Negotiations will be conducted with the provincial governments to reach agreements reflecting the aims of the various Canadian provinces. The minister also confirmed that a number of departments in the federal government are involved in the area of manpower training.
Could the minister confirm that the training programs administered by departments other than his own will be included in his negotiations with the provinces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the aim of the Government of Canada is to ensure arrangements are made to ensure these programs are managed effectively and by those in the best position to do so.
I would like to assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we fully intend to act on the proposal we made to the provinces whereby the Government of Canada would co-operate in every way possible with the provinces, as the provinces wish. However, I have no doubt that, once discussions are underway, there will be little that is not on the table in the context of the question raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he is prepared to table in this House a list of all the training programs the federal government currently administers that come under other departments and that will likely be under negotiation or discussion with the provincial governments.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are in fact trying to identify throughout the operations of the Government of Canada items that would be of interest in discussions with the provinces, however, I must tell you we have to be careful. The mandate of the Minister of Human Resources Development is limited. I do not want to walk on my colleagues' toes, but we will try to do our level best to be sure to meet our commitment to show once again that Canadian federalism is flexible and that it works.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to table this list, in any case. We would be interested in reading it, because we know there are a huge number of programs, which require our attention.
Would the minister tell us, by way of example, whether the proposed $315 million he announced this spring to help young people find jobs will be included in the negotiations between Ottawa and the provinces wanting it?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, we want to continue to ensure that young people and others affected by the operations of my department will continue to receive the services they need during this transition period.
Obviously, for this year, at least in the next few months, we will have to continue to manage these programs. Clearly, however, we are prepared to put on the table all the items we proposed and were prepared to negotiate with the provinces, depending on the point in time negotiations are concluded and on the content of the agreements.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who tells us that he will do everything in his power to ensure that all the programs are subject to negotiation. I would like to tell him that we will see to it. We will see to it that he does not step on his colleagues' toes and that his actions are not interpreted in such a manner.
(1420)
If everything is subject to negotiation, can the minister confirm that the Council for Canadian Unity, which is currently managing the Experience Canada program, will no longer be responsible for this training program?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to guess as to what the outcome of all these negotiations will be. However, with regard to the Experience Canada program, we do have other partners, including some major stakeholders from the private sector.
For now, we expect to remain responsible for the management of these programs. As I told the Leader of the Opposition, if agreements are reached with some provinces that accept everything we have to offer at the negotiation table, we will, of course, respect those agreements.
I am convinced that, in some cases, in some provinces, for whatever reason, maybe because they do not have the network or the resources needed to deliver these programs, we will still want
the private sector or other organizations to get involved, including the Council for Canadian Unity.
I want to stress the fact that, for the provinces that have the capacity or the willingness to take on responsibility for the management of these kinds of programs, then, of course, the programs will be managed pursuant to the agreement reached during the bilateral negotiations.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, another issue worth following.
Will the minister confirm that, upon the completion of these negotiations, which do not need to last three years, some youth training programs will end up with no funding?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell the House that, in many cases, the money will come from the employment insurance account. The consolidated fund is used to finance other programs. Also, many of the programs are implemented for a specific length of time, whether it is one, two or three years. That is certainly the case for some of the youth programs that, even before we released our proposal last week, had a deadline.
We will not change our minds at this point and say that we will extend them. If, for some reason, we have to transfer to the provinces some of the funds already provided for in the estimates or the budget, then we will certainly be ready to negotiate these payments.
Ontario is introducing legislation holding parents financially responsible for crimes committed by their children. It also wants the federal government to act on its recommendation of prosecuting children under 12 for violent crimes. Canadians, I believe, think this is a good idea. It has been part of Reform Party policy for years.
I guess what we really need to know is where the justice minister stands on such ideas. Will he change the Young Offenders Act so parents are held financially responsible for their children's actions and young offenders under 12 are held legally responsible for violent crimes?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I consider it my first obligation to show sufficient respect for the procedures of the House and its committees to await the report of the Standing Committee on Justice.
This week the committee is holding hearings in Toronto. It is before that committee that the ministers of the Ontario government have expressed the position summarized by my hon. friend.
I have asked the committee to report back this year with recommendations on changes to the Young Offenders Act, including the age of those persons caught by the act, including the range of penalties and including the broader question as to whether the Young Offenders Act represents the best approach to juvenile justice. I have asked the committee to take an open minded and comprehensive look at the whole system. Out of respect for the committee and its work, we will listen to those recommendations, we will act.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government has been in place now for three years. It will be well into year four by the time action, if any, does come.
(1425)
People in Toronto are wondering how much more consultation there will be. They already know that four out of ten robberies last year were committed by juveniles, double what it was ten short years ago. It looks like the Ontario government is taking action fast, not slow like this government.
Does the justice minister agree with the attorney general of Ontario that if 16-year-olds can drive, if they can get married, if they can have families and if they have the moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions they should be held much more accountable when they go wrong?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member to approach with caution the proclamations made by ministers in Ontario. They are doing what they do best, talking tough about crime and pointing the finger at another level of government.
The reality is if the Government of Ontario had followed through on the provincial obligations under the administration of the Young Offenders Act it would be working a lot better than it is today.
In so far as the hon. member's question is concerned with respect to the age of those to whom the act applies, I will await the recommendations of the committee. I have asked it to look at the evidence, not the rhetoric, not the politicians. I have asked it to look at the evidence and come back with recommendations on what ages the act should apply to. I have already told the House we will pay attention to those recommendations.
I want the hon. member to recall that it is this minister of this government who, in Bill C-37, proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act which would mean that 16 and 17-year-olds who are charged with crimes of most serious violence would be tried in adult court. Those members voted against the changes.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation with regard to the Young Offenders Act is the government has done diddly squat in three years about it. Not only are youth crimes increasing, they are getting much more violent in nature. What worries Canadians is that kids are getting tougher and tougher and the law makers in Ottawa are getting softer and softer.
I recently watched two young offenders in a courtroom laughing at the judge and at the victims. It is no wonder; the Young Offenders Act is woefully lacking.
Since we all know younger kids look to older kids for their cues in life, will the justice minister tell us what specifically he intends to do to send a message to those under the age of 12, who are kicking sand in the justice minister's face, that the government will not be bullied and that it will be tough on those kids?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understood the hon. member to say the government has done nothing about young offenders. I believe the hon. member did not complete his sentence. Surely what he meant to say is that we have done nothing about the Young Offenders Act that he has supported.
In Bill C-37 we made important changes to the Young Offenders Act which strengthened it, particularly in relation to violent crime. It will stand on the record of Parliament for the people of Canada to remember in the next election that the party opposite did not support those measures.
In so far as those under 12 are concerned, I have asked the committee expressly to look at that issue. I have given it a variety of models to consider. I have asked it to consult, to listen to the experts, to look at the evidence and to come back with recommendations.
In so far as the safety of the public is concerned, the hon. member, like so many of his colleagues from day to day, seems to think we can make the streets safer or solve the problems of violent crime simply by amending words in a statute sitting on a shelf in a room somewhere in Ottawa. If we are to do anything about crime we have to follow the strategy the government has in place which is not only to have a strong criminal law but to follow through on crime prevention.
[Translation]
The Canada employment centres restructuring plan involves incomprehensible decisions. Such is the case for Granby, Trois-Rivières, the Gaspé Peninsula, and others.
In light of the fact that the federal government has just tabled its proposals in the area of manpower, will the minister not recognize that it would be wiser to suspend the relocation of employment centres pending the negotiation of an agreement with Quebec since it could likely result in a reorganization of services?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are always decisions that are difficult to make. As the member knows, the Canadian government still intends to pay employment insurance benefits to the beneficiaries of that program in the years to come.
However, we have also made a commitment in the budget and said repeatedly that we had to be efficient and try to do things in the most intelligent way possible. That is not easy. There are always people who are unhappy when we have to relocate offices or to downsize, but, in the end, the important thing is that we must be able to provide services to our clients in all the regions, and we are confident that it is always the case.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary.
Beyond all these artificial arguments that he may put forward, will the minister not admit that the basic principles of good management require that he put this reorganization on hold since employment centres will eventually fall under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the concepts we have found very attractive in the discussions we have had for months and even years is the single window concept, a way to work together in co-operation.
We do not intend to impose anything on the Government of Quebec regarding the way it would want to manage the aspects of the employment insurance program that would fall under its jurisdiction. However, I am also convinced that, in this same spirit of co-operation, the Quebec government would not want to impose anything on us with regard to our part of the program.
Because Thompson interfered with a judge three cases to deport war criminals living in Canada will likely be thrown out of court. When the minister authorized Thompson to carry out his judicial skulduggery was he aware three Nazis would walk free?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have come to expect far better than that from the hon. member. His question is quite outrageous on any number of grounds.
First, he misstates the facts. Second, he ignores my response in the House last week. Third, he speaks in a conclusory fashion about three motions still pending before the federal court.
First, Ted Thompson went over to see the chief justice on March 1 without, to my knowledge, telling anybody at justice, certainly not me. Second, the entire matter is under the scrutiny of the former chief justice of Ontario, who has agreed to interview the people involved, look at the record and make a report. I have already said I will put that report before Parliament. Third, the last thing in the world anybody in justice wants to do is jeopardize the three revocation cases before the court. We have already asked the court not to stay them, notwithstanding anything that may have happened in this matter because there is no connection between the two. That matter has been argued and is under reserve in the federal court.
I invite the hon. member to look at the facts, be careful the way he puts his position and at least adhere to what is already on the record.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the justice minister thinks he can distance himself from Ted Thompson. He thinks he can duck his responsibility for judicial tampering, and that is not good enough. Either the justice minister was not aware of Thompson's activities, in which case he is incompetent or has lost control of his ministry, or the minister has a vested interest in not being aware-
The Speaker: I as the hon. member to put his question forthwith.
Mr. Hanger: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister disguising the glaring truth that Thompson's interference with a judge must have been made with the consent of the justice minister?
(1435 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no amount of emotive language, no accusatory tone and no misstatement of the facts will be sufficient to overcome the simple facts of this matter.
The simple facts which confront the hon. member are these. Mr. Ted Thompson went to see the chief justice. He followed up with correspondence to which the chief justice responded. That correspondence was put into the hands of counsel for the three parties in the revocation cases as soon as it came to the notice of the officials of the justice department. A motion was then brought before the court. That motion resulted in an argument and judgment has been reserved.
In the meantime I have taken steps through the appointment of a third party with an impeccable reputation to look at the facts and make a report which I will put before the House.
Those are the facts and the hon. member should pay attention to those facts before holding forth here for narrow partisan purposes.
Will the Minister of Finance finally recognize that his GST harmonization project, including the payment of almost $1 billion in political compensation to the maritime provinces, is unacceptable to a majority of Canadians, as was indicated to him by the premiers of the four most densely populated provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, the compensation is paid to the Atlantic Provinces for a transition period, which will expire four years from now. It is shared among these provinces and is part of a basic overhaul of the way these regional economies will manage the future.
The hon. member cannot be against a policy that will make the provinces more competitive. We can be proud of dealing with problems in this way instead of simply throwing money around, implementing megaprojects or making politics the way things were done in the olden days.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is the only one who is proud of this partisan political agreement with the maritime provinces. The premiers of four of the most densely populated provinces in Canada rejected it out of hand.
If the minister is unable to manage this ill-advised agreement, he should leave this issue to the first ministers and have it on the agenda of the next first ministers' conference.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's position does not make sense. Even the Quebec Minister of Finance congratulated the maritime provinces because
in agreeing to harmonize their taxes they will help eastern Canada as a whole, including Quebec.
This is an economic issue and, as the secretary of state said last Friday, we will discuss it, it will be on the agenda of the finance ministers' conference in June. In fact, that is the appropriate place for such a discussion.
For weeks now the minister has been denying he was cutting the B.C. salmon fleet in half so that he could reallocated fish to natives. Now we know the truth.
Yesterday while a commercial fleet remained tied up the minister allowed a native only commercial fishery to begin in the Alberni Canal. Why has the minister consistently denied cutting the fleet to free up fish for natives when this is precisely what happened this weekend?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is incredible the hon. member would put a question like that to the House.
The salmon revitalization plan was addressed to revitalize the commercial fishing industry in British Columbia, and it is doing exactly that. We do not have the final figures yet.
With regard to the aboriginal fishery, there is no intent whatsoever to do anything with the Pacific salmon revitalization plan other than to revitalize the industry. Any other motive the hon. member or his party would want to attribute to it I think is totally wrong and despicable.
(1440 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the intent of the minister's actions is quite clear. What is also clear is that on May 17 the minister's own department said there were not enough fish for commercial harvest in the Alberni inlet. Two weeks later there are enough fish for 14 days of almost continuous native fishing.
B.C. fishermen have long suspected that the minister does not give a hoot about them or the fish. Now they can be sure of it. Why are the livelihoods of B.C. fishermen and the very fish they rely on being sacrificed to make way for an expanded native only fishery?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear to this House is that the hon. member is trying to cloud the issues with total irrelevancies and with statements that really do not stand the test at all of what is going on.
His suggestion that this government would put forward a plan to favour one sector of the fishery over the other flies in the face of the facts. Despite his party's intonations, we have two honourable gentleman who have a lot of credibility in the industry who are looking into the allocation, intersectoral and intrasectoral.
I have to tell the hon. member he is wrong now, he was wrong in the past and he will be wrong in the future if he continues with these kind of uncomplimentary statements to the whole industry.
Last Friday, when replying to questions to the government about the concentration of ownership of the newspapers, the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec simply used the Competition Act as an excuse to justify the government's inaction.
Given that one corporation could take over almost 70 per cent of all newspapers in Canada, what is the Minister of Industry planning to do to ensure some balance between financial interests and the right to public information?
[English]
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, this is a strange formulation for a question. While the hon. member suggests that the answer provided on Friday was hiding behind the Competition Act, I would suggest to her it is the Competition Act within which we would find our powers and our ability to act, if it were so desired.
The balance she suggests, which indeed may be one in favour of which she can argue, is not a balance which is found within the Competition Act itself. If she reads the law itself she will find that the Competition Act, based on the decisions of the courts, deals with the economic interests and the concentration of ownership as it would impact on competition, within the framework of the business of newspaper publishing in this case.
Content itself is not a factor which the director of investigation research in the competition bureau is capable of considering.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since Conrad Black acquired Southam, the main publishers in Quebec agree that the future of the Canadian Press is at stake.
Will the Minister of Industry intervene, not only through the Bureau of Competition, but directly with Southam and Hollinger, so that these corporations maintain the job level within the Canadian Press?
[English]
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, again this is a government of laws, not of people whose opinions may or may not be of interest.
Under what authority does the hon. member suggest we should act? I suggest to her there is no authority in the Competition Act for us to consider the implications with respect to editorial content or journalistic opinion arising from this transaction. There are issues related to economic concentration and the director will look at those.
Does she really think governments should decide whether or not editorial content in the national newspapers reflects adequately the opinions that should be there? For my part I do not think the editors agree with us often enough, but that is not for me to say.
(1445 )
Would the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources tell this House how the projects being undertaken will benefit the Canadian economy and in particular help in the creation of new employment?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the oil sands development will be a major boost to employment and economic growth in Alberta and right across Canada. It will create one million person years of employment during construction and 44,000 permanent jobs.
This Liberal government is creating the economic space and climate for oil sands development to occur. This Liberal government is again bringing good news for economic growth and jobs in this country.
During the hearings of the travelling committee set up by the Department of Health to review its rules on raw milk, physicians who happen to be public health experts questioned the risk analysis made by the Department, considering it as incomplete.
How can the Minister justify having gotten involved in this business without having the complete analyses allowing him to do so?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the regulation was published some time ago, before I assumed the responsibilities as Minister of Health. In the interim a number of consultations are taking place not only in the province of Quebec but across the country.
Also a group of experts met in late May and will meet again in early July to examine all of the evidence and information which comes forward. We will be in a position to move one way, positively or negatively, with regard to the regulation.
Let it be clear that there is no banning of any raw milk cheese products in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in the country. This is a regulation which has been gazetted. Meaningful consultations are taking place and they will continue to take place until such time as they are complete.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Now that we know that the Minister had no serious analysis on which to base his decision to take action, will he back down and leave these producers of raw milk cheese in peace?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have much admiration for the hon. member but let it be clear that the information was provided through the auspices of gazetting on March 30. The purpose of gazetting it was for individuals not only in the industry, but also for experts to examine very thoroughly all of that information.
We have yet to receive the report of the group in the province of Quebec who are examining this particular issue. As the minister in the province of Quebec has said on public record, there are some difficulties as it relates to various special interest groups in that province and elsewhere.
I think it is only prudent that we examine all of the information, both favourable and unfavourable. Then we will be in a position to make our final determination.
Several years ago the SIU was stripped of its criminal investigative function when a judge found it had abused its powers. Why is the SIU still up to its old tricks?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members should know that the department accepted hon. Justice Marin's recommendations and all investigations are now the responsibility of the military police. The special investigation unit no longer initiates or conducts such investigations. However, it does have specialized equipment and is able to use it in support of the military police. I emphasize in support of the military police. Even these activities are fully consistent with Canadian law, including the Criminal Code and the Privacy Act.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yet again it seems that DND is running the minister rather than vice versa.
(1450 )
Judge René Marin warned the minister about a serious problem of accountability in the military police. The minister knew the potential for abuse but has failed to rein in his department. Now questions are being raised about serious violations of Canadians' right to privacy.
Will the minister explain why the SIU has not ceased criminal investigations as DND promised six years ago? Will he now assure us that the SIU will immediately stop doing so?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered the question. The SIU no longer initiates or conducts criminal investigations. However, it still exists and that was one of the recommendations of Justice Marin. It still exists but its activities are in support of authorized military police investigations which are consistent with Canadian law.
Can the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women please inform the House how this government will ensure that the special needs of women are accounted for in the process of CPP consultations?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question.
In fact 60 per cent of seniors are women and this number is going to increase as the years go by. This issue is very important to their economic independence. The Status of Women Canada, with the Caledon Institute, has looked at the data analysis of the impact of CPP on women. This process is supported by my colleague, the Minister of Finance.
We found that pay and work issues are very different for women and men. Survivor, child bearing and certain benefits impact more specifically on women. Since CPP is a joint federal-provincial-territorial issue, at the federal-provincial-territorial ministers meeting last week, the ministers all agreed that they would go to their ministers of finance and ask them to consider the impact of CPP on women.
In March, Markham Electric of Markham, Ontario was informed by CIDA that it was not one of the firms on a short list selected by the minister to submit a proposal to expand a high voltage electrical substation in Mali.
CIDA bureaucrats have determined that Markham and six other firms have the financial and technical capability to complete the project, but the minister in the privacy of his office picked three companies, all from Quebec, for the short list.
Can the minister explain why he denied Markham Electric the opportunity to compete in this bid?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the question put by the hon. member and I will investigate. I will ask my colleagues at CIDA what exactly took place and I will get back to the member.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, under Treasury Board rules this was the minister's personal responsibility.
Markham Electric has won over 50 per cent of the international projects which it has bid on. It has completed $100 million worth of worldwide projects for major international funding agencies and foreign governments.
Why does the minister exclude an internationally successful company with an impressive track record from merely bidding on the project in Mali? Was he afraid of getting an offer he could not refuse?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly not. On the contrary, CIDA has made the point and I have made the same point since I became the minister responsible for CIDA, that we always take the very best bids. We want to make sure that both the developing country and Canadians receive the best for their money. We will continue to do that.
As far as this case is concerned, I have already told the member that I will take note of it. I have no recollection of only three Quebec firms having been kept on the short list. The member is very lucky to have access to that kind of information because I have not seen it. I have never seen three Quebec firms on a single short list since I have been minister. We will look into it and report back to the member.
CIDA will continue to work hard on every contract making sure that both the developing country and the Government of Canada makes the best use of taxpayers' money.
[Translation]
The Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions admitted last week that intense manoeuvering by private interests is delaying the release of the white book on the Bank Act.
Are we to understand that the government is negotiating behind closed doors a reform that will meet only the wishes of lobbyists and will present the public with a fait accompli when it is released?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making wild accusations. That is not correct. The white paper will be out sometime this month. I am sure when it comes out he will see the results are not the results of the things he suggested.
Will the minister use this information for better Canadian policies, or will he continue to stand by in puzzlement while over one and one-half million Canadians look for work and become increasingly cynical about yet another Liberal broken promise?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how disappointed I am that the usually clear thinking and very careful member would raise a question in the context in which he did. As usual, Canada finds itself reasonably well positioned in a very difficult matter.
The member referred to two countries: Germany and the United States. He is quite right. In the United States the unemployment rate is below that of Canada and in Germany the unemployment rate is considerably higher. The unemployment rate is significantly higher in Germany.
We try to balance between systems we see in operation in other parts of the world. The puzzlement the hon. member refers to was the puzzlement that faced all of the ministers who were present and who are grappling with the unemployment problem that ranges from 3 per cent, which is considered to be a problem in Japan, to the 5 or 6 per cent in the United States, to 9.6 per cent in Canada and to well into double digit unemployment in the nation the hon. member just referred to, Germany.
Can the minister explain what he will do to ensure that the necessary fisheries trigger remains in the environmental assessment act and that the federal government can indeed administer yet to be tabled legislation affording endangered species and habitat protection?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which meeting the member was referring.
In terms of his allegation of the devolution of more powers on the environment to the provinces, certainly that was not the characterization of the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. A lot of sceptics would have suggested that the meeting would have been another failure. In fact, it was not only a success because Quebec was represented at the
table for the first time in two years, but rather than squabbling about the environment, we put the environment first.
Environment protection should be the raison d'être for all ministers and all governments. Also, the ministers agreed that any harmonization, any initiatives should speak to the highest standards of environmental quality across Canada. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has rarely ever said that.
[Translation]
The political situation in Burundi has been steadily deteriorating these last few months and anarchy is slowly taking over. This is having a destabilizing effect on the whole region of the African great lakes.
What does the minister intend to do to contribute to a peace process for Burundi?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Canada is deeply concerned with the situation in Burundi and it is in that context that the Government of Canada has put forward and initiated the meeting of the nine major development agencies to consider specifically the situation in the great lake region.
I will chair this meeting to be held in Geneva on June 17 and 18. I will be pleased to report to the House on that most important initiative taken by Canada. On a bilateral level, Canada will keep on providing humanitarian help, which is extremely important for Burundi.
[English]
Before we recognize them, I want the House to know there are seven women members of Parliament in the Government of Cambodia. It is they who are with us today. Welcome to Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.