My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Is this present government offer, again limited to three years, not likely to have an identical outcome, since Ottawa still controls the employment insurance fund?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the offer made to all of the provinces and territories of Canada is as follows. We wanted to ensure that there was some element of certainty, if ever we were able, as I hope we will be, to reach some agreement that would last a minimum of three years. We wanted to be sure that it lasted at least three years. That is not the maximum, nor the set duration.
In this way, we hope to be able to show our good faith, our desire to find a new way of doing things, assuring the provinces and territories that any agreement concluded would last at least three years. This is not merely a question of revision; for as long as agreement continues thereafter, once the three years are over, we ought to be able to continue these agreements for an indefinite period.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it would also be worthwhile to set some guidelines, as in the case of the agreement on immigration, because the agreement I am talking about has not always proved entirely successful.
For the last ten years as well, the federal government has been paying $130 million to Quebec from the consolidated fund. Yesterday the minister admitted that his government would be withdrawing from the manpower field within three years, with no compensation.
Will the federal government continue to invest in this sector the funds it was previously paying to the provinces, such as the $130 million Quebec was, and still is, receiving under the 1989 agreement? If so, is this not proof of its continuing to be involved in this area, despite its avowed intention to withdraw?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to suggest that we will not manage to sign any agreements, but even if it happened that no agreement was reached, we are already committed to withdrawing from the field of manpower training. Our decision in that connection was made months ago. As far as the estimates and appropriations earmarked for manpower training are concerned, it was our intention, and continues to be our commitment, to withdraw totally from manpower training.
This means the budgets will drop to zero. We will not be getting back into that area again; we have absolutely no intention of doing so.
As for the agreements we hope to negotiate, however, there is no doubt that for active measures, if the provinces so desire-and it will be of their own choosing-they will no doubt be able to do certain things in the occupational training sector which they consider to be legitimate and worthwhile.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there would appear to be a number of clarifications needed in this area; we have been told that the federal government is headed toward elimination of the funding allocated to the provinces. There is reference to a zero budget within three years.
The money itself will not, however, disappear. It will not go to the provinces, but neither will it disappear.
What we need to know is what the federal government intends to do with that money. This strikes me as a good question, and one that we will certainly be getting back to, for at some point I would like to have a response.
(1120)
Taking a different tack on this same subject, in his recent budget the Minister of Finance announced that he would be freeing up $315 million over three years for the young people of Quebec and Canada, to help them break into the work force.
Can the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate to us why this vital program is not part of the proposal made to the provinces, since it is quite obviously a manpower program? Even more important, it involves not only today's work force, but tomorrow's as well, the work force of the future.
Why not integrate this project announced a few weeks ago by the Minister of Finance with the offer made to the provinces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a highly complex matter, this entire area of training and active measures.
The hon. member is right, there are other departments in addition to my own with responsibility in these sectors with which we have long been involved. I wish to assure my hon. colleague, and particularly the governments with which we are going to negotiate, of our desire to ensure that these active measures, tailored to the specific needs of the provinces, are delivered by them.
As far as our withdrawal from manpower is concerned, the hon. member indicated that the money we do not spend on training will still be there somewhere, but that is not the case. As you know, despite the valiant efforts of the Minister of Finance, we still have a deficit in Canada.
It is not as if there were money left over somewhere. When budgets are cut, or when we pull out of one or another sector, the unspent moneys are reflected in the government's overall financial plan, and it is in that context that we have already committed ourselves to decreasing our expenditures year after year. This has, moreover, already been done already for some time; when we are no longer involved in manpower training, the budgets will have been totally used up as well.
Yesterday, in responding to a question in the House, he refused to say whether he would make public the report on the inquiry sought by his department on the assistant deputy attorney general's interference with the chief justice of the federal court. The minister agreed to make public only the action he would be taking at the end of the inquiry.
Why is the minister refusing to make public the complete report of the inquiry by Mr. Dubin on such a serious case of undue interference in the legal system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my position was not made clear yesterday. In response to the hon. member's question, I intend to table Mr. Dubin's report when it is finished.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, such a serious error by a senior public servant demands quick action on the part of the government.
Is the minister prepared to table the report of the inquiry sought by his department by the end of the present session and not in the summer when no one is here?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have only one hesitation in committing myself to that. I will table Mr. Dubin's letter to me or his report, whatever he produces. The House should see that. He has expressed concern about doing that before the motion pending in front of Mr. Justice Cullen is resolved.
Mr. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court has a motion before him to stay these three revocation cases. Mr. Dubin is concerned that producing his findings and his advice in advance of Mr. Justice Cullen coming to a conclusion might not be proper.
There is no question that I will make the advice of Mr. Dubin available to the House. My only hesitation in saying that I will do it as soon as I receive it is that the matter may soon be pending before Mr. Justice Cullen. If it arises after the House adjourns, I will mail a copy to my friend as soon as I properly can.
(1125 )
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Assistant Deputy Minister Ted Thompson's letter to Chief Justice Isaac, dated March 1 states: ``Further to our meeting this morning in which I advised that the Attorney General of Canada is being asked to consider taking a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine some preliminary points of law, primarily because the Federal Court trial division is unable or unwilling to proceed with the subject cases expeditiously''.
Who asked the justice minister and what was the basis on which the minister was asked to consider taking these revocation cases from the hands of Justice Jerome and referring them to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice is organized in such a way that recommendations would come from what is called a litigation committee. Senior litigation lawyers in the department meet regularly to consider the conduct of cases that are before the courts.
At the time the letter was written, it is my understanding that the litigation committee was considering whether to recommend to me that these issues be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada so that they could be moved along more quickly. They had not yet come to a conclusion and I had not by that date received any recommendation.
In fact, I spoke about this matter with Mr. Dubin yesterday. He interviewed me over the luncheon hour. I have every expectation that the report or the advice he eventually provides will deal with the chronology of events. He is interviewing all the relevant people, so I hope all these matters will be matters of record when he completes his work.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the justice minister was asked if he was prepared to lay a complaint against Chief Justice Isaac with the Canadian Judicial Council. He said no, claiming it was not up to him to order the council to investigate the irresponsible actions of the chief justice.
Section 69(1) of the Judges Act explicitly gives the federal Minister of Justice the responsibility and the authority to order an inquiry by the judicial council into inappropriate behaviour by a federally appointed judge.
Why did the minister not fulfil his responsibility by following the appropriate course of action? Why did he not order the inquiry by the judicial council?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, subject to being corrected, I think it is section 63(1) that provides-
An hon. member: It is 69(1).
Mr. Rock: All right, it is 69(1), that provides that I may direct an inquiry to be held under the Judges Act. However, on the facts as I know them, at least at present, I do not believe this is a case that warrants that kind of inquiry. We had one in the case of Judge Bienvenue which is now before the judicial council.
The other thing that is important is the judicial council has already acted in relation to this matter. I told the House yesterday of the information that I have, that the judge who chairs the judicial conduct committee of the council, Chief Justice McEachern of British Columbia, has invited Chief Justice Isaac to explain what happened so that the committee can consider it and decide whether further action is warranted.
It is not as though nothing is happening on that front. The council is looking at the conduct and will respon appropriately.At least in my judgment at this time, on the basis of the facts as I know them, I do not believe it is an appropriate case for the kind of formal inquiry that is contemplated by the section to which my hon. friend has referred.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the justice minister is not considering this to be an important issue.
Yesterday the Ottawa Citizen stated: ``Judge Isaac's actions constitute one of the most serious erosions of judicial independence in Canadian history''.
My final supplementary question is this. The Minister of Justice admitted yesterday that he learned of the judicial interference involving his deputy assistant one week after the March 1 meeting. Why did he wait almost three months to make a ministerial statement in the House? Why did the minister not immediately reveal to the House and Canadians the inappropriate actions of Ted Thompson and Chief Justice Isaac.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first in relation to the extent to which I consider this matter serious, when I spoke on Monday, I made it clear that I consider this a very serious matter and that I take it seriously. It is for that reason that I brought in a person of the stature and independence of former Chief Justice Dubin to look at the facts and provide advice on what should happen.
Second, as to what happened after March 1, I believe when Mr. Dubin recounts the chronology, it will disclose that within a week or two after March 1, this incident came to light within the department. Ted Thompson acted on his own initiative in having the meeting and in having the correspondence. Then it came to the light of people in the department.
As soon as that happened, we ensured that copies of the correspondence and particulars of the meeting were put in the hands of the lawyers acting for the three parties in the Federal Court. Then they brought motions in the court based on that correspondence.
These events were the subject of news reports in April. The matter was entirely in the open. We did not try to hide or cover up anything at all.
As to my ministerial statement being made last Monday and not in March, our first focus was on the court cases and responding to motions brought to stay those three cases because we believe they should go forward. After that was in hand, I then turned to internal matters in the department. I took advice from the deputy. We involved Mr. Dubin and I made my statement.
The chronology speaks for itself. The matter is now in the hands of an independent party to look at the facts. I have already told the House that I will put his advice before the House for its information.
(1130 )
[Translation]
Yesterday, when Mr. Harris and Mr. Bouchard, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, met, they together asked the federal government to include compensation for the harmonization of the GST on the agenda of the conference on June 20 and 21. On May 27, the Minister of Finance relegated the issue to a meeting with his colleagues.
Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm, given the importance accorded this particular issue by the premiers of the two largest provinces, that he will put the GST on the agenda of the June 20 and 21 meeting?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has already mentioned that it will be part of the agenda of the finance ministers' meetings some time next month.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the member did not understand my question and has certainly not understood the request by the premiers of Canada's two largest provinces that this be included on the agenda of the meeting of June 20 and 21.
In response to the consensus forming among the provinces swindled by this agreement, will the Acting Prime Minister suspend all agreements and negotiations with the maritime provinces?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is clearly part of the finance minister's meetings. It is a matter that the finance ministers will discuss at their meetings, which will very likely be next month. That is the appropriate place for discussions to take place.
I would like to remind the hon. member that the agenda for the first ministers' conference has not been released yet, therefore I cannot comment on that.
They are looking for a 1.5 per cent reduction in taxes in Ontario and Quebec to compensate for the $1 billion payoff to Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada. They believe that Quebec deserves compensation for harmonizing its provincial sales tax in 1992. Alberta has made similar requests.
Will the government be acting on these requests? Will it continue to have one policy for its friends, the Liberal premiers of Atlantic Canada, and another policy for the other provinces?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the GST deal with the Atlantic provinces is available to all provinces that lost funds on that.
It is interesting to look at the results from Quebec. Quebec benefited from harmonization. If one looks at the first year alone of harmonization, Quebec tax revenues increased by something like 20 per cent after harmonization.
(1135 )
Since harmonization, Quebec has benefited by about $2.5 billion to $3 billion. Maybe we should be looking at that $2.5 billion to $3 billion in increased revenues that Quebec gained from harmonization. Maybe Ontario should be looking at that as an opportunity for a better revenue performance of its own.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to take credit for some economic growth and trying to pretend that there is not one set of arrangements for some provinces and one for others.
This ill-conceived plan for harmonizing the GST has at least managed to bring about some national unity. We have had the uniting of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in opposition to the federal government.
Premiers Harris and Bouchard, who are not finance ministers, they are premiers, want the issue of GST harmonization, compensation and reduction on the table at the upcoming first ministers' conference. Will the GST be on the agenda of the first ministers at their meetings in June?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that I would be happy to take credit for the growth in the GNP in the early nineties. Unfortunately this party was not the government at that time. However, there was not very much growth if he will recall that time.
As far as this being on the agenda for the first ministers' conference, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, the agenda has not
been set up yet. The finance minister has already stated it will be on the agenda and surely that is enough to satisfy the member's question right now.
In 1980, the largest press baron owned 20 per cent of all Canadian newspapers. The then Liberal government, concerned about the situation, set up a royal inquiry commission, the Kent commission.
Today, Conrad Black's Hollinger owns 42 per cent of all Canadian newspapers. What steps does the government intend to take to maintain a balance between the economic interests of newspaper owners and the public's right to information?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
In fact, the director of the bureau of competition is aware of the buyout the hon. member has just mentioned. He has already made some representations and done a number of analyses, and I want to say that, in the past, every time there has been a deal involving newspapers, the government has taken action by introducing relevant legislation if necessary.
In this case, the director informed us that the deal was legitimate. I would point out to my colleague that Canada's Competition Act ensures that fair competition can be maintained across the country, and that all Canadians can take advantage of it through a mechanism provided for in the act.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to Quebec's main publishers, the future of the Canadian Press agency in Quebec is at stake, at a crucial time in our history. Will the government intercede with Southam and Hollinger to maintain a minimum of jobs in this organization? A minimum of jobs?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the director of competition was informed of this transaction. We conducted a number of analyses and came to the conclusion that this deal did not significantly reduce competition in Canada as provided for in the legislation. Once again, I remind my colleague that the law is there to be used in accordance with the mechanism provided.
[English]
When will the minister admit the Young Offenders Act, including Bill C-37, is not working, it is a joke, as many young people profess.
(1140 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time Bill C-37 was introduced by this government, we described it as only the first step in dealing with the youth justice system in Canada. That bill has now been passed and became effective on December 1, 1995.
The second step is work by the justice committee of the House of Commons. I asked that committee to travel the country looking at the evidence, speaking to parents, police, school principals and young people themselves and to come back to Ottawa with recommendations for change.
The Young Offenders Act has now been on the books for 12 years. It is time to look at the fundamentals of the statute. The justice committee is now engaged in that work. Indeed, members of my hon. friend's party are well represented by hard working members on that committee.
Next week the committee is going to be in metropolitan Toronto listening to evidence, looking at youth detention facilities and getting the facts so it can come back to this House with recommendations. I have already said that those are recommendations we will pay close attention to.
By working together, we can improve the act.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in January 1994 the minister asked for submissions from all across the country. I saw those submissions. I know what the people of Canada were asking for and so does he. He has done nothing since then.
The most unhappy people are the young people themselves as the majority of victims come from that age. Too bad you people do not take this more seriously. When will the minister hear their voice, scrap the Young Offenders Act and make violent criminals fully accountable for their actions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we take this matter very seriously. It is neither fair nor right for the hon. member to say that nothing has been done.
Bill C-37, which became effective on December 1, introduced important changes to the Young Offenders Act. We doubled the maximum penalty for first degree murder. We said that 16 and 17-year olds accused of crimes of serious violence will be tried in adult court unless they can satisfy the courts otherwise. The onus rests on them. We have provided for information being freely shared among police, school officials and others. Those changes are important and are already having an effect. As to further changes in the act, we will wait for the recommendations of the committee on which the hon. member sits.
The other thing we have to bear in mind, which the hon. member forgets, is that as difficult a problem as youth crime is, it is not going to be resolved by changing the words in the statute. That alone is not going to be enough. Until the hon. member works with us in our efforts on crime prevention and getting to the causes of crime, we will never be able to make the streets of this country safe.
The Archer-Daniels-Midland company has announced plans to buy out Maple Leaf Mills. As a result of this transaction, 75 per cent of the Canadian flour market would be concentrated in the hands of two American subsidiaries.
What does the Minister of Industry intend to do regarding this potential concentration of 75 per cent of the milling industry in the hands of just two companies?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, in Canada, a mechanism is provided under the Competition Act.
We have experts at the competition bureau who have a great deal of experience in the field of competition and who know the economic market place well. Needless to say, we are keeping a close watch on all deals made from coast to coast. If the competition bureau notices a decline in competition on the Canadian market, it will take action.
Otherwise, there is a mechanism available to all Canadians, which any six citizens from anywhere in the country can use to call for a review, if necessary.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): We certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that our experts are experienced. Otherwise, we would be in trouble.
Does the Minister of Industry intend to sit on his hands and allow this transaction, which will effectively transfer to two American companies the power to set the price of flour in Canada?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, in 1986, Canada put in place a process to analyze mergers, buyouts and cases of unfair competition. This is a great and highly effective process. We have a bureau employing a number of experts called upon to analyze the market and its transactions. When they find that competition is declining, they take action; alternatively, individuals can use the mechanism provided for in the legislation.
[English]
A new softwood lumber agreement has gone into effect. Can the minister assure the House that this agreement with the United States will benefit Canadian producers?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement on softwood lumber was signed yesterday by our ambassador in Washington and a United States deputy trade representative. It reflects the policy I announced early in April with respect to this matter. It will go into effect on April 1.
This is an unprecedented agreement. It provides for secure access for a period of five years. It has in writing the agreement of the United States government not to pursue trade remedies in that period of time on the issue of softwood lumber. It is a position our industry strongly supports. It helps to preserve its export market into the United States. That in turn helps to preserve thousands of jobs.
In fact, if an amount of lumber which is equivalent to the average over the last three years is exported, not a nickel in fees will be paid. It will be a free flow. Last year was a record year. The industry could go to over 90 per cent of the amount and still have it as a free flow. Any fees that are paid over that will be staying in Canada. They will not be going to the United States treasury.
Can the Minister of Transport please tell us which Liberal statement we should believe: the one which was made in the House that the developer would have made too much money, or the one which was made in a court of law that the developer would have gone broke?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is facing a lawsuit in Toronto on this issue. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the particulars of this case at this time, save to say that the plaintiffs in this case were claiming $172 million for lost profits. Then what happened? They upped their claim to over $600 million in lost profits.
The government has a responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer to test the validity of that claim. To that end, the government retained the experts who provided the government with the correct advice on the plaintiffs' case.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Pearson Development Corporation was prepared to spend more than $800 million of private sector money renovating Canada's most essential airport. Instead what we got was a contract cancellation from the newly elected Liberal government. More than two years later, there is still no alternative development of those terminals under way.
Now that the Liberals have admitted in court that the developer's profits were not excessive, will they admit to the House that the real reason they cancelled the Pearson contract was to cover up more misspoken election rhetoric?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a little behind the times. If he read the papers and paid attention to the news broadcasts he would understand that negotiations for the changeover from the federal government to a new local airport authority are proceeding ahead of schedule. In fact, the government expects to transfer the Pearson International Airport to a local airport authority in the very near future.
Despite the huffing and puffing of the hon. member opposite, the member who cares more about his lobbyist friends than he does about the Canadian taxpayer-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Instead of protecting the 340,000 Franco-Ontarians who still use French, why does the government choose to cut their funding?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House that negotiations are underway. It is not our custom to negotiate in public.
(1150)
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if it can help the federal government in its negotiations, let me remind it that the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne have clearly indicated that this government does not fulfil its obligations under the Official Languages Act.
With these cuts, is the government actually giving up its responsibilities towards francophone minorities in Canada?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised because, two weeks ago, they complained when the commissioner congratulated us for improving the situation of francophones living outside Quebec. I want to make it clear that we need no lesson from this party.
Integrity was the theme of the red book. Yet we have this case before us of the defence minister using split contracts to avoid tendering so that he can award his campaign workers. Senior officials at Treasury Board have said this is unacceptable, unethical and should be disciplined.
If ever the ethics counsellor was needed to clear the air on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, this is the occasion. Will the Prime Minister call on the ethics counsellor to investigate this blatant abuse of public funds?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained this matter a number of times in the House.
There are budgets for full time employees. There are budgets for people who are hired on a short term project basis. The one that has been referred to in the House was a short term project which obviously was extended because of the nature of the legislative changes that were made with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The key thing here is that the arrangement followed Treasury Board guidelines. That was stated by the President of the Treasury Board. It has been stated by me in this House. It has been stated by my officials.
The hon. member is giving the false impression that what was done in the case of those people whom I retained contravened Treasury Board guidelines. I would hope that the member would stop giving out this misinformation because it is absolutely false.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is getting absurd.
The Prime Minister promised that we would have an independent ethics counsellor, yet that counsellor reports to the Prime Minister. Now we have this minister standing up in the House to say why he should not be investigated. Where is this going to lead?
If it is the minister who is going to respond to these questions, I am going to ask him specifically: What did this individual do? He got contracts of over $100,000. It would take most people probably two or three years to earn that amount. What did this individual specifically do that would earn him this kind of money and how was that justified?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this question has been answered.
The individual concerned assisted with finding a solution to a very difficult matter and then implementing it. Certain individuals by an adjudicator's decision were given benefits to which they were not entitled under the War Veterans Allowance Act which was passed by this House in the 1920s. As a result there was an overpayment of nearly $30 million a year for 10 years. That was unacceptable.
This government reviewed every single spending priority and found that we could not sustain this kind of expenditure because Parliament did not originally intend members of the resistance to get those funds. In fact Canada was the only country paying those particular individuals.
The hon. member is so concerned about the administrative procedures within my budget but can he assure me that his own leader's budget is not being used in the same way? Can he assure me that his leader has not been making similar arrangements with people associated with the Reform Party? We know that at least three defeated Reform candidates are working for members opposite, including the leader of the Reform Party.
I understand that an agreement has been reached with the province of Alberta on the issue of user fees in private clinics. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health to tell the House what this agreement will mean for Albertans.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that an agreement was struck between the Minister of Health for Canada and his counterpart in Alberta.
The agreement is essentially twofold. As of July 1 private clinics will no longer be permitted to bill patients for facility fees for insured services and at the same time bill the province for physicians' fees. The federal deductions in the transfers to Alberta will cease immediately upon this decision.
For Albertans and Canadians everywhere, this means that the Canada Health Act does work and the principles are being upheld because of co-operation between governments. It means the citizens of Alberta are guaranteed access to universally guaranteed medical services.
As part of the restructuring of employment centres, the Granby CEC, which is located in the riding I have the privilege to represent, saw its staff cut to an extent that is unjustifiable if we compare it to cuts made at the Cowansville CEC, in the neighbouring Liberal riding of Brome-Missisquoi. The Granby centre will now have the same number of employees as the one in Cowansville, although it must serve twice the number of taxpayers.
Although the minister has repeatedly said that the purpose of the restructuring was to improve services, can he tell us the logic behind a decision to allocate the same number of employees to both centres, when one of them serves a population twice as large?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the process of restructuring a department and changing service delivery to our clients, decisions are never easy.
However I would like to explain to my hon. colleague, as we have already tried to do on numerous occasions, that we are always ready and willing to provide him with all the information and explanations, either through our director general for Quebec or through officials of my department and myself. We had to take decisions throughout Canada and Quebec, and these are always very difficult. They are never decisions that will please those living in the communities hit the hardest.
As for the purpose of the exercise, we have only one criterion: that is to be certain that, at the end of the exercise, we can provide the necessary services to people. With yesterday's announcement, I hope that we will have strategies in the future that will perhaps improve the situation. But, for the time being, we believe we have acted fairly and equitably, particularly toward our clients.
I ask the minister of immigration to assure the House that federal taxpayers will not end up footing the bill as the separatist forces in Quebec attempt to display some compassion for newcomers to that province.
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for major ports of entry like Montreal to receive a large number of refugees. Much the same occurs in Toronto and Vancouver. It fluctuates among the ports of entry in this country. Immigrants come to all the large centres of the country. Once they are here there is freedom of movement in the country. We do not order people to stay where they have landed. They are allowed to move across the country.
(1200 )
Refugee policy is set by discussions with the provinces, with NGOs and with communities. It is not set in isolation. We have one of the best systems in the world in terms of refugee acceptance.
An hon. member: It is the easiest.
Ms. Minna: If you do not want to listen to the answer, you do not have to.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian adaptation and rural development fund was announced in the 1995 budget. It really is an excellent example of how the federal government and industry are working together.
The federal government is taking a new approach to the whole problem of working with industry. We are encouraging it to appoint stakeholders in a common way to decide how those rural adaptation dollars will be used in order to benefit the industry.
The Agriculture Adaptation Council, a non-profit coalition of 47 groups in Ontario, has established a fund and is working to make certain Ontario establishes positive movements for adaptation.
Quebec is doing the same thing with two very prominent agricultural groups in Quebec. They have already received funding as well.