While the minister is busy complaining that there are not enough rich families and refuses to suspend the decision of Revenue Canada on taxing capital gains, the precedent set by this decision could mean the loss of several hundreds of millions of dollars in Canadian tax revenues, thus putting more pressure on taxpayers.
Is the minister of revenue in her job only to serve the very rich families in Canada, or is it her responsibility to defend the interests of all Quebecers and all Canadians, particularly the most disadvantaged?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my mandate is to ensure the tax system is fair and equitable to all. The interesting result of the conversations in the House and in the popular press is there needs to be more information on how tax rulings work in our system, on how taxable Canadian property is interpreted and used. The best venue for that is a public domain like the finance committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday her colleague from Brome-Missiquoi said on television that people expected the government to act.
So when will the minister suspend the decision of Revenue Canada until we find a permanent solution to this thorny problem?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are taking direct action. Our view, the best view, is to ensure Canadians have an opportunity to hear all aspects of this case, decisions on which were made in 1991 and 1985. We are taking direct and urgent action. We encourage the committees to carry on with their work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister must understand that she ought to suspend the decision by Revenue Canada. Otherwise, by refusing to act quickly in this matter she becomes an accomplice in tax evasion worth several hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which all come out of the pockets of Canadians, because the rich will have taken their money elsewhere.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not refusing to do anything. It is very important for the community to understand how tax rulings play a significant role in our tax system and the underpinning they provide to Canadian taxpayers. Our tax system is very complex. Very often individuals need an advance ruling from Revenue Canada. That forms the basis of a fair and equitable process.
These things will be discussed fully and openly in committee. I encourage the hon. member to ensure her members are part of that review.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, complexity is not a reason not to act. If she thinks it is, let her step aside for someone more competent, who can handle it.
Yesterday, the minister of revenue stated in this House, in connection with tax loopholes, that she was acting ``in a very public way'', with complete transparency. She also repeated for the gullible that she was serving and defending the public interest.
(1120)
To what public interest was she referring, that of very rich Canadian families, or that of the many Quebecers and Canadians who are being crushed by a tax burden which is constantly increasing because of her government's inaction?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, my job is to ensure fairness and equity for all Canadians.
As the hon. member participates in these open reviews, and I understand he is a member of the finance committee, he will come to understand that this aspect of the law does have implications not only for rich Canadians but also for Canadians of more modest means.
I look forward to his response and the report. I encourage him to continue his participation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general, who is responsible for monitoring government actions, has said that a Revenue Canada decision will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in the future.
Would acting in the public interest not mean suspending Revenue Canada's advance decision, revealing the other cases that may have come up since the decision, and putting in place a permanent solution to this problem?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member participates in the process where there is full co-operation and officials from my department and finance providing advice, outside witnesses perhaps coming to explain the position as well as chartered accountants who are Canadians and understand the system and perhaps individual Canadians, we will have clarity on this topic.
I continue to believe that having the discussion in an open forum where members of Parliament can listen to witnesses and experts and then provide advice to the government makes the most sense in this case.
This 11-year old has a string of robberies under his belt but all the police could do was hand him over to his mother. What is more, this child criminal was well aware that he could not be charged and taunted police with the fact when he was picked up.
Will the government now listen to police officers and victims groups as well as members of my caucus and lower the minimum age under the Young Offenders Act to include 10 and 11-year olds?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the federal government has already enacted changes to the Young Offenders Act to stiffen up the penalties for the most serious crimes.
As the hon. member is also aware, the Minister of Justice has asked the justice committee to go across the country and gather input specifically looking at further changes to the Young Offenders Act. Very specifically, the minister has asked that the committee look at the age at which a young person could be made subject to the act. The committee will be reporting and we will be responding to that report.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the latest amendment to the Young Offenders Act, members of our caucus pressed the government to look into this very question and include that within Bill C-37 as an amendment so that society could be protected from the criminal acts committed by 10 and 11-year olds across the country.
After apprehending the 11-year old repeat offender responsible for this vicious rape, Toronto police detective Duncan Miller said:
``He is using the Young Offenders Act to protect himself from the law. He is fully aware of his rights''. The 11-year old offender warned police that he could not be charged.
My question is for the justice minister's representative. Why will he not protect our children from these horrible acts? Why will he not unhandcuff our police forces and provide them with the legal means to protect our children from these horrible criminal acts? When will he stop providing the immunity to these violent young offenders?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the justice committee will be making recommendations on this very specific point.
No matter at what age the line is drawn, cases will always appear that would suggest the line should be drawn somewhere else. As all the evidence and studies indicate, there needs to be more action taken by the provinces, communities and individuals across the country to assist young people before they get into trouble with the criminal justice system. An ounce of prevention is certainly worth a pound of cure.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely unacceptable that people can knowingly commit crimes of violence and not be held accountable by our justice system.
Federal justice officials maintain that treatment and community programs, not prison, is the best way to reform child criminals.
Let us take a look at this 11-year old rapist. He has a thick police file and is believed to be responsible for a string of auto thefts and robberies. One week before he raped the young girl he was caught trying to hold up a gas station with a toy gun. The only thing police could do was return him to his mother or place him with the Children's Aid Society.
I ask the government, where was the treatment or community programs the Liberal government likes to talk about? Why will it not simply change the system to hold children, and their parents if negligent, responsible for the crimes they commit?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, the justice committee is looking at the issue. The Minister of Justice has asked the committee to look at this very specific issue.
After listening to Canadians and stakeholders within the justice system from coast to coast, the committee will bring forward a report. When the government acts on the report we hope the hon. member will support our actions.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister said on several occasions that the next Quebec referendum, and the declaration of sovereignty, would have to comply with the Constitution. However, the Constitution is silent on the issue.
Does the Prime Minister intend to make a constitutional amendment to this effect?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is very clear on these issues. Our plan is to promote reconciliation. We are trying to avoid another referendum.
Any discussion on what will happen if another referendum is held is purely academic. The government said in its speech from the throne that, as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have a peculiar notion of clarity.
It is getting increasingly bogged down in its clarity. Since the Prime Minister refuses to recognize a 50 per cent plus one vote in favour of sovereignty, how can the minister claim that the federalist status quo side won the 1995 referendum, given that it only got 50.4 per cent of the votes?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the acceptance of a 50 per cent plus one vote. A referendum is a consultation process and two have already been held in Quebec in the last 15 years. We accepted the results. The idea is definitely not to set a specific number. It is clear that the rights of 30 million citizens are at stake and that Canada will never be broken up by a 50 per cent plus one result.
It seems that the sweetheart deals between Liberal governments did not end with the GST pay-off. Term 29 of Newfoundland's terms of union granted an annual payment of $8 million from the federal government. Now we hear that the Liberal government has changed the rules and will give a lump sum payment of $160 million, a windfall, to Mr. Brian Tobin.
(1130)
Why is the federal government asking Newfoundlanders to pay a penalty tomorrow for saving Brian Tobin's career today?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the annual payment to Newfoundland is some $8 million a year. It is to be made in perpetuity as part of the original Constitution.
Newfoundland is facing some exceptional and difficult fiscal and economic challenges with the fishery and with the phase down of Hibernia. It has been requested that the payment be moved forward and we have agreed. It covers an advance of some $50 million this year and further payments later on. It is a fair and reasonable substitute for the $8 million statutory requirement.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, paying the money up front today means it will cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars more over 20 years than it would if Newfoundland were receiving $8 million a year. At the same time, today's sweetheart deal will deprive future Newfoundland governments of that $8 million in yearly income. In other words, Brian Tobin is clinging to his credibility by his money grabbing fingernails on this issue.
Why is the Government of Canada continuing to steal from Newfoundlanders and other Canadians today just to pull Brian Tobin's fat out of the fire?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member obviously does not understand interest. To think that there would be a payment of $160 million up front instead of $8 million a year for 20 years is entirely wrong. It will be discounted by an appropriate interest rate. That is exactly what I meant when I said it was a fair and reasonable substitute, with the discounted factor. That is the amount we will paying.
In order to make known their dissatisfaction with the crab fishery plan, deckhands and processing plant workers are still refusing to go back to work. They are thus protesting the displacement of part time jobs resulting from the minister's plan.
Today, the minister is allocating crab quotas to ground fishermen. Does the minister realize that, unless he first resolves the present conflict with workers, there is a risk that this already very tense situation will blow up?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a certain sympathy for the-
[Translation]
Mr. Gagnon: Go fish for groundfish.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to be quiet. It would do him good to hear this. He, too, has one of these plants in his riding.
Mr. Robichaud: The member for Gaspé could be asked if he-
[English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, many times we are sitting at a desk where the microphone is open. I would caution all of you to watch your words.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member, notwithstanding the acting lessons, we really need to look at what is happening with respect to the crab resource.
The plan was devised in such a way as to break down the 16,100 tonnes between the midshore large crabbers and those many small inshore fishermen who need a part of the resource. The distribution was fair. It was done by consultation. There was 77.5 per cent given to the large midshore crabbers and 22.5 per cent was given to the inshore smaller fishermen. This was a justifiable, fair and equitable distribution.
The idea was that everybody would go fishing at the appropriate time. The time has now arrived. I would suggest that all those who are interested in the industry release the plant workers and those who are innocent in this play. Then everybody can get on with the fishing and the resource can be enjoyed by all those who are involved in the industry. In particular, the plant workers and all communities can benefit from the resource of the ocean.
(1135)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to be very certain that the minister understands. This is not a quarrel between traditional crabbers and ground fishermen at the present time, this is a problem with plant workers.
What does the minister intend to do in response to the decision by the president of the Acadian ground fishermen's association, which is showing its solidarity by giving up 1,520 tonnes of its crab quota under the plan and handing them over to traditional
crabbers, thus helping to save the jobs of deckhands and processing plant workers?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me what I intend to do. I intend to promote the partnership among the fishermen, all crab fishermen, among the plant workers, among the communities, among all those who are interested in having a partnership with those poor innocent crabs. There are 16,100 tonnes of crabs sitting on the ocean floor just waiting to be caught and distributed for the benefit of all the communities.
Will the Minister of National Revenue commit today to a public inquiry of this billion dollar loophole or is she content to cut other secret deals with well connected friends of the Liberal Party?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, in our questions we should not impute motive of any kind. I was wondering if the hon. member for St. Albert would simply withdraw that last sentence.
Mr. Williams: I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker, but I would like-
The Speaker: The question as is without that sentence will stand, if the hon. minister chooses to answer it.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will just say that the laws as they are written apply to all Canadians. I cannot imagine any more public venue than two committees of the House of Commons to look at these particularly important issues.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming quite clear that there was a secret tax ruling which was in favour of some people in a public tax opinion and denied the same opportunity to everybody else. We need to get that cleared. We want to know why it happened. We want to know why this government is standing behind that ruling as it stands today. Why will it not close the loophole and act today to prevent this type of opportunity from happening at the expense of all Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us set the record straight for the umpteenth time.
The decision was a decision of a former government. It was drawn to our attention by the auditor general. We acted immediately, the day of the report, to draw attention to the House and ask that the matter be put before two public committees, the public accounts committee and the finance committee, for a full consideration and review.
I did not get here by defending a former government. I do not expect to do that in the future, but I sure as heck expect to get things right for the Canadian public. We have acted with urgency and have put it in the public domain. The member himself is a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and we look forward to his recommendations.
While the federal government continues to drag its feet in the matter of Tran Trieu Quan, he continues to languish in a Vietnamese prison. However, more than a month has passed since the minister received documents from Paul Morgan proving that the cotton was indeed delivered to Vietnam. The minister was to verify the authenticity of these documents.
As more than a month has passed since the government received the documents, which could hasten Tran Trieu Quan's release, could the minister tell us what stage this longstanding matter has reached?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we created the position of special adviser and he has Mr. Tran's file. I hope he will act quickly in this matter. Mr. Tran's case is now the responsibility of the special adviser.
(1140)
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that the appointment of his special adviser has produced little to date.
Is the minister telling us that he does not intend to take the initiative in this matter preferring to await the outcome of the appeal procedure, among other things, and that, in other words, regardless of the information he has in hand, he will continue to do nothing while Mr. Tran continues to languish in prison?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, within our jurisdiction everything possible has been done.
Representations have been made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, myself and my predecessor directly to the Government of Vietnam.
We have provided special provision for consular services. We have ensured that Mr. Quan has full access from relatives, friends and family. We transmitted all the information we have to the people in the government of Vietnam. It is their government, not ours, and we have to be able to work with them.
That is why I had established the post of special adviser, consular matters who takes on these difficult cases and negotiates directly with other governments. We do not have the power to tell another government what to do. We will do everything possible to ensure that Mr. Quan's rights are fully recognized and fully protected, but we have to do it within the range of powers and jurisdiction that we have.
I can assures you that we will continue to work actively on this case.
With the new mineral exploration in northern Labrador there are now as many as 230 air vehicles using the air strip each day. This enormous increase in traffic has resulted in three crashes and many aborted flights. I have had a close call at Nain when the plane I was on nearly went down.
Can the minister reassure the people of Nain and Labrador generally that measures will be taken without delay to ensure the safety of the travelling public?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the first question by our new colleague, the hon. member for Labrador. I thank him for the energy he has displayed and the initiative he has taken with this issue, organizing as he did in his first weeks in this House meetings with the premier of Newfoundland, a senior minister from Newfoundland, myself, the Minister of National Defence, the entire municipal council of Goose Bay and others.
Aviation staff from my department have been monitoring the increased aviation traffic around the Nain airport which is a serious matter of concern. An aviation safety review team, including officials from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and from my department visited Nain at the end of April.
The aviation safety review team is finalizing its report and we are confident that working with the province of Newfoundland and with the hon. member, we will be able to resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction.
Citizens of Hamilton, Ontario are concerned that their city could soon become a main dumping ground for hazardous waste. The proposed Taro dump could be home to more than 10 million tonnes of industrial waste, not to mention being situated right next to the Niagara escarpment, a UN declared biosphere.
Can the minister tell us whether a federal environmental assessment panel review will be conducted, or does he plan to follow the steps of Sheila Copps and sacrifice the good of the environment for political reasons?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the question has more to do with the political reasons of a faltering Reform Party candidate in Hamilton than it does with the environmental issues that this member pretends to be genuine.
I do not need to defend the record of the former and future member of Parliament from Hamilton East. She has promoted and defended not only the best interests of Hamilton, but the best interests of the environment.
(1145 )
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Sheila Copps was environment minister and did nothing on this issue, even when it affected her own riding.
The leachate from the Taro dump will pollute the federal water of Lake Ontario. The environment is in danger in the Hamilton area all because Sheila Copps repeatedly ignored the concerns of her community.
Will the minister use his power and commit to launching a full environmental assessment of the Taro dump so all sides will be allowed real influence rather than just the political insiders of a very questionable deal?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know that the Reform Party candidate fired his campaign manager. Maybe he has a new candidate right here because the member is only interested in political partisan gain.
That is the last thing that Canadian citizens want the environment to be. They do not want it to be a volleyball. They do not want it to be traded between federal and provincial governments. They want it to be respected. They want all levels of government to manage the environment in the best interests of people today and for those who inherit Canada and the world tomorrow.
The Speaker: I mentioned earlier about imputing motives. That would go not only for the questions but also for the answers.
Heritage Canada has had three ministers in just under two and a half years and the new minister is a part time acting minister. Meanwhile, there are priority issues that require attention, issues like copyright legislation and the creation of a fund for the development of cultural products.
Does the latest heritage minister intend to act quickly on these issues and could she tell us what her priorities are and what time frames we are looking at?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my second question will elicit the same response.
The CBC, the NFB and Telefilm Canada are putting high hopes in the upcoming announcement of the cultural product development fund, which should be made sometime in the middle of May. Will the minister act on this commitment or leave these organizations high and dry?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at present, work on all issues concerning Heritage Canada is continuing very actively, at all levels, both within the department and in co-operation with our various client groups and community partners. The same will hold true for the copyright legislation.
My colleague, the Minister of Industry, and myself intend to keep things moving along in this area. There is very clearly a very strong will to proceed as quickly as possible. As for the cultural product development fund, work is under way so that a decision can finally be made in the near future.
After serving a two-year sentence, Lam was held in custody by immigration. It was trying to deport him back to Vietnam but Vietnam refused to take him. After declaring that it took too long to deport Lam, an immigration adjudicator released him. Soon after being released, Lam disappeared and is now the subject of a Canada-wide warrant.
How can the minister ensure Canadians that her department puts public safety first when people like Lam are released?
(1150)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that this individual was released as a result of an adjudicator's decision. As you know, this decision was made by a quasi-judicial organization, which is totally independent from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I can assure the members of this House that the department is doing all it can to deport this individual as soon as possible and in accordance with Canadian law.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the department does not know where this individual is right now.
On December 1, 1995 I asked the previous minister of immigration about the recently signed agreement with Vietnam that would allow for the return of criminal refugees and immigrants from that country. At that time, the former minister boasted that the agreement would permit the removal of: ``individuals who should not have been here in the first place. And that is being done''.
If the agreement is as great as the previous minister claimed it to be, why is Lam the subject of a Canada-wide warrant and not back in Vietnam?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government's policy is to deport people who have committed serious offences here in Canada.
We have no intention of giving special treatment to a serious offender. In this case, everything is being done to deport the individual in question.
A number of farmers in Oxford have received funding under the tobacco diversification program to help develop new crops and other opportunities in the tobacco producing regions of Ontario and Quebec. For example, Joe Strobel in my riding is experimenting with industrial hemp.
Could the minister update the House on the performance of the tobacco diversification program?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the current tobacco diversification program in Ontario is a joint federal-provincial initiative. It totals about $5.7 million and has been in place since 1994.
As of March of this year, 88 projects submissions had been received; 44 had been approved for total of $2.5 million. The majority of these projects have been associated with commodity pioneering and value added activities. They have created in excess of 200 jobs and leveraged $15 million in new investment.
The government is obviously committed to assisting tobacco growing regions in diversifying through initiatives like the tobacco diversification program.
This conference is the largest in the world. It brings together the greatest scientists from every country, community groups and people with AIDS. Unlike his predecessor, Brian Mulroney, who opened the Montreal Conference in 1992, the Prime Minister has casually declined the organizers' invitation.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister attended the Paris AIDS Summit last October, why did he decline the invitation to participate in the official opening of the International AIDS Conference in Vancouver, something that is unacceptable?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric of the member, the Prime Minister's commitment to the issue of HIV-AIDS, stands without reproach. He knows quite well that the Minister of Health will be in attendance. He knows also that the Standing Committee on Health has commissioned a subcommittee, of which he is a member, to send two members and he is one of the two.
He knows also that the Prime Minister's commitment will be translated into over $2 million in contributions from five separate ministries of the government.
That is an indication that the Prime Minister is not only living up to the signatory obligations signed in Paris in December 1994, but that he is going well beyond it. He knows also that there is one other country which comes close, and that is France.
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, since 1987, all heads of state have opened the conference, and it is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to break with this tradition.
My supplementary question is for the parliamentary secretary or the Acting Prime Minister. Are we to understand from his refusal to open the Vancouver conference, the largest in the world, that the Prime Minister is no longer interested in the fate of people living with AIDS? Shame on him.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the public will be forgiven for thinking these kinds of theatrics are shameful. When one takes a look at the record of the country's and the government's commitment to solving the problems of HIV-AIDS, the member will retract his rhetoric.
He will know, as the House knows, that Canada commits in excess of $40 million per annum toward research and epidemiological monitoring, $5.5 million is administered through the national health and research development program, $1.5 million annually in national welfare research grants, an average of $3 million annually for infrastructure of Canadian HIV trials, the remainder is allocated through the health protection branch, and a further $2 million is directed through the medical-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
All the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general can say is: ``We believe this model of incarceration represents the best
approach to addressing a very special need that women have''. God help us if this is the best Corrections Canada can do. One thing Corrections Canada could do is sell the place to the Holiday Inn before it is too late and someone else dies.
Is the solicitor general planning to provide room service for the remaining inmates or is he going to shut the place down and admit that his gender experiment has failed?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am touched by the rhetoric that goes on week after week. Shutting the place down will not solve the problem.
It has to be recognized that female inmates need special treatment, which is what has been done. There were two task forces in 1989 as well as the Arbour commission which stipulated that women's needs in terms of incarceration have to be looked at.
I agree the incidents which occurred in Edmonton were sad and deplorable. It is an underlying situation which is more symptomatic of the special needs of women. Often the histories of incarcerated women reveal abuse, for example, in early childhood. As a result, we are heeding the recommendation of the task force. We are opening five regional centres to better serve their needs.
One centre has had problems, while the other two have not. I would point that out to the member. Truro and Maple Creek, Saskatchewan have not had any problems.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, after that reply is it any wonder that Corrections Canada is in such disastrous shape?
The Correctional Service of Canada has repeatedly stated that Warden Jan Fox at the Edmonton prison for women is one of our best. Yet Warden Fox has refused to take responsibility for a string of problems at the prison which includes assaults, escapes and inmate Fayant's death.
What will it take for the government to recognize that Warden Fox is incompetent? Will the solicitor general make her resign, yes or no?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we assumed responsibility immediately. We took almost 14 concrete measures, which included $400,000 of renovations. We made important improvements to assure that security would be addressed which included enhanced surveillance.
We are looking at a review of all the incidents which have occurred over the past several months to ensure the safety of people in the region is addressed before we open the other two centres. I believe that is very responsible action.
(1200)
I have been hearing many concerns from the processors and importers of fish in my riding of South Shore with respect to inspection fees. Now that the 30 day prepublication period is over, will the minister indicate to the House what kind of reaction was expressed by the industry and whether he is prepared to consider making changes based on those expressions of concern to make this cost recovery program equitable for all sectors?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for the fantastic support he gives fishermen and other constituents in his riding.
The hon. member is right. The regulatory amendments were recently prepublished in Part I of The Canada Gazette and a final date for comments was May 13.
The department has received many comments and my officials are now in the process of reviewing them and re-evaluating the regulatory proposals in light of the comments and the proposals received.
My instruction to the officials is to make sure the many comments are reviewed with great care for the institution of these fees, of which the total has to be collected. The consideration will be for all plants and in particular for small plants so that smaller plants are not harmed to the extent possible that we can offer any relief.
I thank the hon. member for his question. I assure him we will give this matter great care and attention.
At the time, I rose in my place to point this out to the Chair, but unfortunately, because of the noise, the Chair was not really able to hear what was being said. After that, I checked in Hansard, and with Journals of the House of Commons, and I have now found it in writing on page 2912 of Hansard for May 16, 1996.
I think that the three words used yesterday were unparliamentary, and I ask the member for Rimouski-Témiscouta to take the next opportunity to withdraw them.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, earlier, the member for Ottawa Centre showed me the words in yesterday's Hansard. I would like, if possible, to hear the position of the member we are speaking about. Can the member come forward and give her point of view on this matter?
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, this is quite astonishing. In the presentation we have just heard, the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is accused of having used unparliamentary language. The allegation is made, but the words are not specified. Insinuations are made, but we do not know what the words were.
The attitude of the member raising this question of privilege is astonishing, because such a comment could be made about any remark made by anyone in this House, they could be said to have shouted out something irrelevant. He has not mentioned the words in question. I think that discussion of the matter could be deferred until the member knows what he is talking about.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that it is quite obvious, we have Hansard here right now. I can perhaps give a copy to the member and he can speak with his colleague. We could discuss it later at the convenience of the member. I believe she is still here.