In the light of very strong reaction by all political commentators and by organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress, for example, who reacted strongly to the minister's remarks, and now that he has had the time to reread what his minister said, will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from his minister's remarks-yes, or no? We await a reply.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by refusing to condemn his minister, as is his duty and as all Canadians consider he ought, does the Prime Minister realize that his entire government is associated with the unacceptable and discriminatory remarks of the Minister of Human Resources Development?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I see members of the Bloc Quebecois getting upset over words considered unacceptable, I hope they in turn will ask their mother house to apologize for having said a few weeks ago that Canada was a prison. The ultimate proof that Canada is not a prison
lies in the fact that a member who came here as an immigrant and a refugee can support their party in Canada. This is a far cry from a prison, it is freedom at its finest.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will understand I am surprised to find the Prime Minister indignant over the opposition's distress when a new Canadian member is told to go and find another country.
The opposition's indignation, I remind the Prime Minister, is echoed unanimously by all commentators in Quebec and throughout Canada.
The very day of a momentous event in the history of Canada's Parliament and with this morning's praise of the quality of democracy and the freedom of expression in Canada, how can the Prime minister let one of his ministers tarnish, by his unspeakable remarks, the image of all those who sit or have sat in this Parliament?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we had to ask the members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City to apologize each time they want to tarnish Canada's reputation, perhaps they could ask Minister Landry to withdraw his description of Canada as being ``more authoritarian, intolerant and close-minded than the former totalitarian communist governments''.
We need no lessons from anyone. The member is entitled to work for the separatist party; we have nothing against that. He is entitled. The minister said he does not agree with what the member is doing. Disagreement is permitted in this House.
(1420)
He exercised the right to speak. The member expresses his point of view. Another member of this House, an Acadian, who belongs to a minority that stands to lose a lot if Quebec ever separates, is entitled to express a point of view different from that of the member who spoke before him.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that, by accepting and even supporting the comments of his minister, he is sending immigrants and Canadians by adoption a message unworthy of this Parliament?
Does the Prime Minister realize that he is telling these men and women that they do not have the same rights as other Canadians, that freedom of political expression does not exist for them, unless they happen to think like him and his minister?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression exists in this House. I could make a list of completely unacceptable statements that attack the fundamental values of this nation which have been made by members on the other side day after day.
For a member who is an Acadian to get up and tell another member that he is a refugee who is trying to destroy the country which gave him the freedom that he did not have in the country he is from is acceptable in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, you felt it was part of fair debate. A member of Parliament has the right to be a separatist, but we have the right to combat the separatists in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister feels that some comments made by Bloc Quebecois members are unacceptable, it is his duty to condemn them. Let him do it and let him do it when it is appropriate to do so.
When the Prime Minister heard the comments made by members of the Reform Party, he took exception, but the Reform Party leader did take action. The Prime Minister is right when he says federalists can oppose separatists, but not at any price, not at the expense of dignity and democracy.
I call on the Prime Minister's common sense. Will he demand his minister's resignation, or will he support the unsupportable?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I were to ask for the resignation of all those in this House who support the unsupportable, there would not be one Bloc Quebecois member left.
Instead of coming clean with Canadians, the minister and the Prime Minister have chosen to defend this patronage saying that it was really good value for the money. It was good value for his money, but the Canadian taxpayers are paying the bill.
How can the defence minister justify doling out thousands of dollars in public contracts specifically and explicitly to his former campaign workers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad at my first opportunity to be back in the country to deal with these very troubling issues which have reflected on my reputation.
Yesterday the President of the Treasury Board outlined the general response to this question. As members of the House of
Commons we have budgets to hire staff. We hire them either as full time employees or for project work. That goes for the members of the Reform Party as well as other parties. Similarly ministers have budgets that can be used for project work or for exempt staff.
In the case of the arrangements that were referred to in the House, as the President of Treasury Board has stated, those arrangements were made within Treasury Board guidelines.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk about Treasury Board guidelines, but I want to talk specifically about project work. A ministerial budget is one thing, a member of Parliament's budget is another.
(1425 )
The Canadian public that is paying the bill for this wants to know why in the world this soothing of the Greek community is always happening in his riding. Surely there are enough communities across the country from which he can hire people to do the work for him out of his ministerial budget.
It seems ironic that every time a name comes up it is someone specifically from his constituency. The Liberals railed against this when the Mulroney government was in power. Now they are saying that they are proud of it, that everything is okay.
Will the defence minister admit that he is guilty of the same Mulroney-like patronage that he and his colleagues criticized while in opposition? Will he repay the $150,000 spent on these unethical contracts?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had better get our facts straight.
The hon. member accused me of unethical behaviour. I hope she withdraws that before I give the answer to the question.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your rulings on these things, not those of the minister.
I grant what we are talking about here is a tender issue for the minister. It is so tender that every contract more than $30,000 is literally supposed to go out to tender and this has not happened.
Stephanos Karabekos has received more than three contracts, every one of which should have gone out to tender. When it is split up, then it looks okay because it is under $30,000.
Mr. Speaker, you can call that unethical, I can call it unethical, I know the Canadian public thinks it is unethical. It is deplorable. Why has the minister allowed this contract splitting to take place? Why has he allowed this to become such a tender issue?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not a tender issue. It is a factual issue.
The hon. member says this is unethical. I am surprised that language is allowed to stay, but I obviously respect your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.
What she is saying by extension is that the officials in my department, the assistant deputy minister of finance who said that these contracts were within the guidelines, the Treasury Board officials who said that these arrangements were within guidelines, are also unethical.
It seems that when the Reform Party casts its net, it casts it widely. It does not pay attention to the facts. It does not pay attention to the reputations of individuals.
With respect to the specific contract that the hon. member raises, I would like to draw her attention to the fact that the Hellenic Canadian Congress, the umbrella group of all Greek Canadians in the country, issued a statement last night in support of the work that was done in this very difficult circumstance-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Collenette: -and in a letter to the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt condemned him for the false statements that he made in connection with this issue.
The federal government announced that it was cutting off its annual $7.2 million contribution to the tokamak project. By withdrawing from this project, the government is adding to the huge research and development deficit and jeopardizing the potential of scientific research in Quebec.
Why is the minister standing by this bad decision to no longer participate in the Varennes tokamak project?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I believe I have made clear in the House on a number of occasions, because of the fiscal situation in which the government found itself, having been placed there by the previous government, some very difficult choices had to be made. It is not possible for the government to continue to do everything it had done.
In relation to the future of AECL and the nuclear research program, it has been decided to focus on the export sale of Candu reactors. That export market provides benefits to both Quebec and other parts of Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is changing her versions, even if she thinks she keeps telling us the same thing. This is the first time she has admitted in this House that CANDU reactors are producing spinoffs elsewhere than in Quebec, quite a few other places in fact. She is cutting in Quebec in favour of British Columbia, about which-
It would be nice if everyone could agree that the federal contribution to the tokamak project in Quebec is money well spent, and since she will be saving only $7.2 million, what are the minister's real motives for-
(1430)
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, we must not question the motives of our hon. colleagues. If the minister wishes to reply to the question, she has the floor.
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will simply reiterate what I have said before in the House to the hon. member and others. Government is about making choices and we have had to make some difficult choices.
I have explained over and over again that one of our choices was in relation to the future of the nuclear program in this country. We are going to focus on the export sale of Candu reactors.
Let me remind the hon. member that the sale of one Candu reactor represents potentially over $100 million to the province of Quebec and 4,000 person years in jobs.
According to information I have received directly from Veterans Affairs, it admits that Karabekos was instrumental in extending benefits that the government had planned to cut off in the March 1995 budget.
Will the minister not admit that he abused his budget, rewarding campaign pals with cushy contracts that cost Canadians millions of dollars?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will not address the specific accusation, the comment the member got from Veterans Affairs, except to say that what the hon. member said is absolutely and totally false.
I want to deal with the fact that these particular arrangements, that is hiring people either on exempt staff or for specific projects, is open to ministers and is also open to party leaders, the Leader of the Opposition, for example, the leader of the Reform Party.
I would like to know if the hon. member has asked his party leader how he hires and retains the services of people. Does he have people just as full time employees or does he have people who are hired on project work.
As to the propriety of this, the fact is that these particular arrangements are within Treasury Board guidelines. It was stated by the President of the Treasury Board, gone over by the various officials. I think the facts speak for themselves.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the questions. The minister's job is to answer them.
I have the contracts, I have the guidelines. The minister has broken the guidelines. Canadians can see that there is no value for money in these contracts. The minister hired a musical conductor to do partisan work in the minister's riding. Karabekos is not the only political hack that the minister has rewarded with cushy contracts. There have been three others as well.
Will the minister tell the House if the pork barrel contracts end here, or does he plan to hire every campaign worker on his team?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to defend the people he has described as political hacks. Perhaps he would refer the term political hack to the former Reform candidate for Ottawa-Vanier who is an employee in his office.
[Translation]
On top of the withdrawal from the tokamak project in Varennes, now this Monday the parliamentary secretary has confirmed that Atomic Energy of Canada is looking at the possibility of moving its offices from Montreal to Toronto, which would mean a direct loss of 120 jobs to the Montreal region.
Can the Minister commit at this time to maintaining AECL's activities in Montreal?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, AECL is going through a process of restructuring and rethinking its main lines of work and its main objectives. That process is ongoing. At this time no final decisions have been made.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, why is the minister concentrating on systematically destroying Quebec's scientific potential all the time, always in favour of Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have just heard from the hon. member. He should consider the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent in the province of Quebec by the federal government in relation to science and technology.
In my department alone, some of our best research facilities presently exist in the province of Quebec and will continue to exist in the province of Quebec. I suggest that the hon. member get his facts straight.
Who within his department authorized the meeting and why has it taken him three months to acknowledge and respond to this obvious violation of judicial independence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the meeting was held, according to the chief justice, at the request of the chief justice. The meeting was for the purpose initially of discussing concerns with the pace of litigation generally in the Federal Court.
As I said yesterday, we have also acknowledged that it was inappropriate for the meeting to discuss specific cases without notice being given to counsel in those cases and an opportunity for those counsel to participate.
In specific response to the point raised by the hon. member about the timing, I can tell him that it was Mr. Ted Thompson who brought to the attention of the department the fact that the meeting had taken place. He brought the correspondence to the attention of the department. We then brought that to the attention of counsel in those cases.
In the weeks since March 1 our focus has been on the litigation. Lawyers for the parties involved in the three litigation cases have brought a motion, to which we have responded. We have been in the courtroom resisting their application for stay.
At this point it is appropriate for me to make a statement. I propose to do that. I will address in that statement the response, internally, of the department to these circumstances.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Chief Justice Isaac of the Federal Court, in my opinion, should never have met with Mr. Thompson to discuss this matter in the first place.
In 1990 the current Tory leader resigned as minister of fitness and amateur sport after it was revealed he had called a judge. That particular judge was not implicated in that case because he had the integrity to hang up on the minister.
(1440 )
I ask the Minister of Justice if he has laid a complaint before the Canadian Judicial Council to have Chief Justice Isaac's participation in this matter dealt with.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Our focus has been on the litigation and now internally with respect to the appropriate response to Ted Thompson's conduct.
The instances to which the hon. member has referred involved either ministers or members of government communicating with judges directly, and that is not what happened in this case.
What happened in this case is an instance of a long serving and excellent lawyer with the department who at the request of the chief justice participated in a meeting which eventually turned to subjects that were more appropriately dealt with on notice to counsel involved in those cases and with their involvement.
We acknowledge that was inappropriate. Our focus has been on resisting motions to stay those cases in the court and now on how to deal with Mr. Ted Thompson internally in the department. That has been the focus of our attention.
On May 9, 1994, the Prime Minister made a commitment in this House not to modify C-91 on drug patents before its 1997 revision. Last week, however, the Minister of Industry announced his intention to modify the link regulations, thus affecting the C-91 regulations and therefore decreasing protection for drug patents.
Can the Minister of Industry indicate to us whether it is his intention to respect the Prime Minister's commitment and to not revise C-91 before 1997, or is he preparing to make unilateral
modifications in the link regulations before the 1997 revision date, without any public consultation whatsoever?
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 will always respect the Prime Minister's commitments.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's response that there will be no changes to the link regulations before the act is revised in 1997?
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, what we have said on a number of occasions is that we will respect our international commitments concerning drug patents.
I believe that even the hon. member asking the question wishes us to respect the 20 year principle, that is the lifetime of a drug patent. The question with the link regulations is to ensure that, as soon as a patent runs out, the generic companies have the opportunity to manufacture the product.
This is the reason the regulations are a means of balancing the life of a patent and access to an expired patent. Moreover, we are going to continually ensure that court rulings actually confirm the hon. member's opinion, that these regulations are working well.
Some municipalities in my riding of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle are concerned about not yet having filed their applications under the infrastructure program and their projects not being approved before the deadline.
Could the minister tell us whether this program will be extended to allow these municipalities to complete their projects?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the federal government and the Quebec government have agreed on the changes required to extend the time frames provided for in the Canada-Quebec agreement on the infrastructure program.
Details will be announced shortly and I encourage Quebec municipalities to fill in their applications as quickly as possible. I am also pleased to announce that more than 12,000 infrastructure projects were approved during the first two years of the program, including 2,400 projects in Quebec, which represents a $1.8 billion investment and accounts for the creation of thousands of jobs in Quebec.
[English]
The government does not really need a committee. What it needs is a calculator. Out of every litre of gasoline 3.5 cents is GST, all of it hidden. Under the minister's new harmonization agreement he is adding another 4 cents per litre to the price of gas.
My question is very simple. Is a 100 per cent increase in the GST charged on gasoline his idea of no new taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given that the GST harmonization agreement has not gone into effect yet, it is very hard to place the blame for the increase in gasoline prices on the GST.
My colleague, the Minister of Industry, has explained a number of times in the House the reasons for the increase in the price of gasoline. He has also expressed his concern and his desire to take action where necessary.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, $84 million in new taxes for the province of Nova Scotia and a 4 cent per litre increase in the price of gasoline repudiate the minister's promise of the budget just two months ago when he said there were not to be any new taxes.
My question again is will the minister admit today his promise of no new taxes is bogus and that once again Canadians were misled by the government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity once again to point out to the House that in our first budget we did not increase personal taxes. In our second budget we did not increase personal taxes. In case it has escaped the member's attention, in our latest budget we did not increase corporate taxes, excise taxes or personal taxes. Mr. Speaker, we did not increase taxes.
[Translation]
For months now, the minister has been making excuses for Aéroports de Montréal's failure to release all studies on the transfer of international flights from Mirabel to Dorval by saying that this firm is not subject to the Access to Information Act. However, the contract between ADM and the Government of Canada does specifically state that ADM shall co-operate with the minister in responding to any questions, complaints or comments from the public regarding the airport.
How is the minister ensuring that the terms of an agreement entered into by his own department are being complied with?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the airport authority in Montreal has complied with all agreements with this department. If the hon. member has evidence of anything other than that I would be happy to receive it and examine it in due course.
However, an allegation totally unsupported by evidence of misbehaviour by a regional organization which involves municipal governments of the city of Montreal and most of the outlying regional governments is thoroughly improper in the House.
We trust regional and municipal governments to act properly. We trust provincial governments to do the same. An allegation that they are acting improperly is quite out of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the minister suggesting that the people of Quebec, to whom the transfer of operations from Mirabel to Dorval will cost in excess of $200 million, have no business knowing what the studies supporting this transfer say?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the information about the very difficult decision made by the airport authority at Montreal has been made public. There are 21 members of the authority and seven municipalities involved. They make the information public.
The hon. member must remember these are extremely difficult decisions for that authority involving the future and what we hope will be the restoration of economic health to the city of Montreal.
We cannot continue to ignore what is happening in international aviation in terms of companies getting together. We cannot continue to ignore that because if we or the ADM did so it would be to the detriment of the citizens and the future of the city of Montreal. We will not do that.
Can the justice minister explain why he reduced the parole eligibility for these young offenders from a maximum of 10 to a mere 7 years, forcing judges across the country to hand out pathetic penalties for such horrendous crimes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the facts of the sad cases recounted by the hon. member are dreadful. Without commenting on the liability of cases to be before the court, all of us of course share the grief of the families of the victims involved in those cases.
The hon. member also knows that in Bill C-37 we changed the Young Offenders Act to increase substantially the penalties for murder to make it easier to transfer 16 and 17-years-olds to adult court for adult trial in crimes of serious violence.
His party is working actively on the justice committee reviewing the act in its entirety. We have already made it clear we will listen carefully to the recommendations the committee makes later this year and we shall make whatever other changes in the act are required to meet the needs of public safety.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did not really get an answer to my question. I am curious to know why so many of these things are not working the way they are supposed to, according to the minister.
As I stated before, there has not been only one murder of a youth in Hamilton but two in one week alone. On May 23 a 14-year old youth appeared in court charged with the first degree murder of Lee James Doherty, who was bludgeoned to death with a crowbar. This youth charged with first degree murder will serve a mere seven years. It is nothing more than the failure of the minister's approach to youth violence which is causing it.
Will the minister finally listen to the Reform Party now and tighten up the Young Offenders Act so that vicious criminals like this get the sentence they deserve?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I shall do better than that. I shall listen to the justice committee on which the Reform Party is well represented. The hon. member for Crowfoot and his colleagues from that party on that committee are at work on the very issues the hon. member has referred to. When those recommendations are received, we shall pay very close attention to what they recommend.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment tell the House what specific action is being taken to address the changes affecting the earth's atmosphere?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Mississauga West for her question. She has repeatedly demonstrated a concern for and commitment to environmental issues.
I am pleased to say that on Monday the Minister of the Environment announced that in partnership with two private sector partners and the University of Toronto we are committing $1.9 million for a research chair that will look at the complex issues of atmospheric pollution.
A world leader in his field, Professor Jim Drummond will chair the program. The program will develop and use space based instruments to measure and track air pollutants on a global scale.
Crucial information for addressing global environmental issues such as climate change, smog-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Chicoutimi.
Two days ago, the minister was roundly criticized for allowing the gliding school to move from Saint-Honoré to Saint-Jean-de-Richelieu. The department refused to hold a public hearing on this project despite its highly controversial nature.
How can the minister justify his authorizing this move without a public hearing, when this project, which is already causing a fierce public controversy, will have a significant environmental impact?
(1455)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.. member will realize that in the last two budgets there have been many closures of national defence facilities and the transfer of many activities across the country, all in the name of saving money.
In this case we are saving $300,000 by moving the gliding school from St. Honorié to St. Jean, Quebec. The environmental assessment has been done. I realize some people in St. Honorié are not very happy but there were a lot of unhappy people when we closed bases throughout Atlantic Canada, in Calgary and in Chilliwack. We are consolidating our operations to make them more efficient. The bottom line is we are saving the taxpayers money.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The department has never succeeded in proving that it could achieve substantial savings. If he has nothing to hide, will the minister promise to release all the studies prepared in this matter, including the additional costs taxpayers will have to bear to effectively lower the noise level of tug aircraft?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to furnish any information that would allay the hon. member's fears.
Two weeks ago I appeared before the defence committee on the estimates, and the critics for his party never asked one question about this. If they had, I would have given them more details.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he is now willing to grant diplomatic recognition.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, about three or four weeks ago I was in the Balkans area and we had a number of discussions. We
are holding similar discussions in Canada with affected groups. I hope to be making some decision on that matter within the next month or so.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the decision to grant diplomatic recognition to the former Yugoslav Republic is long overdue.
In 1995 Greece recognized its independence and yet last month the Minister of Foreign Affairs was still writing letters saying Canada could not recognize it because of its dispute with Greece. It seems the minister does not really know what is happening in this case.
The UN also recognized this country. Still the government delays and evades the issue. I would like the minister to give me one reason why Canada cannot now recognize and give diplomatic recognition to this country.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows there were some very major complications. We are dealing with two very important allies in the NATO system. It had to do with names of countries and the nature of the recognition that would be taking place.
I just told the hon. member we are not ignoring it, we are not delaying it. We are actively pursuing it. We have been talking to the parties involved. We will be looking at the options we have. I just told the hon. member we will be making a decision within the next month. I think that shows quick and ready action.
Canadians are quite amazed that the federal government has stood by and allowed Hollinger Incorporated to acquire over 53 per cent of all Canadian newspapers.
The 1981 Kent commission recommended that no one company should control more than 20 per cent of Canadian circulation, as it threatens freedom and democracy. Yet Hollinger now controls over 42 per cent. By any definition this is an alarming development.
My question to the Prime Minister is what further threats to freedom and democracy will there have to be before the government takes action to ensure competition, freedom of speech and the public's right to know?
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, it is a little hard to follow the premise of the member's question and connect it to the conclusion he has drawn.
When freedom of speech prevails in Canada in very clear and legal ways he criticizes the ownership of newspapers at a time when we are surrounded not only by newspapers but by other media and means of exchanging information.
(1500 )
Mr. Blaikie: What are you going to do about it?
Mr. Manley: The member for Winnipeg Transcona seems to think he has lost his voice in this House, largely because they did not elect enough members in the last election. That is why he does not get his chance to make those comments.
The competition law deals with the economic impact of acquisitions, such as that which is proposed by Hollinger, that will be reviewed by the director of investigations and research as to whether there are anti-competitive reasons that the director should intervene in the transaction. He has done that. He has concluded that is not the case. But that does not deal with future behaviour. He will continue to monitor the behaviour as a result of this acquisition. If it is anti-competitive, he will act.
In the last two budgets the government has implemented big changes to Canadian agriculture, including the reduction or elimination of previous subsidy programs. The government has also committed itself to adaptation measures to ease the process away from subsidization.
What is the government going to implement to commit itself to help farmers adapt to the new reality?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct to say that for fiscal, trade, diversification, innovation and efficiency reasons a number of former subsidy programs have been brought to an end. In every case appropriate transitional measures or gradual phase out measures or other adaptation measures have been put in place to smooth the process of transition equitably all across the country.
The hon. gentleman comes from Saskatchewan and might refer specifically to the end of the WGTA subsidy. Part of the adaptation in that case is the WGTA adaptation fund with $300 million over the next couple of years to help smooth out the process of changing the freight pooling system, to assist the alfalfa dehydration and compressed hay industries and also to help enhance rural infrastructure like rural roads which are of critical importance in the prairie region.
Today is a very historic day for us as parliamentarians and for us as Canadians. I would like you to join with me in welcoming home some of the men and women who have served this Parliament and who have served Canada so well.
My Canadian parliamentarians you have served Canada well and you honour us by being here today. Would you please stand.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.