The Prime Minister's letter to his provincial counterparts concerning the agenda of the first ministers' conference says this: ``We will discuss, among other things, the realignment of the roles and responsibilities of our partnership in areas such as manpower training, federal spending powers, mining, forestry, and so on''.
Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's letter that, for the federal government, partnership means that, as in the area of manpower training, Ottawa will set the national standards, guidelines or objectives and monitor the implementation of these standards, while the provinces will have to be content with administering the programs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's objective is to clarify as much as possible the division of responsibilities between the various levels of government to ensure that the federal government is highly effective and competent and in a position to help Canadians in its areas of jurisdiction, that the provinces, too, are highly competent and effective in their own areas of jurisdiction, and that there is a very strong partnership between the two levels of government.
The June 20 and 21 conference will give us an opportunity to take a major step in that direction by addressing each of these issues in a concrete and sound manner, always keeping in mind the need to improve government services for all Canadians.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we also to understand that, according to this notion of partnership, the federal government will, once again, follow the same model as for manpower training, that is to say, it will withdraw or say it will withdraw from operations and then refuse to pay full compensation to the provinces, forcing them to foot the bill while-let us not forget-it continues to pocket taxpayers' money?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a while ago, the Minister of Human Resources Development, Mr. Young, revealed an offer made by the federal government to all the provinces. This offer proposes a general framework under which each province will be able to set its own policies in its own areas of jurisdiction to better serve its people.
This offer was acclaimed everywhere in Quebec as a great step forward, if not the finishing line for a concrete solution. We can now say that job training is on the right track. We will soon have in Canada one of the most admired parliamentary models.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we in Quebec were happy to hear that negotiations would be held. There was mention of a starting point. I now realize that, for the minister, the starting point is the finishing line.
(1420)
This is in keeping with the federalists' faultless logic. They say: ``We are at the starting point in initiating negotiations''; they then turn around and say: ``No, no, it is the finishing line''. Thank you very much; that is quite interesting.
In the federal government's effort to reorganize the federation, does it not intend, in the final analysis, to reproduce the Charlotte-
town accord, since it is very similar? So the Charlottetown accord gets in through the back door, piece by piece. This agreement, need we remind the House, was rejected not only by Quebec but by all of Canada, as it was too much for some and not enough for others.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as manpower training is concerned, a general framework was proposed and very well received across Canada.
I understand this may bother the official opposition, since it does not want to see the Canadian federation work better all the time. On the contrary, Bloc members want to break up the country. That is why we will never have their co-operation in finding concrete solutions that will help Canadians receive better services from their governments.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, also regarding the agenda of the first ministers' conference, the government says it is willing to make proposals to create jobs for young people.
How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain that, on the one hand, Ottawa says it is withdrawing from the manpower sector, including for youth, and, on the other hand, it is indicating its intention to remain present in this area?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly normal for the Government of Canada to want to maintain a presence in a many areas where the provinces may play a very important role.
To be sure, Canada is made up of provinces whose resources are quite different, and whose programs are not always similar. All we are saying is that we are there to represent the interests of all Canadians, including young Canadians. However, we want to recognize and respect the jurisdiction of the provinces in every case.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the letter addressed to its provincial counterparts, the federal government also states its intention to remain present in the social security sector. However, with the Canada social transfer, Ottawa is withdrawing its financial support from that sector. Again, the new federal way of doing things is to establish national standards, while stopping financial contributions to programs, without any compensation.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs finally recognize that, while he is talking about partnership, his government's true intention is to reduce the role of the provinces to that of mere subcontractors of federal policies?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Martin's last budget, it is indicated that-
[English]
The Speaker: We usually refer to ourselves by our titles rather than our names.
[Translation]
Mr. Dion: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
The last budget of the Minister of Finance mentioned a minimum amount of $11.1 billion for the Canada social transfer. We are committed to allowing the provinces to do long term planning as regards their budget. We made this commitment in spite of current economic difficulties. This is a first for a federal government. One would have a hard time finding a similar commitment by a federal government in another federation.
If opposition members looked at other federations, they would realize that Canadian provinces have more power and responsibilities than the German Länders, the Swiss cantons and the American states. Our federation is one of the most decentralized ones in the world, and it allows each province to express its own way of being Canadian. This is what Canada is about.
Will there be substantive discussions on the Constitution at the first ministers conference, or is this simply a cynical political ploy to avoid doing what has to be done in April 1997?
(1425 )
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the letter was crystal clear regarding that subject.
It is not clear whether we have met the commitment under section 49. Our discussions on June 21 would permit us to consider how we might move forward in the search for an amending formula that would find wide approval from Canadians. The purpose is to
be sure that we meet the commitment of section 49. Once this is done, we want a process that will lead us to a better amending formula for all Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what is obvious is it seems the Prime Minister is trying to change his well deserved reputation of ``don't just do something but stand there''. It is also painfully obvious that this government will be presenting the premiers with constitutional proposals that have not had any public input.
The Prime Minister's so-called plans for national unity are supposedly contained within the speech from the throne, but the throne speech also promises public input. If next week's constitutional negotiations are going to be more than a political photo-op, where is the public input? What happened to the Canadian people?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agenda is full of good things for Canadians. Whether it is the economic union, the social union, or the rebalancing of the federation, we have a full list of very important topics that the first ministers will discuss seriously. In the end, we will have an improved federation.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the throne speech should be positioned beside a throne where its paper could be of much use.
The Prime Minister promised in his throne speech that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country. Apparently that does not extend to such things as the Constitution or the amending formula.
The objections of the premiers of Quebec, Alberta and B.C. are well documented. The Canadian people apparently have been excluded from the constitutional process. The Prime Minister has slipped the Constitution on to the agenda and has hoped that nobody would notice.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will Canadians get to see the Prime Minister's constitutional proposals before he presents them to the premiers, or will Canadians simply have to wait while he does it behind closed doors like Brian Mulroney?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose is exactly the reverse. We have an open process to discuss a better amending formula for all Canadians. This is the purpose. The first ministers will decide. We hope to have the collaboration of the hon. member.
[Translation]
How can the minister still claim to have the support of the Quebec business community, when the Montreal Stock Exchange, the Mouvement Desjardins, the Barreau du Québec, the Quebec section of the association of securities brokers, numerous firms including Ogilvy Renault, the Investors Group, McCarthy Tétrault, and many others, have said they are against the plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I said, and I repeat it again, is that it is most certainly at the request of several provinces and of the business community, including large companies in Montreal that issue shares, Montreal brokerage firms with national offices, which asked us to look at the situation. We are examining the possibility. It is at the request of the business community, at the request of the provinces.
Furthermore, I would ask the member the following question: If the Canadian business community requests it, if the Montreal business community requests it, should we ignore the fact that it makes very good sense to rationalize the system in Canada in order to be more competitive internationally?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the official opposition asks the questions and the government is supposed to answer. Until now, the list of those in Quebec who oppose the plan is growing daily.
(1430)
I would ask him the following question: Will the minister admit that a Canadian securities commission would, in the opinion of many, concentrate all Canada's financial expertise in Toronto and thus reduce all other financial centres, including Montreal, to mere branch offices of the Toronto head office, without real powers? That is the reality.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pardon me for thinking that perhaps the Bloc's finance critic had an opinion. But if he is asking questions without having a real opinion, that makes the debate a bit difficult.
I can tell you that there is no question of concentrating everything in one place. The point is to make it possible for the Montreal, Vancouver, Alberta and Toronto stock exchanges to compete on an equal footing with the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ.
With the globalization of world markets, integration is becoming very important in order to give Quebecers and Canadians a solid foundation on which to build. That is what we wish to do, that is the vision for the nineties. We have left the sixties behind.
What is the difference? Why should any first degree murderer, regardless of the number of people he kills, get early release?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the legislation I will table later today in the House of Commons will propose changes to section 745. The bill will speak for itself.
As to the difference between those who take one life or more than one life, the changes will introduce significant improvements to the section and the way it operates. It will ensure that only the most appropriate and deserving cases are given consideration under the section. It will also respond to concerns from victims groups that they not be required to participate in jury hearings at the sole option of the offender. It will provide a mechanism to ensure that cases that are brought before a jury have a reasonable prospect of success.
If the hon. member is not able to distinguish the difference between those who take more than one life and those who take one life, I say that she is overlooking a fundamental feature. The fact of the matter is that the sentencing policy for murder in this country should reflect a difference between those who take more than one life and those who take only one.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that the minister would be able to tell a victim: ``I am sorry, the murderer who killed your daughter or your son just murdered one person, so it is okay''. That is shameful and is exactly the reason it just does not work.
There is no justification for these kinds of changes. The minister said the bill will speak for itself. What about the thousands of victims across the country who are speaking for themselves and calling for an outright abolition and repeal of section 745?
What we are hearing is that one murder is okay and two murders are bad. Murder is murder, no matter how many people are killed and murderers should not get early release, period.
Instead of introducing these arbitrary half measures, why does the justice minister not simply scrap section 745 altogether and make all first degree murderers serve their entire sentence? Why not?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposals we will make are based on rational, logical and appropriate distinctions in the law. The taking of any life is not only a tragedy for the victim's family, but it is the most serious crime in the code and it is punished accordingly.
For the last 20 years the Criminal Code sentences for murder have included section 745, have included recourse to a community jury after 15 years. We are going to propose changes that will narrow the availability of that recourse to the most deserving cases and ensure that it is only available in those cases. In addition, we are saying that for those who commit multiple or serial murders, it will not be available at all.
(1435 )
I very much hope the hon. member and her party will join with us in strengthening in the name of victims and in the name of justice the provisions of section 745 of the Criminal Code.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell us whether it is standard procedure within his department to send letters to foreign authorities containing clear accusations against a Canadian citizen, when his department has no proof of that individual's guilt?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is referring to the process of police investigations.
Police conduct investigations but when any police force in the country wishes to make inquiries of a foreign authority or a foreign government, the practice is to come to the international assistance group of the Department of Justice to communicate that request to the foreign government. In those circumstances, the lawyers and the senior officials of the international assistance group meet with the police and determine that there is a reasonable basis for taking the next step in the investigation, which is to ask a foreign authority for assistance. Once that is done, then the lawyers in the international assistance group work with the police in formulating that request and send it abroad.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if it is a possibility that his department sends letters containing unproven charges merely to ensure that the foreign authorities will accept the inquiry being submitted to them?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that in this instance and in cases of this kind, we are talking about police investigations. The issue is not whether the person under investigation can be shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as would be the case if they were charged, tried and it was left to a court to decide. That is not the test.
If that were the test very few police investigations would be carried on. At any given moment if the police officer was stopped and asked whether he now had sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the officer said no but he wished to proceed to the next step, if we were to deny that at that point, we would never complete a police investigation.
The issue is not whether guilt can be established beyond a reasonable doubt at that stage; the issue is whether it is reasonable to take the next step in the investigation. That is the approach which is taken by the international assistance group when it has asked the police for help in communicating requests for help to other governments. That is the practice we follow.
Ending the notional input credits on used goods is nothing but a sneaky back door method of driving up taxes and prices. Meanwhile dealers employ people to sell used goods, from cars at auctions, to stamps, to furniture, to RVs and boats, and all of those industries are threatened.
Why is the finance minister gutting jobs in the used goods industry by piling job killing GST on GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that harmonization leads to greater job creation. That is clear. The member's position is simply nonsensical. Harmonization is the reason the Canadian Manufacturers Association supports it, the reason the Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports it and the reason the Retail Sales Council supports it. The fact is it is the reason the Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports it. Everybody out there wants to create jobs and wants to support harmonization.
When will the minister wake up and smell the roses?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is what Canadians are asking.
Taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs. Since the government came to power it has raised taxes $10.5 billion, mostly through these kinds of sneaky back door schemes.
How does the finance minister reconcile these job killing tax promises with his own government's red book promise to make jobs the number one priority of his government and his own budget promise not to raise taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave the member a promotion. I take it back.
(1440 )
If the hon. member wants to talk about jobs, 624,000 new jobs have been created. That is more jobs than France and Germany combined. In the last five months, 130,000 new jobs have been created.
The number of full time jobs is going up month after month. The government has brought in program after program for high technology, for trade. They are all programs for job creation. And every single one of them was opposed by the Reform Party that simply does not know what the modern economy is all about.
Despite the lessons learned in the contaminated blood scandal, we discovered on the weekend that a number of hemophiliacs are still having to deal with poor quality blood products. Health Canada, which has the job of ensuring a safe supply, is still not playing its role.
How does the minister explain that Health Canada has again allowed poor quality health products to get through, leaving it up to the hemophiliacs themselves to look after their own safety?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a very serious allegation. I am not aware of the details of the allegation, but if she wishes to provide me with additional detail I would be happy to examine it with my senior officials.
However, if the hon. member does not have the details of what she is suggesting, I think she should apologize to the House and to the officials of the department.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this information comes from a Canadian Press article published on the weekend, which said that some hemophiliacs had reported that the blood products they were using from a particular company were of poor quality.
Since it will take a long time to redesign the blood supply system and since safety standards are currently the minister's responsibility, could the minister propose measures under his jurisdiction that could be implemented immediately and that would protect hemophiliacs until the new supply system is in place?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says she read this in an article and so informs the House.
All I ask of the hon. member to do is provide me with specific information and I will examine it. If the Minister of Health is going to have to examine each and every allegation or alleged allegation of some individual somewhere in the country, that would be my entire responsibilities as the Minister of Health.
If the hon. member is serious about the allegation she will provide the evidence so that we can take corrective action.
As the government continues to redefine its role in regional economic development, and as the emphasis of ACOA broadens from providing funds to other kinds of support, could the minister tell the House what is being done to enhance Atlantic Canada's opportunities with regard to federal government procurement?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a development agency with an excellent record.
Procurement is one of the many roles that it is involved in and it costs very few dollars. This is an area where ACOA will make sure that Atlantic Canadian firms are aware of major federal government contracts and have an opportunity to be involved in them.
ACOA also promotes the capability of Atlantic firms for the international market.
It is bad enough that the minister came up with a plan that is going to destroy the livelihoods of thousands of B.C. fishermen, but on top of that, this Liberal minister is seeding even more division and anger by creating two commercial fisheries with different rules, different quotas and different privileges. This Liberal government promised equality but it does not practice it.
How does this Liberal government expect Canadians to accept the fact that natives will be permitted to fish commercially in the Alberni Inlet when non-natives will not? Why will this minister not stand up and smell the roses?
(1445 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member might be a bit confused when he talks about the two commercial fisheries.
Concerning the first commercial fishery that he degraded, just before coming to the House I was briefed by Mr. Matkin who is the chair of the committee that is doing the licence buy-back. In an hour's briefing Mr. Matkin reported very positively on how the plan was proceeding. I am sure the hon. member is very pleased to hear that this plan is getting more and more support as its success becomes even more apparent.
On the second point, with respect to the aboriginal fishery, the hon. member knows that the priority for salmon is escapement or conservation; aboriginal food, social and ceremonial; and then recreation and commercial fishery. This priority is being followed. It is very much in line with the aboriginal fishery strategy of which I am sure the hon. member is aware, but he must have forgotten during his question.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the minister is listening to his paid advisers and not thinking in realistic terms.
On Friday an injunction to stop this aboriginal commercial fishery was not granted, but the court said very clearly that
fishermen had been prejudiced by the minister's actions and that the fishermen had only the minister to blame for their situation.
Why does the minister not admit that he has totally screwed up the fishing industry on the B.C. coast? Why does he not admit that he has created the most divisive fishing climate in Pacific coast history? Why does the minister not resign if he cannot handle his job?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question was but I will try to address the intonation of the hon. member.
My only comment is that I am disappointed and I am surprised. With the new, moderate approach of the Reform Party I was expecting a different kind of question, so I will take his comment under advisement.
The human resources development minister contends that the resource envelope made available to the provinces for day care services was cut by 60 per cent because of the provinces' lack of interest in his program. But according to Canadian Press, the correspondence the minister received from the provinces said just the opposite.
Where did the funds the federal government was about to invest in day care services in Canada really go?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposal put forward by the Government of Canada before last Christmas regarding child care is well known. It was indicated at the time that funds were available, should the provinces want to participate in a national child care program.
I do not wish to contradict Canadian Press, because it would be terrible to get into a debate with Canadian Press at this time about the content of the letters in question.
Not only did the provinces express reservations about a national program in their letters, some going as far as rejecting the idea, but we had the opportunity to meet all our colleagues from coast to coast and not one of them told us: ``Yes, we have reached a consensus to go ahead with a national child care program''.
That said, our position has always been that we can work in partnership with the provinces to find solutions to the real problems facing those who would like to see a day care system put in place to meet their needs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec minister responsible for family matters has developed a five-year plan calling for the creation of 22,000 day care spaces over four years. On April 24, she wrote the Minister of Human Resources Development, asking him to transfer to her, with no strings attached, the share of federal funding coming to Quebec.
When does the minister plan to answer Pauline Marois' letter?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec and other governments change their minds and decide to participate in a national day care program, we are naturally quite prepared to sit down and negotiate with them.
(1450)
In this particular instance, that is certainly not the case. If it is only a matter of transferring funds with no strings attached, then they will have to speak to someone other than me, because I am not in the habit of sending money anywhere without making sure the interests of Canadian taxpayers are protected.
In the massive restructuring of the benefits to seniors, the minister has slipped into the fine print a rule that will tax low income seniors at a rate of 50 per cent on income over their seniors' benefit. That is the same rate millionaires and billionaires pay in this country.
Will the minister please explain this massive tax grab on low income seniors.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a time of shrinking financial resources, especially in a time when the population of seniors is expected to grow, it is important for the government to conserve its resources and basically focus on those who will need the help the most. That is exactly what we have done.
The alternative I suppose would have been what the Reform Party advocated which would have virtually eviscerated, decimated the federal government's support for senior citizens. However, we are not prepared to do that. We are going to ensure that senior citizens are able to retire in dignity.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says he does not want to eviscerate payments to seniors but when they earn more than $11,500 they are on a 50 per cent tax rate. That is the fact announced by the Minister of Finance.
Why is he doing that? Why is he penalizing seniors? Who needs the money more, this government or seniors who are struggling to get by?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the retirement system in this country effectively has three pillars: the OAS, the GIS, which as a result of our changes projected ahead we are going to ensure will be there for young Canadians and the Canada pension plan which we will be discussing next week with the provinces in order to make sure it is there for young Canadians. There is the whole scheme of retirement plans and RRSPs which have extensive tax benefits to ensure that a number of the people the hon. member is referring to will have a decent pension.
I remind the hon. member that our changes will take place in the year 2001. Those who are currently 60 years of age or over will be protected whereas the plan that was suggested by the Reform Party would have effectively gutted seniors' pensions immediately.
A United Nations international study shows there are significant increases in foreign investment in Canada. What is the government doing so that Canadians continue to benefit from the jobs foreign investment creates?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, new international business investment is at a record level in Canada. It has doubled in the last decade. That means one in ten jobs in this country is as a result of the flow of international investment. In fact, 50 per cent of our total exports, 75 per cent of our manufactured exports, flow out of that international investment.
It is a positive message for Canadians. We want to get more of it. We have a high priority and we have a lot that attracts people to Canada, because we are a gateway into NAFTA, a market of 370 million people. We have the productivity, we have the workforce, the competitive wages. We have the infrastructure, the energy supplies. We have all the things we need, including compatibility of technology through our metric system, to attract people to invest in Canada, not to mention our very solid quality of life.
In answer to a question from the official opposition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs pledged, on March 1st, to ensure ``that those who have been trained here in Canada will have full access and opportunity in the Haitian police force''.
(1455)
Three months later, and after a visit from the President of Haiti to Canada and a trip to Haiti by the minister, the situation remains unchanged.
Can the minister tell us why, three months after his commitment in this House, and given that Canada is leading, at its own expense, the UN mission in Haiti, more than 30 police officers trained in Canada are still waiting to be integrated into the Haitian force?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of those 30 people, 20 have been given employment by the Haitian government in a variety of security activities.
The problem is that the Haitian government does not accept dual nationality. It passed an act of their parliament subsequent to the training of the Canadian Haitians who hold dual passports.
We raised the matter when we were in Haiti and we are trying to resolve it with the Haitian government. In the meantime, of those 30 people, 20 have been hired in security activities.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that Canada invested close to $2 million in the training of these police officers. The minister just told us that a number of these young officers were hired by the Haitian government. But there remains a number of them, in which thousands and even millions of dollars were invested.
What does the minister intend to do to put the money invested in the training of these police officers to good use, until they are fully integrated into the Haitian force?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Canadian government, with the active co-operation of many municipalities, such as the Ville de Laval and the community of Montreal, have provided police officers for Haiti and are providing very good training and support. They are a great credit to their country and are of great assistance in the redevelopment of the Haitian civil police service. Those are the kinds of contributions we want to make, to use the experiences of our police forces to help the Haitians develop their national force.
In the meantime we are negotiating with the Haitian government to try and ensure that those who did receive the training have access. Already 20 have been given security jobs. The Haitian
parliament passed an act after the training took place. Now we have to get their parliament to change that act.
I think the hon. member knows the situation. It is not that easy to insist that Haiti pass retroactive legislation when it is struggling to provide for its own development. We will keep working on the file.
Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food quit stalling and make changes now to the Canadian Wheat Board that will remove the roadblocks to establishing more milling, malting and other value added processing across the prairies, creating real jobs and real economic growth?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party have asked a number of questions in the past, indicating their opposition to the Canadian Wheat Board. Those questions have been answered, but they appear to be impervious to logic.
Let me try another tack. I would like to quote the May 9 edition of the Manitoba Co-Operator and particularly remarks made by Mr. Ken Beswick, a former commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board who recently resigned. Mr. Beswick said: ``I am in no way saying the board is not an effective marketer. I think that it is among the best in the world at marketing grain. It stands toe to toe with the heavyweights out there in the global environment. And I think from my window at the board I would not advocate the elimination of single desk selling''.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister must not have heard my question. I was talking about some roadblocks and he got off on another topic all together.
His department has announced a magic scheme to encourage value added processing on the prairies by offering to help the agriculture sector create business plans. Well, it is the minister who needs the business plan.
Prairie farmers have to buy their own grain back at Minneapolis spot prices in order to sell to millers and maltsters down the road.
Why does the minister not force the Canadian Wheat Board to use its own forecasted final prices as the basis for grain sales to local markets, or better yet, let producers sell outside the board to millers?
(1500)
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take from the hon. member's preamble that he has now conceded the basic point about single desk selling.
The hon. gentleman should review the submissions made to the Western Grain Marketing Panel by the Millers and Bakers Association of Canada. It supported the Canadian Wheat Board before the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
It is possible that some new and more flexible ways can be devised in terms of pricing mechanisms pertaining to the Canadian Wheat Board. I will very anxiously await the advice of the Western Grain Marketing Panel at the end of this month. When we have its report we will each be in a better position to make sound decisions for the long term, rather than constantly jumping the gun like the knee-jerk Reformers.
June 21 is the first ministers conference. It is also National Aboriginal Day. It is therefore all the more ironic that the leaders of the First Nations have been excluded from the first ministers meeting.
Especially now that the Constitution is on the agenda, I ask the Acting Prime Minister what justification there possibly can be now for excluding those leaders of First Nations.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand the meeting, there will not be items dealt with specific to aboriginal people.
The Prime Minister sent out a letter yesterday or today inviting the First Nations leadership to a meeting preceding the conference with specific ministers and for a post-conference briefing after the meeting of June 21.
Canadians are very interested in the visit of the president of Mexico. Can the minister report to the House what initiatives have
been taken to strengthen our relationship with the people and the Government of Mexico?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
Today a number of ministers of the government met with their counterparts to put the final touches on a quite complex and broadly based declaration of objectives that will be presented to the Prime Minister and the president tomorrow.
It represents quite a unique undertaking between two countries, with the setting out of a blueprint of action covering a wide variety of topics. It sets out a real work plan for our two countries to get together on a wide variety of topics.
It is something very distinctive and demonstrates a new maturity of our relationship with Mexico.