plan. The government wants B.C. fishermen to take hard medicine yet neither the minister nor the premier of B.C. are interested in saving fish. The minister is cutting the number of fishermen in half while the premier of B.C. is giving half of the resource away, adding up to no fish saved and fishermen's lives decimated.
Fishermen want a plan that will hurt as few people-
The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please put his question directly.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, will the government back off this ill-conceived plan and come up with something that saves fish without sacrificing fishermen?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, this plan has received wide support from the industry and many groups out on the west coast.
The members of the Reform Party might not agree with that but the situation is that this plan will go ahead with the support of the industry.
All the complaints received by the official languages commissioner concerning the language used by the federal government on Internet came from francophones. This is not surprising, since it is hard to see how the government would respect the Official Languages Act there, when it cannot even manage to do so using traditional means of communication.
Will the federal government follow up on the commissioner's recommendation that it make a clear commitment in favour of promoting both official languages in its information highway strategy?
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, certainly.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I like the minister's answer, because, following his colleagues' example, he promised to do so in November 1995 and he has still not delivered. Obviously, this kind of response is proof to us that the promises of this government are never kept.
When will the government make public its information highway strategy?
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 had a little trouble hearing the member, but if I understood his question correctly, we are going to announce our information highway strategy soon.
We received a very important report from the advisory committee on the information highway a few months ago. We will soon be ready to reply. I would also like to point out, with respect to the member's question, that Canada will be hosting the Inet conference in 1996 here, in Canada, in Montreal. Canada was chosen, but we chose the city of Montreal for this meeting of Internet experts in order to try to come up with a plan promoting languages other than English on the Internet.
On behalf of my colleague, the MP for Provencher, who is meeting with officials in Manitoba on this very issue, would the acting Prime Minister please assure Manitobans affected by this flood that they are being treated fairly under the same rules as the rest of Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, as part of the way in which this country shares responsibility, the federal government over the last 25 years has provided well over $260 million to various communities affected by disaster. Of that portion, Manitoba has received 20 per cent in the last 10 years, well over $50 million.
The fact that the premier of Manitoba has been making comments to the contrary simply shows that he is not aware of how the agreement works or that he is not aware of the responsibilities of the province. I simply suggest that it would be very useful if the premier of Manitoba stopped trying to make cheap political points and got to work with us to help the people affected by this serious flooding problem in Manitoba.
Canada Post is a crown corporation funded by taxpayers with a monopoly over first class mail. I question why taxpayers should be funding advertisements when, because of the postal monopoly, no other service is available.
Can the minister of public works explain why Canada Post is advertising its mail service when there is no other choice available to Canadians?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could set the record straight and ensure that everyone is aware that there have been no appropriations of moneys from the federal government to Canada Post since 1988.
We looked into the fact that Canada Post was advertising the sale of its stamps. It must promote its products because there is so much competition from E-mail, the Internet and many other modes of delivering messages. They compete with Canada Post. Therefore, it must continue to promote the services it provides to every region of the country, to every Canadian. It is a very good service. It is one that is very much needed.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it would appear the minister is quite prepared to see Canada Post become Canada toast.
Why would Canada Post advertise a stamp when the only place people can get stamps is in the post office?
The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley asked this question two months ago. The minister said that she would look into it and respond. It would appear that her action is no action at all. Will the minister stop Canada Post advertising today?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential for the Canada Post message to get out so the taxpayer does not have to subsidize its operations.
We are concerned with the future of Canada Post. As such, we have a mandate review going on now. We look forward to receiving that report at the end of July. We are concerned, as every Canadian should be, to ensure the mail does get to everyone.
For six years now, Treasury Board has been developing a general classification standard for federal public servants, which was supposed to be universal and non sexist. However, according to the auditor general, the standard is sexist and would not pass the test of the human rights act.
How can the Acting Prime Minister explain that, after six years, public service officials have not been able to come up with a non sexist general classification standard?
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we agree with the
auditor general that this classification system is something to which we should pay attention. Since 1993 we have been working very hard in this direction.
The auditor general agrees that it is not a simple system to try to condense some 70 different categories into one. We are working hard on this. We have said that we would get government right and the auditor general has already reported four times to this House. By the next report I can assure the House that we will have made some substantive movement on this file.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general underlined the excessive administrative costs associated with the standard's implementation.
How can the government allow such a loss of control over spending in a period of major budget cuts?
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the government is using all the tools at its disposal to get government right.
(1145 )
In every plan that we have looked at we are trying to get the civil service to take over. We are trying to transfer these services. We will continue to work on that file. It is not an easy file. We have 16 different unions and we are working with each one to try to accommodate them.
I ask the minister's representative here today what constitutes a non-violent offence? Is drug trafficking non-violent? Is breaking and entering non-violent? What about white collar crime?
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.
The hon. member is aware that the Minister of Justice has been moving to ensure that our homes and our streets are safe. In that vein he is taking measures to ensure that violent offenders are put behind bars, where they belong, for an appropriate length of time through measures to stiffen up the Criminal Code and, through the solicitor general, measures to stiffen up the conditional release act.
We will continue to take measures such as this to ensure that violent offenders are behind bars to keep our streets safe.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has made a designation and he has given us no definition of what non-violent offences are. With due respect to the member who responded to my question, he did not answer it. We are not any better informed than when I stood to ask the question.
What guarantee can the government give that the release of these offenders will not create a threat to members of society?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member, the Minister of Justice and his provincial counterparts have been working on such initiatives for a considerable length of time.
Such initiatives are consistent with what has been stated by the minister in the past and are quite consistent with the beliefs of the member opposite. We ought to ensure that violent offenders are kept incarcerated for an appropriate length of time to keep our society safe and to deal with non-violent offenders in a community setting.
Sustainable development is a major commitment of the government and Canadians are proud of their forest industry.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House what the government is doing to provide national and international leadership to ensure sustainable development in the forest industry?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, involvement in the criteria and the indicators process demonstrates Canada's ongoing commitment to sustainable forest development.
Extensive consultations are ongoing between the provincial and territorial governments, the federal department and other forest stakeholders.
The Canadian initiative with the international criteria and the indicators process will level the playing field by moving us closer to a common definition of sustainable forest development.
[Translation]
Yesterday morning the minister, appearing before the transport committee, again refused to commit to funding part of the repair work to the Quebec bridge. His excuse was that the federal government has already done its share, transferring lands to the CN for one dollar, the estimated value of which is in the millions.
(1150)
Is the minister aware that the transfer of the lands concerned will probably not be completed before the year 2000? In the meantime, is the minister going to finally recognize that the federal government cannot shirk its responsibilities with regard to repairing and developing the Quebec bridge?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, ten trains a day cross the bridge, whereas it is used daily by 25,000 cars and trucks.
The deterioration of the bridge, including the part on which vehicles drive, is due mainly to car and truck traffic, and to using salt throughout the winter season to make it safer.
Motor traffic in the province of Quebec is the responsibility of the Quebec transport department; it is not a federal responsibility. I find it rather surprising that the hon. member and his party would want the federal government to interfere in Quebec's affairs.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is executing his marine fee structure plan before studying its impact. What good is a post-mortem if the industry is dead? Has he learned nothing from what he has done to the Canadian fishing industry?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the impression should not be left that the minister went into this program of fees without first having studied the matter.
A study was done by a company for the coast guard before the fee structure was considered. After we had met with the stakeholders from one coast to the other, we decided that we would go with the plan we put forward. This plan will certainly not have the effect on the industry that the member opposite seems to think it will have.
Could the government inform us what will be the agenda of this meeting? Is it going to transfer manpower training? Is it going to pursue more devolution? Is it going to talk about economic union? Is it going to live up to the commitments it made during the referendum campaign? Since it has called a meeting, could it at least inform us and the premiers what the agenda will be?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has had extensive consultations with all the provinces to determine what the agenda of the meeting should be, how we can come together on questions of the economic, social and political union to make this country work better.
We do things differently than the past government. We work with the provinces to get a common agenda that we can work on together.
In the continuing saga of the harassment case of Ann Raney, the female engineer on the Peace Tower project and of Ray Wolf and his project workers who followed in sympathy and solidarity, we now see that Mr. Karmash, the offending supervisor, is back on the site. Yesterday Colonial, his employer, refused to sign an arbitration process to resolve matters.
Since the government has failed in all of its efforts to apply ordinary commercial contract law to this situation, when will it apply the full force of the human rights clauses in the contract to resolve this ridiculous situation where Canadian human rights law is ignored by contractors right here on Parliament Hill?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that we clarify exactly what the cases are about.
(1155 )
More than one case is involved here. Let me advise the House that the discrimination case between Ann Raney, Mr. Wolf and
Colonial has been resolved. All of the parties have signed an agreement. That case has been set aside. There continues to be another dispute which we are working at facilitating. We hope it will be resolved in the near future.
We are extremely concerned, especially in relation to the discrimination which did occur. We want to ensure that in future any of our contracts are structured in such a way that action can be taken very quickly to prevent a reoccurrence.
Can the Minister for International Trade tell the House what the future holds for Canadian companies in new and emerging world markets with respect to trade?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as question period draws to a close, I am happy to bring some good news. Over the last three years since the government took office exports have increased by 40 per cent.
Last year the trade surplus was some $28 billion. Trade has gone up from 26 per cent to 37 per cent of GDP in just four years. The future also indicates that there will continue to be big increases in export and trade investment.
That means that the government is delivering on its promise of jobs and growth because for every billion dollars of new trade 11,000 jobs are created for Canadians.
A recent poll showed that a majority of Canadians would like to be able to buy private health care insurance and private medical services. Will the government do the right thing and allow Canadians to do this by amending the Canada Health Act forthwith?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has failed to indicate that the same poll suggests that Canadians are overwhelmingly in favour of the Canadian health care system as it currently exists.
There are enormous inconsistencies in the party position of the member on health care. One day its members insist that the one tier system is the best system and on another day they have a different position. Today must be that day.
However, he should be aware, as all Canadians are, that the government will maintain the integrity of the system and make sure that it continues to provide the services required by Canadians everywhere on the same basis and not on a per pay basis.
The minister has already clearly indicated to us that, despite projected financial cuts, the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne will continue to exist. However, it remains to be seen whether the minister will not make an empty shell out of it.
How can the minister explain that he wants to reduce funds allocated to the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, when we know the Department of Fisheries and Oceans allocates only 9 per cent of its scientific research budget to Quebec and the situation will deteriorate further if the minister goes through with his plans?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans went through a review of all the programs it was providing and had to make certain adjustments.
But I want to assure the hon. member the programs at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne will not be affected more than those elsewhere and the institute will continue to play a major role in fisheries in Canada.
Could the minister outline the main reasons why, in his opinion, Atlantic Canada did so well?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the provinces are making every effort to find ways, in co-operation with the Government of Canada, of resolving the unemployment problem that affects us all. Of course, some are more successful than others.
I would like to assure my hon. friend that, in Atlantic Canada and across the country, the indicators are nevertheless favourable. Unemployment reduction has slowed down slightly, but I hope that, with the private sector, the provinces and the Government of
Canada working together, we will continue to reduce unemployment in all parts of the country.