Last evening, we heard on the CBC that there had been a meeting at 3 p.m. last Tuesday afternoon in Montreal, between the two attorneys, Mr. Petteras for the federal government, and Mr. Irosky for the plaintiff, to discuss the conditions of an out of court settlement.
Will the Minister of Justice confirm that there was indeed a meeting Tuesday afternoon in Montreal, with a view to discussing an out of court settlement?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the lawyers may do between themselves in discharging their obligations to conduct the litigation is up to the lawyers. It is best left to the lawyers.
We have been sued; we have retained counsel. We are defending the action and let us see how the litigation goes. Whether or not there were meetings between the lawyers and what was discussed, the fact is we are defending the action and we are preparing for the next stage of litigation. What happens in the conduct of that litigation often is off the record and without prejudice. In any event, it does not serve anybody's interests to have an hour by hour report on what the parties or the lawyers are doing in the litigation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to the same source, the lawyer representing the government was indeed given a specific mandate.
Will the minister acknowledge that the mandate of the counsel for his department included offers with a view to an out of court settlement?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not appropriate for me to go into what instructions may have been given in confidence to counsel in the course of litigation.
We are defending the action. We are preparing for the next stage of litigation and we shall deal with the litigation as it comes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the minister if he will acknowledge that his responses in the House for the past two days have been lacking in transparency, since he has repeatedly denied that there has been any offer and that, under the circumstances, it is really difficult to believe his repeated statements that he is not the one behind this investigation.
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. I was asked on Monday or Tuesday of this week by a reporter, in fact I was told that a settlement of this case was imminent. I said that was not so, that indeed as far as I knew there was no concrete proposal on the table. I said that then and it was true. I have also said that the parties from time to time have feelers one toward the other. That is typical in litigation. There is nothing surprising about that.
We are in litigation. We are defending the action. We are proceeding and preparing for the next stage. I shall report significant developments to the House when they occur.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday morning, the Prime Minister denied in a CBC interview that there had been any negotiations to settle the Airbus affair out of court. Yet, in a report presented yesterday evening, the CBC contradicted his statement.
In this matter, which is taking on more and more the appearance of settling political scores and less and less that of a properly conducted court case, why under the circumstances has the Prime Minister denied that negotiations had been held toward reaching an out of court settlement of the Airbus affair, last Tuesday in Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just given a response on this. It is a matter that is in the hands of lawyers, and lawyers do speak together. I am not aware of everything that the lawyers talk about.
(1120)
This matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. A plaintiff has instituted proceedings against against the government. Does he want to settle out of court? I do not know, and it is up to the lawyers to decide. Let them talk to each other.
I practiced law for a number of years. Lawyers speak together every day, and very often they may talk about whether or not they can put an end to a case, during these conversations.
I would add that we are the defendants in this case, not the plaintiffs, and the Minister of Justice has given an explanation. I am not a direct party to this case.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a matter where it is obvious that the government's lawyers have been ordered to use strong arm tactics on the former Prime Minister of Canada, does the present Prime Minister find it normal, in these politically charged circumstances, for the Minister of Justice to seemingly not have kept him informed of his meetings with the RCMP or of the possibility of an out of court settlement, which might cost the taxpayers of Canada several million dollars?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this in an investigation which dates back several years now. The first time the police looked into the matter, we were not in government. It was during the days of the previous government. The investigation was reopened, and the plaintiff has instituted proceedings against the government. The Minister of Justice is acting as the government's solicitor, and he has delegated the case to a number of lawyers.
As for me, I do not get mixed up in police investigations. It is not appropriate for a Prime Minister to get involved in police business when an investigation is being carried out. I have neither asked for nor provided any instructions in this connection. It is, moreover, my duty as Prime Minister to ensure that police inquiries can be carried out without any political interference by anyone whatsoever.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Justice.
The minister said in response to questions from the member for Beaver River on Wednesday: ``I can tell the hon. member that no matter what may have been reported last night, there is no proposal, there is no settlement imminent and there is no discussion of payment of money''. Furthermore he said: ``I cannot take responsibility for what the CBC may have reported, nor can I explain why it reported what it did''.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, how can he make statements like that to the House when he knows that the day before his lawyers were discussing a settlement? How can he possibly say there is no explanation for the story, give the House that kind of information when his lawyers are sitting down and discussing a settlement?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, when I was asked a question by a reporter from the CBC on Tuesday, I was told that a settlement was imminent. That was news to me. I said to the reporter that it was not right. The fact was that no settlement was imminent. There were not even concrete proposals on the table. That is what I said and that is the fact. There was no discussion of payment of money.
Whether the lawyers are in the course of discharging their duties, having conversations or not, that is a separate matter, something over which I have no control. It is entirely within the ordinary course of a lawyer's work in litigation. I practised litigation myself for 20 years and I know how common it is.
The hon. member should look at the facts. It was put to me that there was a settlement imminent. I responded that that was not so. I responded that there were no concrete proposals on the table and that remains the case.
Let us focus on the facts here. The facts are as I have disclosed them to the House.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that kind of hair-splitting could only be done by a lawyer.
I am citing an article in the Toronto Sun yesterday where it says that Globe and Mail managing editor Colin MacKenzie said that Rock approached parliamentary journalist Susan Delacourt for help in his behind the scenes probe of Mulroney one or two days after he first heard about allegations from another journalist.
My question is very simple. Going back to the beginning of this affair, why was the Minister of Justice conducting his own private investigation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): First, Mr. Speaker, it hardly behoves the hon. member to challenge the facts and then when the facts are explained to him to describe it as hair splitting. The facts are the facts whether the member likes them or not.
(1125)
In so far as journalists are concerned, I have made it a matter of public record from the outset. I have been frank and direct in saying that I was fixed with information early on after I became Minister of Justice. In respect of that information, I sought advice. I consulted with the deputy minister. I consulted the solicitor general. On the basis of that consultation, I communicated the information to the authorities, discharging my moral obligation to do so, and for them to do with as they saw fit.
The police eventually reported that they had looked into what I had said, that there was no reason for further inquiry and that they were closing the file.
May I also say that is a practice that has been followed in the past. Indeed, it was revealed last week by John Turner that when he was minister of justice he followed exactly the same procedure.
I would like the hon. member to tell the House whether he thinks that if a Minister of Justice and Attorney General is told something
about allegations of serious wrongdoing that he ought not to pass it on to the authorities? That to me is a startling proposition.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Justice should pass on the information to the proper authorities.
Now will he answer my question and tell us why he made additional inquiries with journalists to get more information himself?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member may have read in the newspapers, the fact is that I did no such thing. I have made it clear from the outset that two people provided me with information. I believe I acted entirely responsibly in the circumstances and provided the information to the authorities.
I am gratified to see that the hon. member agrees that was the correct thing to do.
Yesterday, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a decision that will force the federal government to stop all discrimination against same sex couples by giving them the same benefits enjoyed by common law couples.
Could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the Government of Canada intends to appeal this decision?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this decision, made public yesterday morning at 9.30, contains some very complex points that will require a few days to untangle. We are not making any decision on the important issue of appeal until we have studied the consequences of the decision in detail.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the tribunal ordered the federal government to stop the use immediately, in a number of federal texts, of any definition of spouse that discriminates against same sex partners in a common law relationship.
Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to comply with the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have already said. The decision made public yesterday raises extremely complex points requiring detailed consideration and consultation, in particular with our lawyers, before we take any sort of a position.
[English]
Is the minister seriously telling us that he is giving nameless departmental lawyers the authority to pay millions of dollars to Brian Mulroney in a possible settlement which he says he knows nothing about, or is he really aware of everything that is going on and he is just trying to hide it?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place, the member errs when he begins by saying that this was an investigation conducted by the justice department. This was a police investigation conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for whom the solicitor general reports to Parliament.
(1130 )
The role of the Department of Justice is also a matter of record. As happens 100 to 150 times a year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police went to the International Assistance Group and asked it to communicate to a foreign government a request for assistance in pursuing the investigation. That was the role of the Department of Justice. This is not a justice department investigation.
As to settlement, the government has retained and instructed very competent lawyers to defend this litigation. We are preparing for the next stage of litigation. With respect to matters of settlement, if discussions for settlement occur they will be conducted by the lawyers who eventually will seek instructions. As I have said, I shall report to the House if there is anything of significance to report.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice continues to tell the House that he really is out of the picture on this whole thing. This is a not a two-bit case. This is a case of such magnitude that it is on the front page of the press every day.
The RCMP started this case before the Liberals came to power. They closed the case. When this government came to power and this minister was appointed, he initiated the opening of the case again, even though he may deny it. He talked to the reporter and he got the case going again.
At this time he is telling us that he is now out of it. One wonders, whether there is a case or not, how much money is at stake because of the incompetence of this minister and his government. Why is the minister telling Canadians on a daily basis that he really knows nothing about what is going on in this case and anything about a
settlement, when anyone and everyone with any kind of position on that government is talking about settlements on a daily basis?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assume there is a question there.
I can tell the hon. member that he is in grave error when he says that I initiated this investigation. The reality is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police makes its own mind up when it initiates investigations and when it stops them.
The hon. member will know from the answers I gave earlier this week in the House that there are just two principles involved here so the hon. member should follow them.
First, so long as I am Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if someone fixes me with knowledge of serious wrongdoing, after making consultation of experienced and capable people, including in this case the solicitor general, I will communicate that information to the police to do with as they might. That is principle number one and a colleague of the hon. member has already conceded that that is the proper course.
The second principle is that once that information is communicated it is up to the police to decide what to do. In this case they told me they were doing nothing after looking into it.
If they then start an investigation on their own, or into a different matter because that information does not relate to Airbus to my recollection, if they then decide to initiate an investigation that is up to the police. Politicians should not be involved in directing and controlling police investigations. That is the second important principle.
The hon. member will find that both of those principles were respected in this case.
In their red book, the Liberals accused the Conservatives of weakening major cultural institutions such as the CBC by cutting off their funding. Yesterday, we learned that the CBC is preparing to have the French network assume part of the cost of Canadianizing its programming, estimated as some $27 million.
In view of the fact that this will further widen the gap in the amount of financial resources accorded the two networks, is the Prime Minister willing to accept this discrimination against francophones in Canada and Quebec?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CBC has a mandate to serve Canadians in both official languages. The hon. member should delight in the fact that 90 per cent of programming in prime time is Canadian. The network intends to increase that figure to 100 per cent.
[English]
Having said that, the CBC English network has already factored in those cuts and no other network will have to pay for the Canadianization of the English network.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given that the French network of the CBC was already very hard hit by budget cuts and is having a hard time meeting the needs of francophones in Quebec and Canada, would the Prime Minister ensure that the English network assumes its own deficit and does not further weaken the French services of the CBC?
(1135)
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is what I have just said. The English network of the CBC will absorb its own cuts.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw attention to the spirit of co-operation between Radio-Canada and Radio-Quebec, which have just concluded an agreement ensuring maximum visibility for programs produced by Canadians for Canadians. In these times of budget cuts, this sort of innovative and creative partnership reflects judicious use of funds and promises more of the same.
It said if discrimination is prohibited then benefits must be granted. However, in this House the justice minister said to us and to Canadians that his government was intent on fighting discrimination, not granting benefits.
Since the justice minister assured Canadians that the goal of the government was not to grant benefits, does he intend to stand by that commitment? How will he respond to the tribunal's decision?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me make it clear that the judgment that came from the Human Rights Tribunal yesterday was in a case that was commenced long before Bill C-33 was thought of, introduced or passed.
The judgment was based on the law as it stood before Bill C-33 added those words to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The enactment of Bill C-33 was irrelevant to the judgment. The judgment dealt with benefits. Bill C-33 did not. It dealt with discrimination.
My hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has already told the House that we are going to have to look at the judgment. He will have to consider its implications and a decision will be made on the question of whether an appeal will be brought when we have had that opportunity.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister can delay the decision all he wants, but for years courts and tribunals have been setting policy for government and even the private sector on this issue with no debate in government. That is an absolute outrage and is unforgivable. Parliament, not the tribunals, is where the laws of Canada should be written.
The justice minister said that he tabled Bill C-33 so this issue would not be left in the hands of the courts and the tribunals. If he was serious about that promise, will he respond to this ruling in such a way to uphold the primacy of this Parliament?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in view of what happened last month I am astonished to hear that the hon. member would want to have another parliamentary debate on the human rights legislation.
The hon. member suggests that Parliament should be supreme. Indeed Parliament is supreme. Parliament enacted the Constitution of Canada which is the supreme law of the land. That Constitution establishes fundamental principles of justice and rights.
Parliament also enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act which establishes principles and rights. Under our system of government in which there is a legislative branch, the courts and tribunals are called on to apply those principles on the facts of particular cases and to interpret statutes on the basis of those principles.
Parliament is supreme all right, but having laid down principles we then have to turn over to the legislative branch the interpretation and application of those principles. That is what has happened in this case, and that is part of the government of this country.
As to the decision in this case, as we have told the hon. member we will look at it and decide in due course whether an appeal should be brought.
[Translation]
In spite of the minister's commitment to provide a transition period made necessary by the implementation of the unemployment insurance reform, 11 of the 50 Quebec groups working to enhance the employability of greatly disadvantaged people just learned that their contract would end on August 31. This means that 2,000 greatly disadvantaged Quebecers will suddenly be without resources to enhance their employability.
(1140)
Why, in spite of his commitment to give these groups a transition period to adjust and to allow negotiations with Quebec to unfold, has the minister abruptly ended the contracts of these 11 organizations without giving them time to find the necessary resources to continue to provide essential services to greatly disadvantaged people?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a whole slew of organizations working in the area mentioned by the hon. member, including the Government of Quebec, the SQDM, the Government of Canada and various other groups.
This is a difficult issue, since we are being asked to proceed rather quickly, to try to follow up on the Quebec consensus regarding active measures, training and so on. We are trying to ensure the greatest possible flexibility regarding the new management and the new arrangements which we will reach with Quebec and the other provinces.
There is no doubt that some major changes will take place. Since January, when I became responsible for this portfolio, we have been asked to proceed quickly, to avoid getting involved in areas where the province should play a quasi-independent role, and I have agreed to do that.
Now, we are being asked to stay put, to maintain the status quo. Let us not forget that these organizations knew all along there was nothing permanent about their funding. I hope the Government of Quebec, the SQDM and other stakeholders will look at the role played by these groups and will decide accordingly.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take note of the minister's will to comply with the consensus in Quebec.
Does the minister recognize that several of these groups are unique resources, that they are concentrated in eastern Quebec?
As there is a transition fund expressly for such situations, does he not agree there should be a moratorium and will he impose one, so that the resources and the expertise developed can continue to serve useful purposes after the conclusion of the negotiations with the Government of Quebec?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transition funds will be managed in co-operation with the other governments. In Quebec, there is indeed a sum of money that will be available to the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec. If Quebec wants to maintain some system outside its government administration, and certainly outside the federal administration, we can certainly discuss it.
However, neither in Quebec nor elsewhere will we take measures that would force governments or other organizations to take charge of any agreement that we have reached. After all, we are trying to negotiate so that the federal government will, in many cases, withdraw from these activities.
As the minister knows, the fishing industry has been very concerned about the new inspection fees imposed on processing plants. The matter has been reviewed by the standing committee and by the minister's staff.
Will the minister advise the House of the result of that review and what changes he has agreed to make to plant inspection fees?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in consideration for the concern and comments of the committee, the hon. member and his colleagues, and the industry, a revised fee has been worked out that basically reflects the concern of the smaller industries and the smaller plants.
For example, for a processing plant that would have an area of less than 300 square meters, instead of having a fee of $1,500 plus $500 per operation, which could amount to $4,000 or more, a flat fee of $1,000 has now been invoked. In addition, there is a cap of $10,000 on the annual certificates and a cap of $250 for the import certificates.
We will review the fees after one year. I believe these measures will reflect a high standard of fish processed in Canada, exported and imported.
(1145)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the present regime in the Criminal Code, which has been in place for 20 years, is a fair and just regime.
For the last 20 years the penalty in the Criminal Code for first degree murder is life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years subject to, after 15 years, members of the community coming together on a jury to determine whether the person should be given the opportunity before the 25 years, but after 15, to seek parole, which is up to the parole board.
I have now proposed changes to that regime to make it fairer and more just. It will require that all applications be screened by a judge to determine they have merit. It will require that the jury be unanimous so that the people drawn from the street are unanimous in giving the person a shortening of the period. It says such a break should not be available under any circumstances to multiple and serial murderers.
In short, that is a fair and just approach. As I said in my speech this morning in second reading debate of Bill C-45, the changes we propose will improve the present regime.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has a strong propensity of bringing in contentious bills at the 11th hour. We saw that with the gun registration bill last year and with Bill C-33.
I ask the justice minister why he stretches the ability of members to adequately examine and fully debate these bill. Why is he bringing in these bills at the last hour?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member himself has been calling for changes to section 745; he wants to repeal it.
While I do not agree with that, I agree the matter should be dealt with and I have brought the bill forward. I would have thought the hon. member would have been critical of me for not bringing it forward.
It seems that no matter when I bring the bills forward the hon. member finds them contentious and controversial. We are acting at this time. The House is in session. Let us debate the bill and send it to committee. Let us hear the evidence and let us bring it back and decide. The House should act as soon as possible.
[Translation]
Again this week again and for the second time, this government neglected to answer my question about the insurance coverage of the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale.
Are we to understand from the minister's unwillingness to respond that the contractor does indeed lack the coverage required in case PCBs are spilled while lifting the Irving Whale?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions for contracting was the insurer would have adequate insurance in the event of a PCB or oil spill.
In this situation the insurer has $10 million in the event of a PCB spill and $100 million in the event of an oil spill. That is over $110 million.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): In that case, Mr. Speaker, will the minister reassure the public by tabling in this House before the end of this session all the insurance contracts covering the contractor responsible for refloating the Irving Whale for both this year and last year, yes or no?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this with the minister.
By removing the tax credit on used cars, the minister has made it more expensive for the average Canadian to buy a used car. By eliminating the tax credit the government is saying: ``We do not care. You already pay tax on the car. We are more interested in getting more people to pay more tax on that car''.
How can the minister justify taxing the same good over and over again? Why has he abandoned the red book promise of a revenue neutral tax?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has it wrong again. I know a system that would simplify taxes is not something the Reform Party understands, at least from looking at its tax proposals. This is a system that was put in to simplify.
(1150)
I would be glad to explain to the hon. member the full notional input tax credit system. It was too complicated. We eliminated it. As a result we will be collecting exactly the same amount of tax as we did before. There is no tax increase in this at all.
In Windsor and Essex County monarch butterflies are a familiar and welcome sight when in the fall they mass together in a spectacular display to migrate south from Point Pelee and Pelee Island. Experts say the habitat loss in the butterflies' wintering area in Mexico is causing their decline.
What is the government doing to ensure the conservation of this beautiful and delicate species?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is taking positive action to study sustainable development of forest ecosystems to protect the monarch butterfly.
Natural Resources Canada through the model forest program in Manitoba is working with Mexico to study the migratory patterns of the monarch butterfly, which travels from Mexico to Point Pelee and Pelee Island near the hon. member's riding.
Canada and Mexico take conservation of the monarch butterfly very seriously. Earlier this week President Zedillo of Mexico used monarch butterflies to symbolize diplomatic relations between Mexico and Canada.
An Ontario court recently ruled that the Unemployment Insurance Act is discriminatory under the charter of rights and freedoms, as adoptive parents and natural parents are not entitled to the same benefits.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development concur with this ruling and take the necessary steps in order to realign his legislation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, aware of the ruling made by the court in this matter. But we still feel that we have a duty to carefully consider this ruling. In due course and in consultation with the Minister of Justice, we will make a decision concerning a possible appeal.
Whose interest is this quota system serving anyway? Is it the lumber industry and the mills that are forced to shut down for three weeks or is it the minister, who hoped this problem would simply die?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we got out of this agreement with the United States secure access for our industry for five years, something we have never had before in any sector, including this one.
The first people on the line who said they wanted this arrangement was the industry. In getting this arrangement we have to sort out how the allocations will occur within the country.
We are listening to everybody. We will come up with a system that will be fair and equitable, on that will maximize our access of that market to the United States.
How does he feel about this status of Canada and what is he and his government doing about it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are always preoccupied with that type of social problem in our society. In the last budget the Minister of Finance had some concrete proposals to deal with this problem. I know provincial governments are working on it as well. We are very preoccupied and we will take steps within the means of the government to improve the situation.
The best way to improve the situation is to have an economy that creates jobs and produces more income for families. In doing that, children will be in a better position. It is a preoccupation and we are working on it.
This week the Sierra Club's 1996 Rio report gave Canada failing marks for its efforts to reduce greenhouse gases which contribute to global warming and climate change. Furthermore, a recent report of the northern river basins study provided further evidence of serious effects of climate change.
How is the government addressing this very serious issue of destruction to the atmosphere?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the northern river basins study has very clearly indicated that climate change is happening now. All of the research and data in this study will help us move forward on this very important agenda.
About two weeks ago there was a report that western Canadian barley producers lost about $180 million probably because of the bungling of the Canadian Wheat Board's sales and irregularities.
I asked the minister to do a judicial inquiry into that. I was wondering if he could inform the House whether he has become informed on the issue and what action he has taken.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time I think it is inappropriate to comment on what is happening with western grain transportation.
We have a grains panel in place which will report at the end of this month. My colleague well knows the commission will come back with recommendations on what should be happening.
[Translation]
On November 24, 1989, the House of Commons passed a unanimous resolution to eliminate child poverty before the year 2000. But UNICEF tells us that, of all the industrialized countries, Canada has the highest rate of child poverty, second only to the United States.
Does this observation about child poverty give the Minister of Human Resources Development an incentive to put back on the table the $630 million he had available last December to fund day care in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is undoubtedly aware that the government has already recognized in the budget its obligation to try to come to the assistance of low income families and, in particular, to try to protect children living in such situations.
With regard to the proposal to which the hon. member is referring, which was made last fall, before Christmas, as everyone knows, the provinces' reaction was very lukewarm. They were concerned that the Government of Canada was once again interfering in their affairs, that the proposal would have meant interference in a strictly provincial matter.
Is this the only way we can intrude in situations where the provinces must take responsibility? Because, what happens? We see that in the employment insurance bill, for example, we have a proposal that could, in fact, provide relief for these people who need help with the cost of day care for their children, among other things.
Tourism is the key growing economic activity in Canada. In 1995 more than 777,000 people visited the wonderful province of Prince Edward Island, adding $178 million to the province's economy. This is a growth industry.
Given that the Prime Minister committed $50 million to the Canadian Tourism Commission to promote tourism across Canada, can the minister report on the progress of this initiative and how these funds are being spent?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. After the Prime Minister issued the challenge to the private sector to match the contribution of the government of $50 million a year, in the first year we raised from the private sector contributions virtually $40 million. In the second year we expect to make the target of $50 million, thereby doubling the contribution of the federal government.
The Canadian Tourism Commission is an example of how federal, provincial and private sector contributions working together can create jobs and economic growth for Canadians in all parts of the country.
Second, will the minister tell the House whether the fund will be made discrete and not part of general revenues so it will truly be an insurance fund?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised a couple of questions.
With respect to the nature of the obligations of the Government of Canada, it is one thing to have a separate fund when it is in a surplus, and it is another thing to have it separate when it is in a deficit.
If the hon. member is suggesting that when the fund is in a deficit position which would ordinarily occur in a recession, premiums would have to rise to make it self-sustaining. I think that would be very counterproductive.
As far as the upper limit amount of the surplus, I think everyone recognizes it is a question which has to be addressed. We have historical data demonstrating what happens when there is a downturn in the economy. We have only had a situation for the past few months where the fund has been a real surplus position.
I have no doubt that the Minister of Finance, myself and other members of the government will deal with this problem in an appropriate way at an appropriate time.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[Translation]
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
[English]
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Since the annual summer adjournment rumour mill is already working overtime, I think I ought to give it a rest and clarify the reasons for this change. It is simply to accommodate the needs of
the House to deal with bills that may be sent back by the Senate as late as Wednesday afternoon. The government wishes to be in a position to deal with a bill if one should come from the Senate.
I apologize to my colleagues in changing from Thursday to Wednesday, but with co-operation we hope that by Friday the House can adjourn as scheduled.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I request a clarification from the hon. minister. I think there is some confusion. He talked of Wednesday, June 20, and Thursday, June 21. Thursday is the 20th and Friday, the 21st. I wonder if he would clarify this point.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I got my dates mixed up, my apologies. We had announced that the final opposition day for this period would be on Thursday, June 20. Unfortunately, with the possible return of some bills from the Senate, we would like to move it to Wednesday, June 19.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
(1210 )
The petitioners call on Parliament to recognize that as the legislature of Newfoundland has passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to remove the rights of denominational classes of persons to operate their own schools and further, that if Parliament accedes to these proposals to amend the Constitution at the request of one provincial government, it would set a precedent for permitting any provincial government to suppress the rights of minorities.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament not to amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and to refer the problem of education reform in that province back to the Government of Newfoundland for resolution by non-constitutional means.
The first petition comes from over 20,000 petitioners, all from within the Kamloops constituency in British Columbia from virtually every community and every part of the constituency.
It states that Canadians, mainly women and children, are becoming increasingly fearful to walk on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, that they believe that many violent and sex offenders are being paroled prematurely or being released without proper treatment or rehabilitation, and they believe that those convicted of dangerous and sexual offences should remain incarcerated until they have successfully undergone treatment and can demonstrate unequivocally that they have been completely rehabilitated.
Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons and the Minister of Justice to take whatever steps necessary to amend Canada's Criminal Code and the parole system of Canada to ensure safety and peace in Canadian neighbourhoods.
One petition calls on Parliament not to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I have another petition in conflict with the petition above which calls on Parliament to enact legislation to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination against persons based on their sexual orientation and further calls on the government to pass the necessary legislation.
eliminate most employment programs for immigrants, new Canadians and visible minorities experiencing barriers to the job market.
They point out that these programs have been very successful in helping individuals obtain long term and permanent employment. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to continue funding programs with proven success rates for non-UI recipients.
The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec civil code to the effect that a mother or father without serious cause not be able to place obstacles between a child and his or her grandparents, and failing agreement between the parties that the modalities of the relationship would be settled by the courts, and further to amend the Divorce Act so that it would give grandparents access to information about the health and well-being of their grandchildren.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.