Could the Minister of Justice confirm the government's intention of intervening in support of Mr. Libman and indicate the reason for its intervention?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is premature for us to take a position on that question. Naturally, any time the constitutionality of legislation is an issue, it is a matter of interest.
At this point, although leave has been granted to the appellant, the court has yet to formulate the constitutional questions it will be considering. When those questions have been formulated by the court, we will examine them and determine whether there is any way the Attorney General of Canada can assist the court in dealing with the constitutional issues that arise.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice confirm that his real intention, in intervening in the Libman case, because we know he would like to, is to come to the defence of those Liberal members and members of his organization who are accused by the Directeur général des élections du Québec of spending illegally in support of the great rally in Montreal for the no side during the Quebec referendum campaign?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the point. We have been monitoring this case and its progress in the courts since long before that issue arose. Our interest is in the attention the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country, will pay to questions of constitutionality.
I stress for the hon. member and for the House that we have made no decision on the question of whether to intervene. Our decision will only be made after the court has formulated the relevant questions and after we have had an opportunity to examine them in relation to the issues that the court will consider.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister of Justice explain the fact that, after the government's attempt to change the rules of democracy in Quebec, after its alliance with Guy Bertrand to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future, after expressing its intention to decide the referendum question, the government now wants to join with Robert Libman in attacking the Quebec Referendum Act, a tool Quebec of democracy has given itself, which it does not want affected by the federal government's intervention?
(1420)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would first point out that no decision has been made regarding Mr. Libman's case. As I said, we are currently waiting to hear how the questions will be put by the Supreme Court of Canada.
As regards Mr. Bertrand's case, I would also like to say that we are not involved in this case because we want to support Mr. Bertrand. We intervened because of the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec. When he said clearly that the process of Quebec's move to sovereignty was beyond the sway of both the Constitution and the courts of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada had to get involved to counter this statement. It is not true.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Libman case, it is not even the Constitution that is involved, it is the Quebec referendum legislation. What the Minister of Justice is telling us is pretty unbelievable.
I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is aware that for months his government, he and his Minister of Justice, have been killing themselves to bring up the constitutional question at every possible occasion, so as to go at Quebec democracy hammer and tongs at every opportunity, and to constantly assail Quebecers' democratic progress toward sovereignty.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing we want is to see democracy respected in Canada. There have been two referenda, and Canada won both times. We are not interested in seeing this continued. It is the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec separatists who want to see it continued, while most of the people of Quebec and of Canada have had enough.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister does not wish to continue, I must say he is experiencing difficulty in restraining himself, since in the Bertrand case and in the Libman case, finding allies in Quebec takes some doing.
Could the Prime Minister admit that, when it comes down to it, the reason for his wishing to intervene in the Libman case is that he wants to see more than one pro-federalist referendum committee created, maybe because he no longer trusts his Quebec federalist allies such as Daniel Johnson, and because he wants to see no more barriers restricting the number of millions his financial allies, some of them with family trusts behind them, are prepared to pour into Quebec, as they did in the last referendum with the Montreal rally?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of accusations within this question which are not factual. We have respected all of the laws involved. I believe that the fact that some Canadians decided to travel to Montreal in this the freest country in the world, a country which allows separatist MPs within the Parliament of Canada, that MPs and other citizens of Canada wanted to go to tell Quebecers that they must remain in Canada, shows a respect for freedom of speech, which is entrenched in Canada's Charter of rights.
The first charter respecting the right of all citizens to freedom of speech was created in France. I hope that the people of the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois will respect the freedom of speech of all Canadians concerning the future of their country.
What Canadians expect from the government are some signs of willingness to change, even if it breaks their Liberal hearts to have a smaller federal role in a decentralized but unified country. People realize that the status quo is not working and they want to see a fresh start.
After last year's referendum, the Prime Minister struck a cabinet committee to come up with the answers on national unity. Is this national unity committee still meeting? When can we expect to see the report for the Canadian people?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that at long last, the Reform Party is interested in the future of Canada. When I stood in the House and told everyone that it was not possible to break up a country with a one-vote majority, I well remember the members of the Reform Party sided with the Bloc Quebecois on that issue.
I hope the Reform Party wakes up some day and reads the speech from the throne in which the program for national unity was very well stated. A big part of it will be completed after the meeting of the first ministers Thursday and Friday of next week.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing to reassure Canadians that it has the solutions to keep this great country together.
It has touted the national unity dream team but half of that team is benched and the other half is silent. It stated that distinct society status would solve the problem but it has been rejected time and time again. Now, according to the polls, apparently more Quebecers than ever feel that Quebec may separate. The government has no plan and no team. The 10,000 patriots who were here on the weekend have begged the Prime Minister to finally show some leadership.
The unity minister said that we will have anarchy if the separatists win another referendum.
What is the government's plan to prevent that from happening and when will it announce it so that Canadians can have some reassurance that the government has a handle on the national unity situation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the people who came to the Hill yesterday would be very delighted to know that the Reform Party supports bilingualism in Canada. The people who came yesterday were from Montreal, Quebec, Pontiac and so on. Many of them were anglophones from Quebec who are in favour of the bilingualism policy of Canada which the Reform Party has always rejected.
A moment ago, the hon. member referred to distinct society. Again the contribution of the Reform Party was to vote against distinct society. I hope that some day the Reform Party will wake up. However, if we waited to have the support of the Reform Party in order to solve this Canadian problem we would have no solution. I guess we will have to solve the problem despite the Reform Party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if only we had some plan from the Prime Minister. The government is so far behind on this issue that it thinks it is first, but it has been lapped by the Canadian people.
The truth is that the government is navel gazing over distinct society and constitutional vetoes, ideas that went out of favour 30 years ago. Canadians know that the realignment of federal-provincial power is a major consideration that will help to bind the country together. Quebecers are not the problem. The regions are not the problem. Ottawa's government is the problem.
Since the provinces refused to meet with the Prime Minister to discuss constitutional change, will the federal government move now and promise to give back to the provinces those areas of jurisdiction which the Constitution states are theirs to administer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a copy of the speech from the throne on his desk. Everything he has asked can be found in it.
The Minister of Human Resources Development, for example, has moved on the labour management situation. We made propositions to the provinces in many fields in the speech from the throne. We hope to rebalance the federation. We want to clarify jurisdictions. We want to eliminate duplication. However, the Reform
Party is four months late on that issue and on everything else it is probably 40 years late.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister admit that his revenue minister's inaction and his government's refusal to investigate this scandal leaves wide open a loophole that can still be used by owners of family trusts or by any millionaire?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is patently wrong. There is action by this government. The issue has been sent directly to the committee on finance for advice and for information to come back to the minister for his consideration.
This is nuts because quite frankly the committee is doing a very expeditious job hearing witnesses from across the country on this very important aspect of the Income Tax Act and we do look forward to their recommendations.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government still refuses to shed light on the 1991 case. That is why it is trying to sidestep the issue at the Standing Committee on Finance. That is what is happening.
Even though we are facing one of our worst financial scandals, the Prime Minister continues to sit on his hands. Whose interests is he protecting in Canada, those of the Thomson family, the Bronfman family, the Irving family, the Desmarais family, or all of the above?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be indicating that he does not agree with the democratic process, that he does not want to participate in the democratic process. I understand that he has walked out of the committee that we have asked to seriously look at the Income Tax Act and provide good and full information to us on several occasions.
I would ask him to get to the committee, to listen to the witnesses who are there and to provide the best advice that he can on behalf of Canadians from across this country.
On March 27 the minister stated that employment insurance premium surpluses must have an upper limit. The surplus is now estimated to be $5 billion for this year alone. A majority of Canadian pension fund managers recently stated that the primary reason job creation in our country is stagnant is due to payroll taxes.
Will the minister tell the Canadian people when enough is enough and when the job destroying employment insurance payroll tax will be reduced?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and myself have said on a number of occasions that we are aware that through a series of events we are now moving to a surplus position in the EI account.
My hon. friend would know that a year ago, two years ago, three years ago quite the opposite was the situation. The last thing that the hon. member would want is to have a repeat situation of when we were in a recession with very high levels of unemployment and we were then faced with increases in the rate for premiums.
We are trying to make sure that we can set a level for a surplus in the EI fund that is consistent with the historical trends in that fund. We will be paying close attention to it.
I am sure that we will be able to satisfy the hon. member's concern about making sure that we have a sufficient reserve in the fund but also be able to address the whole question of payroll taxes, including premiums for employment insurance.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): In that case, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the minister would work toward making the EI fund self-sustaining and actuarially sound. Had it been actuarially sound previously we would not have to dip in so deep this time. That is the major problem with the EI program. It should be insurance.
The minister knows that chronic high unemployment and under employment of Canada's youth is really a national disgrace. It robs youth of self-respect, hope and a stake in our common good and our common future.
If payroll taxes such as employment insurance and Canada pension fund premiums affect the lowest paid and the most
vulnerable first and most, why does the government continue to put such a high reliance on job destroying payroll taxes to generate revenue?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to have it both ways. If the employment insurance fund is to be self-sustaining, which in fact it is, because when it falls into deficit the government is required to cover that deficit. The government and the taxpayers are repaid as the employment insurance fund recovers. That has been the case over the last year where the deficit was finally cleaned up and now we are moving to a surplus position.
(1435 )
Unfortunately, neither actuaries, governments, the private sector nor labour, for that matter, can predict exactly the requirements of the employment insurance fund. It depends on the situation that prevails in the economy at any given time.
The only thing we can do is try to be prudent. I understand the hon. member's point with respect to the surplus. We have to be careful not to let it increase beyond reasonable proportions.
As I indicated in my answer to his first question, I do not think the hon. member or anyone else would like to see us go back to a situation where in a recession, in addition to having a major drain on the employment insurance fund, the government would have to increase the premiums to try to reduce that deficit position.
It is always difficult to find a balance but as usual we will try to do the best we can.
While hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake and the public is expecting quick action, how can the Prime Minister, who is hiding behind his minister of revenue, justify his government condoning, by not taking action, the flight of capital, tax free?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me review the action we have taken.
On receipt of the report of the auditor general we acted that very day and sent his concerns to the committees of this Parliament, committees made up of members of this House that represent Canadians, to look at very important aspects of the Income Tax Act.
It is my understanding that the finance committee will review those aspects of the Income Tax Act. I understand it has been agreed at the public accounts committee to begin to review other aspects, sure to be required, on return from the summer recess.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the auditor general said it could happen again, that the Deputy Minister of National Revenue confirmed the auditor general's statement and that the Minister of Revenue failed to introduce effective measures, why is the government refusing to shed light on the $2 billion in family trusts that were transferred, tax free, in 1991 and on other cases that may have arisen since then?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member points out, this issue took place in 1991. It predates this government, but we are taking very direct and important action on this concern.
I understand it was the hon. member himself who sat as chair on the public accounts committee when the decision was made of which order the issues presented by the auditor general would be reviewed at finance committee and then at public accounts.
Will the justice minister introduce legislation to repeal this section of the Criminal Code?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have responded repeatedly to his questions and the questions of others by saying that I do not believe that the repeal of section 745 is appropriate.
I have also said that I believe strongly that changes could be made to section 745 to address some of the real problems with the section, some of the issues that have arisen. We have been speaking with, we have been listening to, we have been analysing the comments of a wide variety of people, not just my hon. col-
league-I know his views on the subject-but also judges, prosecutors, defence counsel, victims and victims rights groups.
The government will shortly introduce measures to strengthen and improve section 745 of the Criminal Code. I hope when we do that we will have the support of the hon. member and his party.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear that the minister is going to move on this very important subject.
Will the minister assure the House that the passage of the legislation to which he has referred is not just a half measure like so much of his legislation has been, and that it will be introduced in time to deny Clifford Olson the opportunity to appeal his parole before August 12 of this year?
(1440 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in order to determine whether something is a half measure, one would have to know pretty well what the extremes are. I do not think we will take the hon. member's position on these issues as a point of reference for this party.
I will not refer to any specific case, any specific crime or offender because we do not legislate in respect of individual cases. That is not the policy of the government. Our interest is in a process with integrity which serves the interests of the Canadian people, which ensures safety in society. In that regard we intend to propose changes to section 745 which will strengthen it and improve the process.
We will move shortly in that regard and I hope we will have the support of the hon. member when we do so.
Following the last Quebec referendum, the panic-stricken federal government launched a vast propaganda operation to flood the country, including Quebec, with Canadian flags. At a time when the federal government has a duty to manage taxpayers' money in a responsible manner, it is wasting that money in a contradictory and irresponsible way.
How can the heritage minister explain that, because of the federal government's sheer folly to flood Quebec with Canadian flags, an ordinary citizen can manage to get up to 26,000 of these flags?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage launched a campaign so that, on February 15, 1997, one million flags will fly in Canada. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Why not be proud to belong to this great country of ours?
We encourage every Canadian to fly our flag and, as part of the ongoing campaign, one flag is given to every household. There is no question of giving 20,000 to the same household.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage not find it indecent that, while her colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, is forced, because of a lack of money, to cut $7.2 million from the tokamak project, which is a job creating initiative in Quebec, her own department is spending more than $7 million in an inconsiderate way to buy kites and flags?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not find it indecent at all that sponsors from the private sector support the flag promotion campaign and provide financial support so that we can reach our objective of one million flags by next year.
Tourists from the United States are major contributors to the economic growth of Canada and of Guelph-Wellington. I would like the minister to tell me what she is doing to improve access, facilitate and encourage United States tourists to come to Canada.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government does understand the importance to our economy of tourism and business travel. At Revenue Canada we are constantly looking for ways to expedite and make it easier for low risk travellers to Canada to get here without compromising our commitment to safe homes and streets.
I am pleased to announce that last week we identified two new programs, CANPASS for private boats and private aircraft which will extend to low risk travellers the benefits of a preapproved permit and a telephone reporting system to help expedite them through customs and immigration without compromising the security of our communities.
(1445)
Revenue Canada is committed to achieving the smart border. It is programs like these that will make sure we achieve that goal.
To the minister of human resources, does standing four square behind seniors mean helping them or squeezing taxes out of them so they bleed?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate the hon. member is not paying attention to the process going on across the country. A group of people, including a member of Parliament who has been heading the hearings, has been meeting with provincial colleagues, with interveners and discussing the future of the Canada pension plan.
The hon. member suggested that somehow the government is looking at squeezing one group more than another. The whole idea of the Canada pension plan is that it works for everyone.
We know how the Reform Party would like to squeeze seniors. It would like to get rid of all pension plans and have people go to mandatory RRSPs. That would be the big squeeze.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it seems the minister has not read the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. The budget says that on top of normal taxation middle income seniors will pay an additional 20 per cent clawback on their income. That is an extra 20 per cent from this government.
I want to know why this government thinks that attacking seniors who built this country is the way to solve the senior citizens' crisis on pensions.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a unique way of looking at a situation that allows for the recovery of taxation from an individual with a certain level of income.
It is pretty hard to clawback middle income seniors and not affect people at the higher end of the scale. I am sure the hon. member in the wisdom he and his party exhibited over the weekend would find a way to achieve even that.
At the llth international AIDS conference in Vancouver, next July 7 to 12, over 5,000 scientific papers will be presented. For the international scientific community, advances in knowledge and research are holding out hope that AIDS can be transformed from a fatal illness into one that is chronic. But the state of research in Canada is looking quite a bit bleaker.
Can the Prime minister confirm the allegations of the Medical Research Council of Canada to the effect that there is now no longer a cent available for basic AIDS research in Canada?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question from the hon. member, the Government of Canada has provided moneys for the AIDS issue fully funded for fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98.
We are in the process of doing some very extensive consultations with a variety of different groups, particularly some of those involved in research.
Later this day I have round table discussions with some of the experts throughout the country on the Medical Research Council and the role it plays in terms of funding for various diseases and a variety of different items.
I assure the hon. member it is the intention of the government to, where resources are available, assist all those organizations in getting sufficient moneys for the purposes of research.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Medical Research Council can be all wrong.
Does the minister not find this situation disgraceful, and what does he intend to do to correct it, knowing that Canada ranks third among G-7 countries for the rate of HIV infection, but that it comes in dead last in HIV research?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not get off course with rhetoric. We in Canada have been very successful in managing the amount of moneys we have relating to the whole AIDS issue.
(1450)
If the hon. member is asking whether more moneys can be made available and whether it is necessary to get additional moneys, I would be the first to say yes, but we have to work on a balanced approach in terms of the money that is available.
I hope to further consultations with a variety of interest groups associated with the AIDS file in order to come up with additional
dollars and a further focused approach in order to find cures as well as prevention measures to work for that community.
Front line immigration officers advised against admitting criminals into Canada and the previous immigration minister refused to listen.
What assurances will the minister give to Canadians that there will not be repeat violations of the act and that criminals will be shut out of the country?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is not a new question, because each year the citizenship and immigration minister must table an annual report here in the House regarding ministerial permits issued.
I would like to point out that, since 1990, there was a 73 per cent drop in the number of ministerial permits issued by various immigration officials and that they are issued only after a very serious case study has been carried out, and for various reasons.
For example, it can be for strictly technical reasons, medical reasons, or because an individual has committed a reprehensible act several years earlier, but we are confident the person will not do so in Canada. In short, with each passing year, we have become more restrictive, and it is very clear that each time a decision is made, it is for humanitarian reasons.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians want input into immigration policy. Instead they get another minister with her head buried in the sand and an immigration policy designed and driven by special interests.
In addition to the 1,500 special entry passes granted to criminals, 44 permits were issued to people previously deported, 10 more were given to individuals suspected of terrorism and another 395 passes were granted to those who posed a health risk to others.
By issuing the permits, the minister has violated section 19 of the Immigration Act. Why did the minister violate the Immigration Act, thereby compromising the internal security and the public health of Canadians?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat, these permits are issued on a temporary basis for humanitarian reasons. I wonder who is burying its head in the sand, when members of the Reform Party are writing almost weekly requesting that people be admitted.
I have examples here. The member for Beaver River and the member for Okanagan are asking us to admit to Canada people not eligible under our legislation. But in Canada, we are very humane, very welcoming, contrary to what the Reform member is saying.
In response to a request from the Standing Committee on Industry, the Canadian Bankers Association has now provided a report on the relationship between the banks and small and medium size enterprises.
How will this report assist our government to make sure small businesses have the financial services they need in order to flourish, to grow and to create new jobs?
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, since the time of the election the government has identified small and medium size businesses as the sector of the economy where most of the potential job growth lies. It has been very important to deal with the issues the small business community has been bringing to us. I suppose at the top of that list would be access to financing.
(1455)
Repeatedly we have heard it needs access to financing not only from governments but particularly from Canada's chartered banks. The industry committee asked for the Canadian Bankers Association to come forward with a baseline study which will enable us to understand exactly what that relationship looks like today and begin to pursue the policies that will ensure that in the future the small and medium size businesses of Canada have the level of capital they need, both debt and equity, in order to create the jobs Canadians are looking for.
[Translation]
The second attempt at refloating the Irving Whale has now begun. It is essential, in case a spill occurs, that the company have adequate insurance to cover the cost of environmental damage. But on page 43 of the last environmental assessment report, dated March 1996, one reads that, as of now, the company's insurance policy does not cover PCBs.
Can the minister certify that insurance contracts have been revised and now cover PCBs. If so, can the minister table these contracts in the House as soon as possible to reassure the public?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian public opinion overwhelmingly has requested the Irving Whale be lifted because it proposes the lesser of the various risk options. It must be said that no option is without its risks.
The province of Quebec and its minister of the environment have given a green light to the raising of the Irving Whale. There have been four careful technical assessments done incorporating public participation throughout. This morning the court has allowed and approved the raising of the Irving Whale.
We are taking every precaution possible. I ask for the support of the hon. member's party.
Will the minister not recognize that racially segregated fisheries can only lead to confrontation and deep six the policy?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that the Federal Court of Canada last week indicated the fisheries complained of do not represent any harm to commercial fisheries. The hon. member will be aware of that because an injunction was refused to him.
The fisheries in question are part of the aboriginal fisheries strategy which is enjoined upon the Government of Canada by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The catch allocation is modest, less than 10 per cent of the expected returns, and under the terms of the agreement all net profits from any fish sold are to be used for fisheries management projects jointly agreed to by the department and by the First Nations.
Women from every province and territory are marching against poverty and are demanding in one strong voice that the Liberal government keep its promise of a national child care program.
This weekend we saw the federal funds for child care cut by over 100 per cent from the original commitment. The Minister of Finance has said he will not raise corporate taxes to help pay for programs such as child care.
Why has the government made it a priority to please corporations rather than look to the welfare of Canada's children?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we had a program and we submitted a proposal to the provinces. It was very clear that it was to be a cost shared program. We discussed it with the provinces, but the provinces were not interested in participating in an expanded program for child care.
As it is within provincial authority, and it was written that it had to be a joint program, and as the provinces did not want to move on it, we respected their jurisdiction and we did not move. We respected the constitutional responsibilities of the provinces as well as the national responsibilities.
On June 7 the federal government hosted a forum to discuss world hunger and food security with groups from across Canada. As a result of these discussions is the minister contemplating any changes so Canada can do more to help feed the world's hungry people?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is in the process of organizing a world food summit which is to be held in Rome in November of this year.
The preparations for that summit began last year here in Canada when we hosted the 50th anniversary celebrations marking the founding of the Food and Agriculture Organization which was first established in 1945 in Quebec City.
Canada is now in the process of putting together a position paper to represent the views of Canadians. On June 7 representatives of the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors were involved in consultations on that paper together with representatives of the provinces.
Canada intends to be thoroughly represented at the world food summit in Rome because we do take very seriously our international responsibility with respect to alleviating hunger in the world.
The Canadian heritage report says nothing about this situation and reveals the government accepts a French only policy in Quebec which discriminates against the English community while practising enforced bilingualism in the rest of Canada.
What will the heritage minister do to increase the representation of Quebec anglophones in federal government jobs within that province?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the jurisdictions of the various levels of government should not be confused. This government's responsibility is to help minorities of either official language throughout Canada. Consequently, we give substantial help to the French speaking population living in a minority situation, and to the English speaking population in Quebec.
But employment practices at the provincial level are strictly a provincial matter and are not within the purview of the Government of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.