My question is for the Prime Minister. Can he explain why he has criticized the inquiry so harshly, considering that all it is doing is seeking to cast some light on the behaviour of the Armed Forces in Somalia and the role of General Boyle in the cover up?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we want to find out the truth, and that is precisely the reason we set up such an inquiry. We want the results as soon as possible.
Why? Because the Armed Forces and the Department of Defence are somewhat on hold, as long as the inquiry is still going on. We would like to have the inquiry's conclusions as promptly as possible, so we may take the appropriate remedial action.
This commission was set up in order to determine what happened during the former government's involvement in the Somalia operation. We are most anxious to find out whether changes need to be made in the command process in order to avoid a repetition of such incidents.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is particularly surprising to hear from the Prime Minister's lips that the army is on hold until the results of the inquiry come out. There was one way to solve that: change the chief of defence staff, and that is what he was asked to do.
Instead of attacking the commission, could the Prime Minister admit that, if its work is taking too long and is costing too much, is precisely the fault of the Armed Forces and their commander, whose exact role in the cover up is not yet clear?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going to wait for the Commission report. Let us allow it to finish its work. The sooner we get the report, the better it will be for everyone, for we will then be able to react accordingly. That is what I want, that is what this House wants, and I am sure it is also what the Armed Forces and the Canadian public want as well.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not trying to discredit the commission with what he had to say about it yesterday?
(1420)
Is he not trying to discredit the commission in order to justify keeping the general and the minister in their positions? Is he not indeed trying to discredit the commission in order to serve his own ends?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has been in his portfolio for three years. Yesterday I indicated that I had decided very early on in this administration to have a minister of defence who would remain in his position for a long time, in order for there to be an authority in place capable of making decisions.
I must apologize for saying in the House that there had been six ministers in nine years under the Conservatives. I was wrong, there were 17. Under the circumstances, I feel that the minister's job is a very difficult one.
He is working under even more difficult circumstances than his predecessors, because we are obliged, in the interests of good administration and deficit reduction, to reduce defence spending, to reduce staff and to reduce the number of bases.
The minister has accomplished all of those difficult tasks, and now he, like all the rest of us, is awaiting the commission's report, which we hope to see as soon as possible in order to take the required action.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On a number of occasions in recent months, the official opposition has called for the Somalia commission, whose work will continue for a long while yet, to table an interim report after it has finished looking into the allegations of cover-up by top army brass.
If the Prime Minister finds that it is taking too long, as he said yesterday, why does he not ask the commissioners to quickly produce and make public an interim report on the cover-up operations so that everyone, himself included, can draw the appropriate conclusions?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference for this inquiry are well known. They are well established. The commission is to issue a report when it concludes its deliberations.
Those are the terms of reference given to the commission and those are the terms of reference with which the commission is comfortable. I ask the hon. members to await the conclusions of the commissioners.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who thinks that it is taking too long, it is the government who decides on the mandate. If he wants to have results and be able clean things up quickly and restore the credibility of the armed forces, why does he not ask for an interim report on the cover-up operation? Why does he not act quickly?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again members of the opposition are prejudging testimony and coming to conclusions about the evidence that has been presented to the inquiry. That is not the way the inquiry process works and that is not the way Canadian justice works.
I hope the hon. member will do everyone a favour and wait for the report to be issued by the commissioners so that everyone's testimony and all the facts can be judged in a clear cool light.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what can come out through the old process of word association.
Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about cover up at the Somalia inquiry and for some reason he started talking immediately about the Watergate affair in the United States, a Freudian slip.
You may wish to check whether the tapes of yesterday's question period were erased. Surely the Prime Minister did not mean that the tampering and political interference at the Somalia inquiry had reached Watergate proportions.
What precisely was the Prime Minister trying to say when he drew some parallel between his handling of the Somalia inquiry and the Watergate affair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the leader of the third party needs a new speech writer.
I said earlier in French that we instituted the commission because we wanted to get to the bottom of the Somalia affair and receive recommendations so that we can change what has to be changed. When we were in opposition we did ask for a commission like that. We established that commission and we would like to have the report as quickly as possible.
(1425 )
The leader of the third party yesterday asked if we wanted to have the report before the election. I would be delighted to have the report tomorrow so we could act. We are not trying to cover up anything. We instituted the inquiry and we want the result in the shortest term possible so that we can have a report.
To please the party of the Leader of the Opposition, who wanted to have it before the election, I do not know when I will have an election. If I were him I would not hope for a quick election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's comments on the Somalia inquiry have been contradictory and confusing and they are again today.
Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House he did not meet General Boyle until he appointed him chief of the defence staff. Yet his communications director told the Globe and Mail that the Prime Minister actually conducted the job interview.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, Monday the Prime Minister said the Somalia inquiry would be allowed to do its work without political interference. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister took a shot at the inquiry by saying it was too slow, too expensive and too hard on witnesses.
Will the Prime Minister explain these contradictions? Did the Prime Minister not know who General Boyle was until he was appointed or did he conduct the job interview? Is the inquiry independent or is the government telling it through the Prime Minister that it is too slow, too expensive and too hard on witnesses?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course I knew of Mr. Boyle because I had studied the files of many candidates and I had some recommendations. But I did not know him personally.
When he came I interviewed him, but I knew a lot about him and it was rather good. But I had not met him. Sometimes we know a lot about candidates in many fields without meeting them. I do that regularly in appointments. Because we receive recommendations and we name somebody, that does not mean that we had a beer with the guy the day before. That means that we looked at his cv, the recommendation, the abilities and we made a decision.
After I met General Boyle-he was on a short list-and I knew at that moment that he could fill the bill. Let him do his job. When the inquiry is done we will have the results. The sooner the better because yesterday the leader of the third party was afraid that the report would come after the election, so he should ask them to do it as fast as possible to have it before the election.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's handling of the Somalia inquiry and Somalia affair is symptomatic of the government's management of a lot of other things.
National defence is a $10 billion department. Its work is vital to the national interest. Its international peacekeeping is a source of pride for all Canadians, yet for three years under this government its affairs have been mismanaged and its reputation has been allowed to deteriorate with no end in sight.
Do not the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian public deserve something better?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they really deserve the support of the third party for the very good job they are doing today in the former Yugoslavia, the job they are doing today in Haiti and in other places in the world. They are doing a good job.
It is because I have a lot of respect for them that I decided it was not to be a revolving door for the political leadership of that department. I gave them an experienced politician and a good administrator to do the job, to stay there and do what is needed to have the most modern armed force available that is possible at this moment.
Youth unemployment has reached disastrous proportions. If we consider both those who are unemployed and those who left the
labour market, many because they were discouraged, today at least 479,000 young people in Canada between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed.
(1430)
How can the Prime Minister say he is satisfied with his performance on creating jobs when he knows perfectly well only one out of two young people has a job?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no one will ever be satisfied with the situation of the unemployed in this country, whether we are talking about the young or not so young, as long as anyone remains unemployed.
The hon. member surely recognizes the efforts deployed, not only by the Government of Canada but by other levels of government and the private sector. This summer, for instance, about 60,000 young people across the country were hired thanks to the efforts of the Government of Canada. Furthermore, and I think this is worthy of mention, when we consider the efforts deployed by the private sector in partnership with governments and youth organizations, I think we will realize that although this is a major challenge, some progress has already been made, and even young people have admitted as much.
Of course, much remains to be done, but we are not the only country where youth unemployment is a major problem.
In fact, the hon. member is probably aware that this week here in Ottawa, we organized a conference on all aspects of the problems facing young people in Canada.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today there are 25,000 fewer young people employed than when this government came to power, and meanwhile the number of young people has increased.
What kind of hope can the Prime Minister give hundreds of thousands of unemployed young Canadians and Quebecers, when it is a fact that he himself excluded funds targeted to young people from negotiations on manpower policy transfers to the provincial governments which, as he himself has admitted, work more efficiently, preferring to spread funding around his government's employment programs for purely political purposes?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we seriously want to help young Quebecers and young Canadians across the country to find jobs, we must create a climate of stability within our economy.
If anyone is aware of the problems facing young people in the Montreal region, for instance, where we know the unemployment rate is very high, it is certainly the hon. member opposite. But we must all be aware of our responsibilities. If we want the private sector to play its role, which should always be to create jobs, we should provide the right kind of economic climate, and we should listen to young people like Mario Dumont, who know what has to be done in this country.
Colonel Haswell has been charged. Corporal Purnelle has been charged. However, General Boyle receives preferential treatment after admitting that he lied to military police and that he broke the spirit of the Access to Information Act. Canadians are saying quite clearly that he should be fired.
General Boyle has admitted responsibility. Why will the minister not hold him accountable?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not only has the hon. member and his colleagues shown contempt for the inquiry by continually reflecting on evidence at the commission, but today he goes further. He is reflecting on the military justice system. He is bringing forward the names of individuals who are now subject to certain processes within the department and within the armed forces. He is using their names and bringing them to the floor of the House of Commons.
This is something that must not be done. I am surprised at that. The hon. member, as a former employee of the armed forces, should know better than to do that in a public way. It shows contempt of the entire judicial process.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the only contempt is shown by the hon. Minister of National Defence.
It is interesting to note that the minister uses the shield of the Somalia inquiry when it is convenient to the minister. In other words, to protect his own sorry butt.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hart: Our armed forces personnel-
(1435 )
The Speaker: I am sure the House is used to colloquial statements, however, I wish we could stay away from the human anatomy in question period.
Mr. Hart: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I would like to continue.
Our armed forces personnel know what it means to accept responsibility. It means that you are held accountable. Yesterday
the Prime Minister referred to the Watergate incident. In Watergate people were fired, people were charged and people resigned.
When will the Prime Minister fire the Minister of National Defence?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must get his jokes from the same barber his leader uses.
We have here a group of people in opposition who congratulated the government when it established the inquiry. They do not want to do the decent thing and wait for the inquiry to do its work, to report and then make judgments.
In light of what he said on Monday, how can the Prime Minister justify his defence minister's decision not to require GM, of London, Ontario, to call for tenders from subcontractors, knowing that Oerlikon, of Saint-Jean, Quebec, could then have put in a bid?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, about a year ago we announced one of the purchases which was outlined in the white paper for armoured personnel carriers. This was a solely directed contract to General Motors Diesel Division in London, Ontario. Negotiations are taking place right now between the government and General Motors under the auspices of my colleague the minister for government services.
There has been some concern about the nature of the work and how much of it will be done in Canada. A question has arisen with respect to the capability of a company in Quebec. Because of the concerns that the government and General Motors had, those matters were referred to an independent third party who has made a report.
The negotiations are between General Motors and the government. This is a commercial, contractual relationship which I am sure will stand great scrutiny.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us that an independent consulting firm was indeed hired to provide an independent opinion. The firm he is referring to is KPMG. The minister is not even through reviewing KPMG's report but he is already announcing that GM will be the sole contractor. It is clear that the report was only commissioned to buy some time.
Does the Prime Minister realize that, by stubbornly refusing to let the construction of the turrets be put to tender, he is actually depriving Quebec of another contract, worth more than $600 million, resulting in approximately 145 quality jobs being lost to Delco, in California.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I did not quite catch the name of the company to which the member is referring. Is he still referring to the armoured personnel contract or is he referring to the search and rescue helicopter contract?
One thing the hon. member and his colleagues in opposition conveniently forget is that much of the industry of Canada's military infrastructure is located in Quebec. The proportion of work that goes to the industries in Quebec is actually higher than the percentage of population of Quebec versus the nation as a whole.
(1440)
While it may be true that in certain contracts work is not of a proportion that is acceptable to the hon. member, when we look at all of it, at the work that goes to Bombardier, to Marconi, to Oerlikon, Quebec does very well.
In fact, I commanded the Canadian Forces Officers Candidate School whose duty it was to determine the potential leadership capabilities of the candidates who went through.
My gut feel and a massive amount of input from service friends tell me that the present senior leadership in the armed forces is doing tremendous damage to that force.
Why can the Prime Minister not see this, recognize it and take action by removing the Minister of National Defence and the chief of the defence staff?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member. He had a distinguished career in the armed forces. However, even he has to acknowledge-he has been a member of the defence committee, he participated in the deliberations that led up to the white paper, he knows despite what he said today-that we have revitalized the leadership of the forces; that we have re-engineered the department, that we are saving money; that we are bringing business methods into play to save the taxpayers' money.
The leadership we are bringing forward now is a new generation that reflects the norms and values of Canadian society today. I am sorry the hon. member is uncomfortable with that.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said that if generals in the service did not like what was going on, they were free to leave.
It appears that those who espouse the values of truth, duty and valour are to get out, while those who say ``mea culpa but I'm not responsible'' are not only retained but protected.
Why does the Prime Minister not take action to put the leadership that is required back in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is leadership to deal with a department that over the years of the cold war unfortunately had developed administrative practices that needed to be streamlined, that had an officer corps that became too large for its needs.
We all agree on these things. I have heard the hon. member say them at committee.
We have shown leadership in setting up the inquiry to deal with the very unfortunate events that happened in Somalia. We will continue to show leadership. In fact the chief of the defence staff today outlined his vision of leadership for the 21st century for the forces.
I have met with many of the senior leaders of the forces in the last number of weeks. Despite the problems that are really wrenching at the very heart of the armed forces, they see light at the end of the tunnel. They see that improvements have been made so that they can meet the challenges of the years ahead.
[Translation]
However, and this is my question to the minister: Does the minister confirm that, under his proposal, an individual who has been acquitted of or has never even been tried for a crime could still be ordered by the court to submit to supervision by police or correctional authorities and even to wear an electronic monitoring device?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, punishment in the criminal law and certainly in the Criminal Code is reserved for those who have been convicted of crime, and that has remained the same both before and after the bill I tabled yesterday.
The hon. member will see in the bill that we have added a section which builds on the jurisdiction already in the code in section 810.1. That provides the court with jurisdiction on the application of a provincial attorney general to order that anyone, where there is a reasonable basis to fear that he or she may commit a very serious indictable offence, may be restrained by court order in a manner consistent with public safety.
(1445 )
Just that sort of jurisdiction was confirmed as constitutional and valid in a judgment of the Ontario courts last year. We are building on that to make the streets safer and above all to fulfil our red book commitment from 1993 to bring in solid and meaningful legislation to deal with high risk offenders.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. But, since he is talking about this provision, can he assure the House that this provision does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since at first sight it seems to fly in the face of one of our basic legal principles, namely the presumption of innocence?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's commitment to the charter of rights and to individual freedoms.
I urge him to look carefully at the provisions of the legislation we tabled yesterday. I have every confidence that every part of that bill is completely consistent with the charter. In fact, I so certified it before I tabled the legislation.
The measures to deal with high risk offenders invest the sentencing judge with authority to impose conditions as part of the sentence which is a regular orthodox exercise of the criminal law power. The other provisions have to do with preventing crime. That is at the heart of this legislation. We are taking steps to prevent crime before it happens by identifying those who are at the highest risk of reoffending and giving the courts and the system power to intervene, to impose conditions and supervision to keep our families, our children and our communities safe. That is what this legislation is about.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
Mr. Speaker, in August the minister announced that this fall Canada was to launch a much awaited new initiative, the Arctic Council, which comprises eight circumpolar countries.
Given the leadership role of Canada in this important initiative for Canada's northern population and for all of Canada, can the minister inform this House when he will act to establish this very important vehicle for co-operation on the environment, economic and other critical issues facing the circumpolar north?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm that tomorrow Canada will play host to the inaugural meeting of the Arctic Council. In so doing, I want to pay tribute to the work of the hon. member and the Secretary of State for Youth and Training, Ambassador Simon and many other Canadians, particularly northern Canadians and the representatives, both government and non-government, of the other countries who have worked together over the past two years to bring together a brand new international organization to deal with the issues of the people of the north.
In particular, I would like to point out that perhaps for the first time in the history of international organizations, leaders of the governments, ministers of the respective governments, will be sitting down in full partnership with the indigenous people of the north so that they can work together to solve the problems of environment, trade and industry. It is an example we hope will provide an important lesson for the development of international organizations in the years ahead.
Despite the fact that the Liberal government promised twice in the last few years that it would get rid of the GST on books in this country, we find that the finance minister now says that he cannot afford to do it. Frankly, Canadians cannot afford this finance minister.
Can the finance minister tell Canadians why he has $159 million to fund flags, propaganda and movies through the Department of Canadian Heritage while he reneges on yet another promise and doubles the GST on reading in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our position on the tax on books today is exactly what I expressed yesterday. The member is one day behind the NDP, maybe 20 years behind the NDP.
The fact is that the removal of the tax on books would cost $140 million. The decision that has to be taken is, is that the best use of $140 million or in fact are there other uses to which that money should be put. At the same time, given that those who wish to remove the tax on books are people who basically want to promote literacy, a view that all of us in this House share, then the debate we have to have is whether that in fact is the best way to promote literacy. Under those circumstances we are certainly open to examining the possibilities.
(1450)
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the question is: What is the Prime Minister's word worth? He promised in writing to the Don't Tax Reading Coalition that he would remove the GST on books.
When the Prime Minister appears before his bank machine, how does he rationalize this latest Liberal cop out?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should tell you what the real issue is. The real issue is whether the government's revenues are going to increase. Because of increased economic activity they are in fact doing so.
The issue is what did the new government do after it took over from a previous government that increased taxes 39 times? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we did not in our first, second or third budget, not once did we increase personal income taxes. That is our view.
Why is it that the Reform Party, which has so much difficulty talking about increases in government revenues, in its first budget suggestion talks about increasing government revenues by over $26 billion?
[Translation]
Today we learned, once again through the media, that negotiations on free trade between Canada and Chile have reached an impasse, after nine months of talks.
Can the minister tell us if the cancellation of the visit that the Chilean president, Mr. Frei, was scheduled to make in early October is somehow related to the deadlock in the negotiations on a free trade agreement between Canada and Chile?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the negotiations with Chile have not reached an impasse. The eight series of negotiations were completed last weekend and the parties have gone off for further consultations.
I am hopeful that we can bring the negotiations to a very quick conclusion and bring about this agreement in the near future. In fact, they have been going at a very strong pace. In the case of Mexico it took us some 16 months and in the case of Israel almost two years to get to the point of signing an agreement. Yet in nine short months we have come a long way and there are but very few issues for us to resolve.
When that is done I would expect that the postponed visit of President Frei will be put on again. I know that President Frei is looking forward to coming to Canada and looking forward to a free trade agreement that will help give Canadian companies access to the market in Chile.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to previous agreements. Canada recently signed a free trade agreement with Israel. This agreement was signed in secret. The same thing is happening again with Chile.
Could the minister at least pledge greater transparency before signing a free trade agreement with Chile or with any other country?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agreement with Israel will be brought before this House and there will be every opportunity to consider every aspect of it in a very short period of time, as there will in the case of the agreement with Chile. Both of those agreements will help to increase our exports and our opportunity for market access.
How can the Minister of Transport guarantee the safety of the Canadian public when his department inspects paperwork instead of inspecting aeroplanes?
(1455 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the safety audit that identified the two deficiencies is part of established procedures that are going on and are well understood within the entire airline industry.
We expect that all airlines will meet the highest safety standards and it is our job to ensure that they do. Until such time as that happens and the concerns of the minister are met, the minister is not prepared to risk the safety of the travelling public.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary offers words of reassurance but those words do not square with the facts. The facts are that when any airline's planes take off in Canada for the first time, they have not been inspected by Transport Canada. It only inspects the airline's paperwork.
I again ask the parliamentary secretary: How can he guarantee the safety of the Canadian public when his department only inspects the paperwork, not the plane?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refuses to accept the fact that there are procedures in place where the paperwork entails that the maintenance individuals in charge of that aircraft are the ones responsible to ensure the safety of that aircraft.
In the case of WestJet of which he is speaking, it is a responsible airline. WestJet is working diligently to meet all of the requirements that are being put down by the Minister of Transport. Unfortunately yes, the travelling public were a bit inconvenienced in their flight plans, but the majority of WestJet passengers I am sure would agree that it is better to deal with any deficiencies in the aircraft on the ground and not at 40,000 feet.
The United States is currently taxing Canadian seniors on social security benefits. Many of these seniors are trying to survive on less than subsistence income and would not be taxed if this income was earned in Canada.
Can the minister tell the House and seniors what steps he is taking to alleviate this hardship?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has shown a great deal of concern for the plight of a considerable number of low income Canadians who have been affected by this move taken by the United States.
Indeed members within our own party and members on both sides of the House have expressed the same concern. The member is absolutely right. There are a considerable number of low income Canadians who have suddenly found themselves without any possibility of adjustment, without any possibility of appeal and are in a very serious financial condition as a result of this action taken by the U.S. administration.
I have raised this matter with the secretary of the treasury and our officials have worked on it throughout the summer. I will be seeing the secretary of the treasury in the not too distance future and I intend to raise this issue.
I am delighted by the support from the House on this particular issue.
Given that the minister has a mandate to conserve and manage the resource, what does he intend to do to fulfil his obligations in the contentious area of Chaleur Bay so that the lobster are protected?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is now making every effort to get the aboriginals and the commercial fishermen together, so that they can sit down, talk and reach an agreement in order to resolve this dispute, which leaves the commercial fishermen feeling targeted because the aboriginals are fishing, while the aboriginals are exercising what they claim is their right to fish for subsistence and ceremonial purposes.
[English]
(1500)
When will the minister uncover the results of this survey? More important, when will he hold a true and open plebiscite? His lack of action is hurting the prairie economy and is still a broken promise.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see little point in formally releasing a partial and preliminary document which the opposition and the media already have. That strikes me as a bit redundant.
The hon. gentleman and people in the Reform Party keep pressing us to move ahead with the automatic implementation of the report of the western grain marketing panel. On Monday of this week the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia on CBC radio said this: ``There are certain things in the panel's recommendations that I think are terrible''. The member from Moose Jaw on the same program said: ``I would say from the numbers that we've got generally there have been more who support the wheat board as a single desk seller for wheat and barley''. The member from Moose Jaw-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.
Despite promises made in the Liberal red book during the last election, the government is proceeding with a further cut of some $190 million to the CBC budget. This will result in a 35 to 40 per cent reduction in both TV and radio services and a loss of some 2,500 jobs.
How can the minister possibly expect the CBC to fulfil its parliamentary mandate as a public broadcaster with these massive cuts to its budget?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the cuts that were announced in last February's budget were $123 million, not the figure quoted by the member.
Unfortunately those cuts were announced on top of the previous cuts which total a very difficult circumstance for the CBC. The total package of cuts will result in reductions of about 23 per cent.
Over the last three years one of the things we have had to do as a government is to cut very significantly. We have had to let 40,000 people go across the public service. We have had to cut in ministries and we have had to cut across departments.
The CBC management and board have been working very hard to ensure that in the face of very difficult circumstances they can continue to occupy a very unique niche in the marketplace.
Unlike certain members of the opposition who are calling for the privatization of the CBC, I believe that the CBC has a very important public role to play. We are still investing almost a billion dollars of taxpayers' money in the CBC.
Since the Helms-Burton bill in the United States is very prominent in the news these days and its adverse effect on Canadian business, and as Canada opposes the Helms-Burton bill, does this mean that we are soft on Cuba? Does it mean that we endorse the Castro administration?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important question.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have said on numerous occasions, for a great number of years we have been exercising efforts to bring about a more open and democratic system in Cuba, to bring about economic reforms and respect for human rights.
Unlike the United States, we have preferred a policy of engagement, as opposed to isolation, which quite frankly has not worked in the 30 years it has been in place.
The purpose of our opposition to Helms-Burton is simply to protect the right to have a Canadian trade policy and to have Canadian companies able to rely on that when they are doing business with Cuba.
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.