The Speaker: My dear colleague, we do not generally make reference to hon. members' presence or absence.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the federal government's plan to prevent Quebecers from having a democratic say in their future.
My question is, therefore, for the Prime Minister, or one of the other referendizers, although I see none of them around either. So I will ask somebody to answer for them because Quebecers are waiting for a government answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gauthier: I trust that they will heed what the Prime Minister wrote in his book entitled In the Lion's Den. In it, the Prime Minister of Canada wrote that if they lost, they would respect Quebecers' wish and accept separation. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada wrote.
My question then-
Ms. Fry: Get to the question.
An hon. member: Question.
Mrs. Picard: They do not like to hear that, do they?
Mr. Gauthier: No, they do not like to hear that, Mr. Speaker, the-
The Speaker: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to please get to his question.
Mr. Gauthier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Having stated he would respect Quebecers' wishes and accept separation, could the Prime Minister or somebody else on his behalf explain whether, having jumped into bed with Guy Bertrand to deny Quebecers' right to decide their own future, he is not now denying what he himself wrote not that long ago?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do recognize the right of the people of Quebec to express themselves democratically in a referendum. We deeply respect that right. But the Quebec attorney general has said something more. In the Bertrand case, the Quebec attorney general said that the Constitution and the courts had nothing to do with the process of Quebec's achieving independence.
(1420)
We believe in the rule of law in Canada. As the attorney general of Canada, it is my responsibility to take part in the Bertrand case, not in order to back Mr. Bertrand, but in order to respond to the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec against the rule of law in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government's action must be interpreted as a challenge to Quebecers' right to decide their future themselves. The government is trying to subordinate this right of Quebecers to a decision by the courts.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, with this action and by trying to join forces with Guy Bertrand, not only is he launching a direct attack on sovereignist Quebecers, that is obvious, he is attacking all of Quebec including his former partners on the no side in the latest referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those who know our position know this is not true. As I said, we recognize the right of the people of Quebec to express themselves in a referendum. It is another matter entirely, however, when the attorney general of Quebec says the Constitution may be nullified by popular vote. It is not true, and I cannot, as attorney general of Canada, stand on the sidelines in the light of the position of the attorney general of Quebec.
So, we decided to get involved in the matter, not to support Mr. Bertrand, but to support the rule of law. We have had the opportunity since last August to become involved in Mr. Bertrand's case and we decided not to. It is not our intention to support Mr. Bertrand; we are there only to support the rule of law and the Constitution of Canada for all Canadians, including Quebecers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is knocking himself into a cocked hat in an effort to prove he is not supporting Guy Bertrand, but everyone in Quebec knows, everyone in Canada knows, that the federal government is joining forces with Guy Bertrand to please the rest of Canada.
Since he is so good at explanations, perhaps he would explain why the Prime Minister told Quebecers, before the latest referendum, that a yes would mean an irreversible outcome, when he had planned at that point a legal challenge to the right of Quebecers to decide their future? Perhaps he could explain.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the facts. The facts are that we did not get involved in Mr. Bertrand's case to support Mr. Bertrand. We have had the opportunity to become involved since last August.
It was only once the attorney general of Quebec said, a few weeks ago, that the Constitution did not apply to Quebec's move to independence that we decided it was necessary to become involved on behalf of Canadians and the rule of law.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition can say what he said today, but it is not right. The facts are clear. We decided to take part in this matter only in response to the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec.
(1425)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the time of the last referendum campaign, the Prime Minister told Quebecers, so that they would vote no, that their decision was irreversible and that he would respect their decision. Now, six months later, he is launching his government into a court challenge to deny Quebecers the right to decide on their future democratically.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister admit that the strategy he has adopted is one of confrontation, the sole purpose of which is to provoke the people of Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognizes clearly that referendums are a
means for the public to express its opinion, and there is no doubt that democratic means such as referendums are open to Quebec, as they are open to Canada.
It is also clear that the Constitution of a country is not and cannot be amended through a referendum in just one part of a country, and that constitutional law and the internal law of a country are the laws that govern popular decisions and that allow constitutions to be changed. In this case, the Constitution and internal law indicate what means we may take to change the Constitution.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec never signed the 1982 Constitution and its amending formula.
Can the Prime Minister offer any justification for his constitutional about-face other than that he has now decided to implement Plan B, a hard line approach with Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our goal has always been to reconcile Quebecers of all stripes with the rest of Canada, and to pass legislation and implement policies that will allow us to improve the well being of Quebecers and Canadians alike.
As a Quebecer, I must say that it is clear-
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): We will show you the Verdun tape, we have it.
Mr. Massé: I see that the Bloc Quebecois is reduced to negative slurs. Unfortunately, I must point out that when they say we are getting into bed with Mr. Bertrand, they are insulting one of their own former colleagues who saw clearly that PQ doctrine did not correspond to the needs of Quebecers. This is what makes us federalists, and Mr. Bertrand very clearly realized that the Bloc Quebecois's goals and policies run counter to the interests of Quebecers.
I think it is important that the minister has recognized the importance of defending the rule of law, without which the democratic process has no meaning.
To clarify fully the government's position, is it the position of the Government of Canada that any change to the constitutional status of a province would have to be done legally and would require under the amending formula the consent of all provinces?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is our position that any change in the make-up of the country would have to be done legally. As to the precise mechanics or dynamics, that is a matter of discussion even among academic and constitutional experts. I do not think it is possible to be categorical in saying exactly what protocol is required.
However, it is terribly important to emphasize, as is implicit in the hon. member's question, that democracy and the exercise of democratic freedoms go hand in hand with the rule of law. It is possible to exercise democratic freedoms only when the rule of law is firmly in place.
(1430)
No one should think that mere adherence to the rule of law means change cannot take place. Change can happen effectively in a stable and orderly way only when the rule of law prevails, which is the approach we have taken to this issue.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was a question I first asked the government on October 17, 1994. The government declined at the time to answer it, saying it was strictly hypothetical. It is good we are now answering it but I wish the government had more precise answers to the specifics on this issue.
My supplementary question is also from that date. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has written that the federal government today retains its full constitutional options to allow or not to allow a referendum vote, to control the content wording of any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any vote and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally superseding any Quebec vote.
Do these statements reflect the position or the constitutional thinking of the Government of Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member's question, it is the right of any provincial government to test the popular will of the population by putting a question in a consultation process through a referendum.
I think what is brought into sharp focus by the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec in the Bertrand litigation is the effect of such a consultative vote. It was implicitly said by the Quebec attorney general in the Bertrand litigation that should such a referendum, if it results in a positive vote, can supplant or replace the Constitution and the rule of law so that they have no application to the consequences.
To that we take direct and substantial opposition. We have involved ourselves in the litigation for the purpose of responding to that position as expressed by the attorney general of Quebec.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Once again, Mr. Speaker, we support the intervention in this case, but I think it is fair to point out that we expect it would be done and will be done in a broader policy framework on all of these questions.
[Translation]
On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the fear in Quebec is that the federal government would use the rule of law to deny the political and democratic will.
Will the minister confirm unequivocally that the political will of Quebecers, as expressed legally and democratically, will be respected and that the federal government will negotiate in good faith?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government respects any wishes clearly expressed by the people.
It is also obvious that two referendums were held on the issue of Quebec's separation. Each time, the people of Quebec clearly indicated they did not want to separate.
If the idea is to get a definitive answer, I cannot help but wonder why the no vote does not constitute a definitive answer. Why does the Bloc Quebecois not accept the will very clearly expressed by Quebecers? They should stop fostering political uncertainty in Quebec, promoting unemployment across the province and causing problems to all Quebecers on something on which they have expressed their will twice already, both times voting no.
(1435)
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who said that the people of Quebec-those are the words he used-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: You can bet the Prime Minister will have another version tomorrow.
He said: ``You have to right to express yourselves, you have the right to say what you want to be, you have the right to say that Quebec must become a sovereign country, but you must first ask for the permission of the rest of Canada''. Is this what he is saying? I remind him that when Newfoundland joined the Confederation, it never asked Quebecers whether they agreed or not with that decision.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a people of Quebec like there is an Abenaki people, a Cree people and an Inuit people. I hope Quebecers will not deny the existence of the Abenaki or Inuit people.
The will of the public must clearly be subject to the laws of a national assembly and to a constitution. When there is a constitution in a country, the first democratic duty of citizens it to comply with the law that dictates the major policies in their country. This is what I am asking the Bloc Quebecois to do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the first province to recognize the aboriginal nations was Quebec, on March 20, 1885, well before Ottawa.
The minister can try all he likes to justify himself, but the government's argument does not wash. This minister is part of a government that has lost the trust not just of Canadians, but also of Quebecers, because of its performance with the GST, its bizarre attitude with the army and its minister, its broken promises on discrimination, and the hopeless state of constitutional affairs.
Let the minister admit that the sole purpose of this strategy is to revamp the government's image in English Canada, because it needs it and, as usual, to do so under the leadership of the Prime Minister. This is a man who is accustomed to renewing his image at Quebec's expense, as he has done throughout his political career.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that insults are their best argument today. In fact, it is their best argument, because if they are saying that they have recognized the peoples living in Quebec, such as the native peoples, then why do the native peoples not have the right, through a referendum as they are saying, to become sovereign themselves?
We can see only too well that their arguments make no sense and that it is therefore necessary to have a law setting out citizens' rights and the manner in which they may be expressed.
In response, Alberta's minister of agriculture has presented the idea of buying grain from farmers for $1 per load in Alberta and selling it to farmers for $1 per load in the United States. This proposal is meant to get around the roadblock thrown in the way by the Canadian Wheat Board. This would in effect allow farmers the choice they voted for in the Alberta plebiscite.
Will the minister of agriculture move quickly and allow Alberta farmers the choice they demanded in the plebiscite?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
The export of Canadian grain still remains a federal legislative responsibility. It is not proper for a province to take on unilaterally a decision which would affect grain farmers right across the prairies, which would affect their livelihood.
Over the last several weeks the panel we have set up looking at the grain question has had opportunity listen to the concerns of every province, including Alberta, and to the problems of all the producers. It is coming out with a report in June.
We will look at the report. We are certainly concerned about the whole issue of grain across the country.
(1440 )
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder if anybody on that side of the House has a clue as to what is going on in western Canada. Study, study, study and still no answer.
Alberta farmers have already spoken on this issue. The minister's refusal to act is costing farmers about $2 a bushel at a time when they desperately need money to plant their crops. Why will this minister not act for a change? Farmers need the money now.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the minister has acted. He put together a panel to study the grain issues in this country and he is making certain that every voice is heard. He is making certain that this grain panel has the opportunity to report back to the government before action is taken.
It is proper when a panel or a group is put in place to give it time for its consultations and to listen to its recommendations.
On October 24 in the Verdun auditorium, the Prime Minister stated that he agreed with the Quebec people's desire for change. He went on to say, and I quote: ``I supported that position in the past, I support it today, and I will support it in the future, whatever the circumstance''.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile his smooth talk on the eve of the referendum with his current attempt to deprive the Quebec people of their fundamental right to decide their own future?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, it is not a matter of depriving the Quebec people of their fundamental right to decide their own future.
What is essential in this desire for change is that governments, whether it is the Government of Canada or the provincial governments, put in place policies that are more in line with the needs and expectations of their people.
If you look at our government's throne speech, you will see that we indicated our intention to effect the changes needed either in the economic union or in the social union to better meet the needs of Canadians. That is what a good government does and that is what we did in the past and will continue to do in the future.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the past is any indication of the future, what awaits Quebecers in the future is an unemployment rate even higher than today.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason for his about-face is his fear of losing the next referendum? Now that they know they almost lost it, they are really afraid of losing the next one.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, what is at issue in this case is which government policies will help Canadians, including Quebecers, better deal with the problems of tomorrow. That is what people are afraid of. Yes, the matter of the referendum does increase uncertainty in Quebec, reduce investment and aggravate unemployment, and that is what people are afraid of.
As those who conduct door-to-door polls in the Montreal ridings realize, people know that the option advocated by the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois reduces the number of jobs, reduces investment in Quebec, reduces their income, and that is what they are afraid of. What they want is good government and not the uncertainty of a referendum.
[English]
He knows if land claims go the way of the Nisga'a deal, then 50 per cent of the fish catch will go to native only fisheries. Will the minister admit that the real reason for his buy back plan, which will destroy the lives of thousands of fishermen, is not to reduce the number of fish caught, but to transfer the rights to catch fish from one group of fishermen to another?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I notice that today the hon. member is saying 50 per cent. Last week it was 25 per cent. I am not sure what the number will be tomorrow.
I remind the hon. member and the House that the purpose of the plan to revitalize the Pacific salmon is essentially to give fishermen a choice. The choice is to exit the fishery, to stay in the fishery and continue to fish in one area or to expand investment in the fishery by buying licences from those who exit the fishery and essentially give the salmon a better chance.
(1445)
It is a plan that was developed in consultation with fishermen. It is a plan that has a lot of support in British Columbia and it is a plan that will work.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the minister who cannot get his numbers right. His rhetoric leads me to believe that he is in cahoots with B.C. Premier Clark on this issue.
The premier is prepared to give away one-half of the catch. The minister is prepared to reduce the fleet by one-half. The ratio of boats to fish will not change.
Will the minister come clean and admit that the real agenda of the government is to transfer the right to catch fish from one group to another?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member is under the impression that Mr. Clark is helping me with this plan.
I am delighted to move forward. If Mr. Clark is happy to help me with support in one area, fish habitat, because protecting fish habitat against damage caused by logging, mining, highway construction and urban development are certainly areas where I could do with some help.
I thank the hon. member for raising the subject. I look forward to any help that Premier Clark can give me on this plan.
[Translation]
The Speaker: The question please, dear colleague.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, here is my question. Is the Prime Minister aware that, by jumping into bed with Guy Bertrand, he is directly in opposition to the person who was the head of the Quebec no side during the referendum?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is in Quebec, I would like to say first of all that our participation in the case before the courts in Quebec City this week is not to support Mr. Bertrand, but to support the rule of law.
I think it is very important to emphasize that the rule of law is what gives stability to the country, Quebec included, for the people of Quebec. Democracy and the rule of law are directly linked. I think this is very important, and that is why we are involved in this case before the courts.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, where is the government headed with its strategy, a strategy which denies democracy, while at the same time going up against its former Quebec allies on the no side?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they talk of democracy. A referendum can be held in order to determine the opinion of the population. That is democracy.
But it is not democratic to say, once such a consultative referendum has been held, that the Constitution as a whole, the rule of law in this country, have been removed or nullified. That is not democracy. It is antidemocratic to say such a thing, and we are before the courts in Quebec City this week simply in order to support the principle that, above all, in Canada we have the rule of law, which applies for the good of all Canadians.
There is a strong and growing sentiment that gasoline subsidies are unfairly inflating prices to the detriment of the consumer.
Will the Minister of Industry explain what steps the government is taking to address this longstanding grievance?
(1450 )
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, earlier today the member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre and five other citizens of Canada filed with the director of investigations and research a request, pursuant to section 9 of the Competition Act, for an inquiry into gas pricing in Canada.
Today the director has initiated a formal inquiry, pursuant to section 10 of the act in response to the section 9 request.
The member for Ottawa Centre and other members who have raised this issue deserve credit for taking some initiative in this and for filing the appropriate request for an inquiry. The director will investigate. If he finds evidence he will act accordingly.
I point out to the House that as recently as this January he was successful in obtaining a conviction under the Competition Act and a fine of $50,000 was levied against Mr. Gas here in Ottawa for the offence of price fixing.
I am not sure if the tax will be so much an oar, so much a seat or so much a mile. Regardless, my question is about the $14 million. Is this supposed to address a safety issue? Is it merely a pain in the oar, or is this just another tax grab?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. In Ontario alone, there were four deaths involved in recreational boating this past weekend.
The idea of recreational boating fees is based on marine safety. The industry has suggested that government may want to help by making sure that those who go on the water, whether in a small boat or a large boat, are first trained in safety and have the qualifications and the training courses that are necessary to ensure that the loss of life, be it on salt water or freshwater, is kept to a minimum. We hope to be able to contribute in that area.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, safety is a big issue but obviously taxes are also a big issue.
In the March throne speech, the government was very clear that there would be no new taxes. Since then we have had tax increases on fishermen, tax increases on cassette decks, tax increases on retirement and now a new tax on rowboats.
The throne speech said one thing, the government is doing another. Is this broken promise another act of God or are we merely heading into uncharted waters looking for more tax revenue?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that he is not in favour of more marine safety. Is he suggesting that the taxpayer should pay it?
We are using a policy which has been used before by this government, and which I am sure they have used in their budget suggestions: services that are provided to the public should not be paid for by the taxpayer but by those who use the service. That is the principle at issue here.
Last week, barely five hours after the minister was questioned about the dubious arrest of Corporal Purnelle, seven charges were laid against the latter, because he allegedly defied the orders of a superior who wanted to prevent him from giving evidence before the Somalia commission.
How does the minister justify the fact that, five hours after he stated in this House that no member of the army was or would be prevented from giving information to the commission of inquiry, seven charges were laid against this corporal, who had the courage to defy the order of his superiors and give evidence before the commission?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave the hon. member for Charlesbourg last Wednesday and the answers of my parliamentary secretary on Friday are exactly the case.
There is no incompatibility with coming forward, giving evidence to the commission and also obeying the rules and regulations of the Canadian Armed Forces. There is no incompatibility. I am surprised the hon. member is continuing to raise this question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the minister and the parliamentary secretary are hiding behind the supposed military discipline, but this does not satisfy the people. I think the minister has no choice but to withdraw the charges against Corporal Purnelle.
Otherwise, the minister will be telling other military personnel that they will be court-martialled if they co-operate with the commission to shed light on events in Somalia.
Is this the message the minister wishes to send?
(1455 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two messages to members of the Canadian Armed Forces. First, all of them, if they have evidence germane to the inquiry, are expected to come forward. The second is that as a member of the armed forces they are obligated to follow the rules and procedures of the National Defence Act. That is a condition of their service. There is no incompatibility between the two.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question of the hon. member for Charlesbourg.
The Minister of National Defence instructed soldiers to bring forward any relevant evidence to the Somalia inquiry, promising there would be no reprisals. Corporal Michel Purnelle finds that hard to believe. He tried to appear before the commission but was arrested even after the commission had told military authorities it wanted to see him.
Why is the minister, contrary to his assurances, permitting his department to intimidate witnesses?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was expecting to get this kind of question from the hon. member for Charlesbourg, but to get it from the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, a former colonel in the armed forces, who knows full well everything that should be known about the military justice system, is to me quite disheartening.
The fact is there is a military justice system. People are obliged to follow the rules. They are also obliged to come forward to give evidence to the inquiry. There is no incompatibility here.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at this moment the military justice system is under a bit of a cloud and I think the minister should simply reassure us.
In a letter to the commission, Corporal Purnelle said that he felt vulnerable to abuse of power and was even fearful of physical violence because he had come forward. The minister must send a clear signal to his department about openness.
To prove that he will tolerate no interference with this public inquiry, will he ensure that Corporal Purnelle's future career is not adversely affected by having come forward? What will he do to ensure that military authorities do not again hinder or intimidate potential witnesses?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House before that no one would suffer any reprisals for coming forward to the commission. That message has been sent loud and clear.
The hon. member asked for a clear message. What could be clearer than the Minister of National Defence publicly stating in the House of Commons that all members of the armed forces have an obligation to come forward and that there will be no reprisals?
However, the minister cannot and will not interfere in the judicial process which is taking place.
Could the minister indicate if the demonstration project will be extended to a Canadian site?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We have sent two observers to the ``Operation Respond'' sites in the United States and they will continue to be there monitoring what is taking place. If they come across procedures or come up with suggestions that would improve our system, we would be very pleased to look into those. That is why they are there.
I would like to add that right now we do have a very good emergency response information centre, the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre, or CANUTEC, which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Concerning his last question with respect to sites in Canada, if these are proceeded with, we will look into incorporating them into the types of studies we are doing at the present time.
He will know that while in opposition he and his Liberal colleagues opposed Conservative cuts to UI that were not as deep as those they are pushing through the House today. Indeed, the minister's predecessor said the Tory cuts made Margaret Thatcher look like Mother Theresa by comparison.
As the red book committed the Liberals to restore public trust and confidence in government, would the minister tell the House how public trust and confidence in government can possibly be restored with such an about-face on UI?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is important to recognize in all of this, and I am sure the hon. member is aware of it, is that we have gone through two years of discussions and consultations across the country on the reforms to the employment insurance program. I do not think very many pieces of legislation in the history of this place have been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny.
I do want to say to my hon. colleague that one thing which has been very positive from the exercise has been the tremendous contribution made by members of Parliament who sit on committees and who attend the meetings of those committees.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Serge Poignant, member of the Committee on cultural, family and social affairs of the National Assembly of France and MNA for Loire-Atlantique.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.