right to determine its own future. None of yesterday's allies on the no side are on side of the Prime Minister as he makes this clumsy attempt to get all of Canada up in arms against Quebec, as he did so successfully in 1982 and 1990.
What kind of answer does the Prime Minister of Canada have for Daniel Johnson, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, who has invited him to resign and run for a seat in the Quebec National Assembly if he wants to draft the referendum question?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson is entirely correct in saying that the National Assembly is free to ask any questions it wants. But when such a question involves negotiations on an issue as serious as secession, the question must be such as to elicit a clear response from the people. What is needed is a clear question. And to have a clear question, we need a clear process. To have a clear process, there must be a commitment to make it that way.
So far, however, the Quebec government has given us no guarantees to that effect. We are asking the Supreme Court to clarify matters, and the Quebec government does not want to go before the Supreme Court. Why? Because it knows that confusion works to its advantage. The forces of division gain from confusion; the forces of reconciliation gain from clarity.
And if we must quote Mr. Johnson, I will quote him, in concluding: ``Mr. Bouchard and other sovereignists, who for three or four years have been telling us that international law is clear on the subject will have a forum to explain why it is clear. If the train is there, they can always get on board and tell Quebecers what their theories are about'', but they will not go, because they know they are wrong.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to point out to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that, on the subject of clarity, he is the one who has constantly contradicted himself. He and the Minister of Justice are sending two completely different messages. He is certainly in no position to talk to us about confusion. He is creating confusion.
Seriously, I realize the Prime Minister wants to give his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs a chance to make his mark in the House, but my question was directed to the Prime Minister.
I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would tell us whether he realizes that, by insisting on his reference to the Supreme Court and by wanting to assume the powers of the National Assembly, he no longer enjoys the support of any of his federalist allies who were with him during the last referendum? Does he realize he is isolating himself, even from the Quebec federalists who supported him during the last referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec urges the Quebec government to come and argue its case before the Supreme Court. He does so, using the same arguments that the Minister of Justice of Canada used to invite his counterpart, Mr. Bégin, to argue his case before the Supreme Court.
The reason they are not going there is that they now realize, after being told by two judges of the Quebec Superior Court, as well as by all the experts, including some U.S. experts last week, that international law provides no basis for a unilateral declaration of independence, that this gospel they believed, because their separatist leaders, Mr. Parizeau, and Mr. Landry kept preaching it all the time, is not true, and that if they want to bring about something as serious as secession, for the sake of the people of Quebec in particular, it must be done within a specific framework that is acceptable to all concerned, and not unilaterally.
The problem is that they now realize that Quebecers and other Canadians will never give up their ties of solidarity in a clear situation. That is why they need confusion, stratagems and other tricks.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should be careful because, when he was a university professor, he wrote that in Quebec people would never let the federal government draft the referendum question. To create a diversion, it was necessary to appeal to the Supreme Court so that Quebecers would then agree to let Ottawa be involved in the drafting of the question. So they are not in a position to teach us anything.
Does the Prime Minister realize that by wanting to draft the question for the next referendum, to determine the percentage required for the results of the referendum to be considered positive, and to set the rules for holding this referendum, he is usurping the role of the Quebec National Assembly, which is an attack on democracy? We know he is familiar with this strategy, and we wish he would stop this exercise before launching another attack.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I entered politics, I have never had to back down from anything I wrote as a university professor and I am prepared to take up the gauntlet.
Second, the official opposition would do well to study foreign cases and international law. It will see that in many democracies, the very concept of secession has been excluded from public debate. In the United States, Italy, Spain and other democracies including France, which the official opposition treats as a good
friend, in fact in section 2 of the French constitution it says that the French Republic is one and indivisible.
Here in Canada we are actually more democratic than average, in this area as in others. We are more conciliatory. We accept the idea that our country can break up if part of our population no longer wishes to remain in the country. However, we have the right to ensure this is done according to the rule of law, in a clear context, since this is a very serious decision which cannot be made if confusion reigns.
(1425)
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated: ``It is not reasonable for Prince Edward Island to be able to block Quebec's departure from the federation, because that is not democratic, not Quebecois, not Canadian''.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are polls, there are statements made by the moral authorities of this country, by various public figures. Obviously in Canada there is a convention that a population is not to be forced to remain against its will. The Minister of Justice has explained this in his speech.
We are, however, entitled to the assurance that this is what a given population wants, and in that connection, yes, PEI is entitled to its say.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, talk about total ambiguity-I thought the minister was at least in agreement with himself, but even that is not the case. I will therefore direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister agree with what his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had to say yesterday, or today, depending on which version one chooses: that it is not reasonable or democratic for a single province to prevent Quebec from leaving the federation? Which version is the right one?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing me with the opportunity to repeat my statement. Perhaps then she will understand that we in this country have accepted the idea that the country could break apart, if a population were to indicate very clearly that it no longer wished to remain in the federation.
There will, however, have to be assurances that this is clear and fair for everyone. Prince Edward Island, therefore, is entitled to assure itself that the people of Quebec have been consulted in a clear process, acceptable to all, with terms of negotiation that are also acceptable to all.
It is clear that the decision to break up Canada would have serious consequences for the people of Prince Edward Island. I am very confident that Quebecers and other Canadians will to avoid negotiations as painful, lengthy and difficult as those on the breakup of this country would be.
Is this report true and if so, when did the minister become aware of this covert operation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that the specific allegation contained in the newspaper report to which she referred occurred during the Canadian forces deployment to Somalia in 1993. Therefore it would only be reasonable that the commission may wish to look at this matter to see whether it is true.
With respect to the concept of sharing equipment and uniforms, there are a number of joint exercises that are taken on an annual basis between Canada and our allies. But the kind of thing that has been described in the article is something unusual. The chief of defence staff is going to look into it on a conceptual level. But on the specific level, because it does relate to Somalia in 1993, this may be of interest to the commission.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe it. Talk about joint exercises. What about joint uniforms? Certainly these people have their own uniforms to wear. We do not do a complete swap on that, heaven help us.
Canadian forces have not been under foreign command since World War I. The terms of the 1992 memorandum of understanding of orders, signed by former Chief of Defence Staff John de Chastelain, clearly state that the complete operational control of the Canadian forces will be under Canadian command. Yet these direct orders were disobeyed regardless of how he tries to explain it away by talking about joint exercises.
What has the minister of defence done to ensure such an incident will not recur? He cannot just stand behind the fact that this was in 1993 long before he was elected. What is he going to do about this and how will he enable the Somalia commission to look into this and investigate it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we first have to ascertain whether the allegation in the newspaper is actually true. And I am sure that will be of interest to the commission.
The commission has all the means at its disposal to look into the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to Somalia in 1993, and the department will co-operate in every way.
(1430)
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is the toleration of this kind of behaviour. We have had somebody admit on the news nationally here already that he ordered that this person take him out, drop the guy and shoot him. I hardly think that is something the minister needs to look into a great deal more.
Jean Boyle said: ``We were aware that the Americans were working with Canadians jointly in terms of intelligence and support in Somali'' and added to nobody's surprise that he had no knowledge of any behaviour outlined by a former Green Beret.
This is a pattern we are seeing develop with this minister, blaming things off on cuts and blaming it off to a subordinate. Also with Jean Boyle, again and again say ``hey, I had absolutely no knowledge about it''. Why did Jean Boyle have absolutely no knowledge about it? Just what does he have any knowledge about?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member could only listen to herself.
First of all, General Boyle was not the chief of defence staff in 1993. Second, she talks about a pattern. The only pattern I see is the pattern of her party not allowing the commission to do its work.
This party in opposition called for the inquiry. We set it up. We want the inquiry to do the job. I believe Canadians want answers. They do not want answers from the Reform Party because they know they cannot trust those answers. Canadians want answers from the commission.
We were astounded to learn today that U.S. army soldiers belonging to commandos sent to Somalia apparently deliberately represented themselves as soldiers of the Canadian armed forces. According to the Globe and Mail, a U.S. army captain even ordered a Canadian forces soldier to kill a Somali, which he did.
How can the Prime Minister explain that U.S. army officers could have dressed in the uniforms of Canadian soldiers and even given them orders?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have just answered to earlier questions, this is an allegation that has come to light today. It is something that obviously concerns everyone, but to get to the truth of the matter I think we should perhaps wait and see if the inquiry wishes to pursue it because it does raise certain troubling questions.
With respect to the whole concept of joint exercises and as to whether there is exchange of equipment and that type of thing, the chief of defence staff is looking into it. I will be able to have something more to say at a later date once we look at the conceptual question. On the specifics, we have to wait for the inquiry.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in order for the commission to be able to get to the bottom of this, the documents that have gone missing may have to resurface. That would be the first requirement.
My supplementary is for the Prime Minister. While his chief of staff is looking into these new revelations, can the Prime Minister assure us or not that such practices did not take place under his leadership and that they are not now taking place?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the practices are clear of the Canadian Armed Forces. Canadian soldiers operate under Canadian control. There is some sharing of individuals on specific missions, and those are bilateral agreements with our NATO allies, specifically with the United States on air crews. That goes on all the time.
The allegations to which the hon. member referred which appeared in the newspaper this morning have just come to light. It is something we are going to look at in a general nature, but specifically this may be of interest for the commission.
On another constitutional front we are equally adamant that the government not offer distinct society status to Quebec as a way to try to buy constitutional peace. In fact, in some provinces, including my own, such a constitutional proposal would have to pass a provincial referendum. I can assure you that in British Columbia that concept will never fly.
Does the government understand that the distinct society proposals contained in the throne speech will be totally unacceptable to the people of British Columbia and to the people of Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what strikes me is the absence of any argument to support the idea that the distinct society clause or whatever you may call it is against Canada. I think it is a great thing to do for Canadians to recognize that in an anglophone North America there is a strong francophone society and we are proud of it.
(1435)
We explained that this does not mean more money for Quebecers, privileges for Quebecers. Other Canadians will be so proud to recognize the great Quebec society.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the great Quebec society also, but the Liberal government should know that there is no appetite in Canada for the distinct society clause it is proposing.
A report by the member for Simcoe North, a member of the government, given to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, leaked to Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun, states: ``British Columbians feel a profound sense of alienation from Ottawa over the federal government's handling of the national unity issue''. The government's own member goes on to say they feel the national agenda is controlled by separatists.
Will the Prime Minister listen to the people of British Columbia and will he abandon the idea of a distinct society status for Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I spent much of my professional life at university, fighting the claim of many of my Quebec colleagues who said ``we in Quebec think this, we in Quebec think that''. I know Quebec is a pluralistic society. And I am sure that British Columbia is a pluralist society.
The hon. member does not have the right to say ``we in British Columbia think this or that''. I know that many people in British Columbia think that to recognize Quebec would be a great thing. We will work with them in order to convince our fellow citizens.
The Canadian government's position on the crisis in the Middle East appeared confused, to say the least, last Friday, when the Minister for International Cooperation refused to commit the government regarding the closing of the Jerusalem tunnel.
At a time when the Security Council has passed a resolution calling for the tunnel to be closed, can the minister give this House a clear indication of his government's position in the current crisis?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the speech I gave during the meeting of the Security Council, I mentioned the importance of having a period of calm in the Middle East, particularly in order to reduce the number of incidents that could lead to general conflict, including keeping the tunnel closed during the period of discussion and negotiation between the two parties.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the President of Palestine is saying that his participation in the Summit is conditional on firm commitments from Israel, the Israeli government is refusing to close the tunnel, and is deploying tanks on the West Bank and threatening to disarm Palestinian police.
Given the impasse, I ask the minister whether he can tell this House exactly what the Canadian government's position will be?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already explained that we have made our views known very clearly to the security council on Friday night. I had direct discussions with the acting Israeli ambassador at the UN on Friday. We expressed our very strong concern that the two parties come back to the negotiating table. The president of the United States has now invited the head of the Palestine authority and the new prime minister of Israel to do that. Negotiations are underway now to determine the meeting.
I think it is really in the interests of all Canadians, not just the Government of Canada, to express strongly their great hope and earnest feelings about the importance of the two parties coming
back to the table and continuing to follow the Oslo accords so there can continue to be negotiations toward peace in that area.
Can the minister explain where the improvements in enforcement and speed have taken place when over 590, 80 per cent of the criminals, are still in Canada?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the legislation passed in this House facilitates the expulsion of criminals from Canada far more rapidly.
This is a law which has been passed by the hon. members of this House precisely in order to make it possible for Canada not to harbour dangerous criminals. This is very clear and is what the act was intended to do. We are seeing the results today in a number of cases.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I fail to see where 80 per cent still in Canada are results.
This summer, Dennis Garcia, a declared dangerous offender serving a 20-year sentence in Montana, escaped prison and fled to Canada. He claimed refugee status and was released by an adjudicator and disappeared in the Vancouver area.
Is this an example of the government's commitment to protecting Canadians from foreign criminals?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada will never be a country which welcomes dangerous criminals. It will, however, continue to be a country which welcomes refugees in need of protection and immigrants who wish to live in our country. Clearly, in this connection, our view is totally different from that of the Reform Party.
A few days ago, Islamic fundamentalists seized power in Kabul, and the situation for women there has become intolerable. Women are being beaten, enslaved or killed by those who are now in control of the country.
How does the Canadian government plan to react to this tragic situation in Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be very realistic in terms of the actual influence Canada can exercise in the conditions that accompany the takeover of Kabul, there is very little we can do other than to join the international community in expressing our great outrage at the travesties of justice that are taking place and to try to provide as much protection as we can for those who are continuing under siege.
It is a takeover by a group of militants who are exercising very extreme tactics. The matter was discussed at the security council this weekend. Expressions of concern have been raised and we join in those very strongly. We will do anything we can to assist the United Nations and other bodies to try to bring about some form of calm and an end to the violence in that area.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the Canadian government make a firm commitment before this House, as it did in the past with respect to South Africa, not to recognize the Taliban regime, since it is against fundamental values held dear by the people of Quebec and Canada?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly in any recognition we would take into account the values, the stands and the behaviour of the recipient state. I will certainly take the hon. member's point of view as a strong representation.
A number of newspapers reported on Saturday that the Department of Canadian Heritage refused to lower the flag on the peace tower to half mast for Sunday's ceremony to honour police and peace officers killed in the line of duty.
Can the parliamentary secretary please explain why the flag was not lowered to honour these brave men and women?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It gives me an opportunity to inform this House and all Canadians that the article in question was entirely inaccurate.
The flag was lowered to half mast at the memorial services yesterday. The Deputy Prime Minister was informed of the concerns of the Canadian Police Association on Friday and at that time immediately asked her officials to ensure that the flag was lowered to half mast. It is truly unfortunate that the news reports failed to report this fact.
What are the Liberal government's priorities that it would cut funding for the coast guard while flying feel good flags?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government's concern is primarily with safety. Our standards are going to be maintained to the highest order. What the hon. member talks about is a required adjustment to the budget in order to contribute to deficit reduction.
I am not sure what the hon. member would do with his party and the speed with which they would go forward with deficit reduction, but we are proceeding in a responsible manner. It is in a manner that will ensure the main concern is safety for Canadians.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it begs the question: How responsible is it to blow away $23 million on flags while cutting $7 million from the coast guard? The Liberals are also proposing a $3.5 million lighthouse staffing budget cut to save money. Of course that is necessary because the heritage minister's unnecessary expenditures are driving it. An example is her Canada Information Office. There are information after information after information offices available to Canadians right now; $4 million on Inquiries Canada alone.
I ask again: What are this government's priorities when it gives a free hand to the heritage minister to blow money as she sees fit yet makes cuts that put people's lives at risk on the waters around Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is taking this entirely out of proportion.
What I want to tell him in respect to DFO and the budget for which I am responsible, we are in fact reducing in four years $450 million, largely at the behest of the opposition to reduce budgets, and 2,700 person years as well. It is difficult to do that without rearranging priorities. However, the priorities will be and will continue to be. That is the way it is now, that is the way it should be and that is the way it is going to be.
I want to ask the hon. member: What does he have against Canadian unity?
Last spring, in order to justify cutting off federal funding to the Tokamak facility, the Minister of Natural Resources maintained that the sale of the CANDU reactor to China would generate spinoffs of over $400 million for Quebec and the creation of hundreds of additional jobs. The main enterprise to benefit from the spinoffs from this sale, CANATOM, has lost the main contracts related to the construction of the CANDU reactor sold to China.
Since CANATOM no longer has the main contracts for the Chinese project, how can the government continue to maintain that the sale of the CANDU reactor to China will generate spinoffs of $400 million for Quebec?
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the focus and priorities of this government are creating a climate for economic growth.
The Candu business brings significant benefits to Quebec. As the minister has said over and over again in this House, the sale of one Candu reactor brings significant jobs and economic growth to the people of Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid she did not get the question.
[Translation]
Last spring, the Minister of Natural Resources declared that she was looking for a way to continue federal funding for the Tokamak
project. We have just learned, however, that Tokamak staff will very shortly be receiving their layoff notices.
Can the Prime Minister finally tell us, after three months, whether or not his government has found alternative funding for the Varennes Tokamak?
(1450)
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is making difficult choices and it is setting priorities.
In the field of R and D, let me remind the hon. member that Quebec gets its fair share. Quebec receives about 23 per cent of all federal R and D expenditures. Our agenda is clear.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard.
The hon. member has written to me about this matter on a number of occasions and I have explained the process to him. Once an amicable arrangement can be made by the department, Treasury Board and the city of Nanaimo, then obviously the land could certainly be given to the city for its uses.
We follow the same disposal procedure of land across the country whether it is on the east coast, on the west coast or anywhere else.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there are other examples. When land was given away in Chatham, New Brunswick, they got $15 million to go with it. In St. Hubert, Quebec, they got an extra $1 million plus the land. In Cornwallis they got the land plus $7.5 million. Obviously there is a difference in criterion between the east and the west.
Why the difference in criterion? What is it? Is it the number of Liberal members in the area or what is it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the Royal Roads Military College closed a couple of years ago, a very favourable arrangement was made with the Government of British Columbia. As a result those lands have been kept for educational use. Not only was there a transfer of lands, there was a cash settlement. That shows fairness. It is the same principle which is applied across the country.
What the member is talking about is not an actual closure. He is talking about land which is surplus to DND's requirements. It is certainly different from closing the whole facility.
The member knows the answer. He knows that negotiations have to conclude. We want them to conclude very favourably. Why is he bringing the question on the floor of the House of Commons? Why does he not go back to the city of Nanaimo and tell them to negotiate in good faith?
The government has just announced that it will allow Canadian companies to export PCBs to the United States. Last fall an interim order was issued preventing Canadian companies from exporting this substance.
Can the minister tell the House what measures were taken before a decision was made to lift the interim order banning the export of PCBs to the U.S.?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brampton has as I understand it a number of companies in her riding which are obviously interested in this issue.
It is right that my predecessor put an interim order against opening the border last fall. It was the right thing to do because the United States Environmental Protection Agency had not given Canada a copy of the regulations by which any PCBs would be destroyed. Not only have those been provided to the Canadian authorities since the interim order, we have also been able to convince the American authorities to improve and enhance those regulations. As a result, the government and the cabinet felt assured that for thermal and chemical destruction only, not land filling, the systems in the United States were compatible.
After gazetting the regulation, we anticipate that the regulation opening the border to thermal and chemical destruction should be made around the end of this year. This will allow for the timely disposal of many PCBs which are being stored.
(1455)
[Translation]
Yesterday, tens of thousands of people marched in sixty or so Canadian cities in order to raise money to fund the fight against AIDS. In Montreal alone, 30,000 people took part in the march. All of them hope that the federal government is setting aside money to help in the fight against the spread of AIDS.
Will the minister promise to respect the public's wishes and extend the national AIDS strategy?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the request that is being made of governments by activists in the AIDS community. I wish to congratulate them for the efforts they put forward yesterday in terms of their fundraising activities.
The role of the Government of Canada to date has been very significant particularly for fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Thereafter moneys will be provided under a population health strategy. Over the next number of months I will continue my consultations with AIDS activists. If there is to be a change in that policy, I will certainly take the House into my confidence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since activists, persons living with AIDS and medical researchers unanimously called on the minister in Vancouver at the 10th International Conference to set aside funds for the fight against AIDS, can the minister tell us when he intends to announce phase III of the national AIDS strategy?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have attempted over the last number of months to explain to AIDS activists that for the seeking of finances for the year 1998-99, our budgetary process does not allow for that.
I also suggested to community activists and AIDS activists that they would be much better off if they were to outline across the country the various successes the federal government and the provincial governments have made co-operatively in terms of fighting this terrible disease.
I say to those who raise this question: yes, AIDS is a very serious issue; yes, the Government of Canada takes it very seriously. I would hope that AIDS activists instead of protesting, instead of thrashing Health Canada booths and things of that nature, would stand up and let the country and Parliament know the successes they have had in co-operation with governments and all others.
The Churchill Falls conflict is an issue of one province controlling the resources of another province. Does the Prime Minister recognize that Newfoundland's inability to access U.S. markets obstructs its ability to utilize its own resources?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question last week.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is a noteworthy answer.
The Prime Minister is fully aware that the energy section of the agreement on internal trade is literally a blank page. The type of urgency the Liberals talked about in the red book really demonstrates how ineffective this government is.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been denied the jobs and prosperity that a new Churchill Falls hydro development would bring. The Quebec government will not allow the transmission of electricity across its territory.
Will the Prime Minister address this issue urgently by committing himself to the elimination of this interprovincial trade barrier and establish a power corridor through Quebec so that Newfoundlanders can finally reap the benefits of any new project at Churchill Falls?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said last week and I repeat that it is a contract between private parties.
I know there is a problem. I said that it is for the two governments to sit down and find a solution. Quebec and Labrador have a lot of potential. They have to work together. I am sure that if they sit down they will find a solution. But they signed a contract and under the rule of law in any country a contract between parties has to be respected. That is exactly the position of this government.
(1500)
I know the premier of Newfoundland and the premier of Quebec can sit down and find a solution. If the member had listened he would have understood that 10 days ago the spokesman for Hydro Quebec said that they are willing to sit down and they understand that some changes could be made. And if the atmosphere is proper they will find a solution.
Wet weather on the prairies for the last three weeks and snow yesterday have threatened a very good harvest of a very good crop on the prairies.
Is the minister of agriculture considering any contingency plan should the revenues expected from that harvest do not materialize?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the weather conditions over the last couple of weeks, at least in some parts of the prairies, are most definitely a matter of concern to many farmers. Hopefully this fall will still materialize in such a way that the weather person will co-operate and we will see that in due course.
Naturally the Government of Canada is concerned. We are watching the situation closely. Of course, we have a rather elaborate safety net system already in place to deal with production and marketing problems that affect agriculture from time to time. If necessary, we do have special provisions for special advances under government legislation which we would consider invoking if that should become necessary.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: A few days ago one of our former colleagues of this House passed away. I am referring to Mr. Bert Hargrave. We will now have tributes.
Aside from being extremely well known and liked in his province and in his riding, Mr. Hargrave selflessly devoted a large part of his public and private life to the promotion of agriculture in Canada.
Aside from being a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan, Mr. Hargrave also served in World War II as a captain in the tank brigades. Following the end of the war he returned to Canada and took over the family farm in Walsh, Alberta in 1945.
(1505 )
In 1972 he ran and was successfully elected a member of Parliament. As a side note to his victory back then, he defeated the person who was then the minister of agriculture in the government of Mr. Trudeau. He then took his seat in the House as a Progressive Conservative member until his retirement in 1984.
He spent his whole career in opposition, except for the brief term in government in 1979 under the leadership of Mr. Clark where he served, as members probably have already guessed, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture.
Following his career as a parliamentarian he served as president of the Walsh Cattle Marketing Association, the Western Stock Growers Association and the National Cattlemen's Association, to name a few. He was also southern Alberta chair of the Farm Debt Review Board until the late 1980s and early 1990s.
His tireless and constant dedication to agriculture was recognized when he was inducted into the Alberta Agriculture Hall of Fame.
Mr. Hargrave was a true gentlemen and was well respected, I understand, on all sides of the House of Commons. He was unquestionably considered one of the most informed and knowledgeable parliamentarians on all sides in the realm of agriculture. Although I did not have the opportunity or the privilege of knowing him personally, I am told he was recognized as being someone who was tough, sincere, but most of all a very generous man.
He passed away last Tuesday at the age of 79 and will be laid to rest today in Medicine Hat, Alberta.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Hargrave today for his years of service to Canada, to his community, to his province. I want to offer my personal condolences on behalf of my party to his family members and wish them well. But most of all, I would like them to know that this place, this Parliament, his province and his country will forever remember him as being a statesman.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join with my colleagues in the House in expressing our sorrow and the sorrow of the Government of Canada at the passing of Mr. Bert Hargrave.
I spent one term in the House of Commons from 1974 to 1979 serving with Mr. Hargrave. Although we were not on the same side of the House, we shared a strong commitment to Canada, particularly to its agricultural concerns where beyond all doubt Bert Hargrave was an expert.
Anyone who had spent any time with Bert would come away with a far better understanding of agriculture, most especially the cattle business. Bert, a fourth generation cattleman, was tireless in his efforts to promote and defend his fellow cattle producers. Whenever the subject of beef came up in the House one could be assured that Bert Hargrave would be on his feet supporting his industry.
Bert, who served his constituents from 1972 until 1984, fought most of his battles from the opposition benches. He fought very well. I recall one incident during my time earlier in the House in 1977 when a five year lobby by Bert Hargrave ended in success when 90,000 acres of the Suffield, Alberta defence research station were opened to cattle producers for grazing purposes. These were not the kinds of victories that create great national headlines, but they are the kind that truly help one's constituents.
Mr. Hargrave did get to spend a brief period of time on the government side in the House of Commons in 1979. As the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has pointed out, he was during that period appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, a recognition of his commitment to the agricultural sector.
During that time the government further demonstrated its confidence in the former member for Medicine Hat by naming him chair of its beef consultative committee.
(1510)
Let me join with others in paying tribute to the late Bert Hargrave, one of those who took the concerns of his friends and neighbours in the most direct way possible, the electoral process. Through that process he served with great distinction. We extend our sincere condolences to the Hargrave family.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party I would certainly like to pay tribute to someone I thought was a great man, Bert Hargrave, a man respected by all people who knew him.
I was personally involved with Mr. Hargrave on a number of occasions, at a variety of meetings, a variety of delegations and a variety of presentations not only in the provincial legislature but in other meetings across the province dealing with agricultural issues.
Bert's constituency of Medicine Hat overlapped with the constituency of Little Bow, my provincial constituency, and as two elected persons, although not of the same political party, we often dealt with issues together.
One of the qualities of Bert Hargrave was that he was able to step over partisan barriers and deal with issues in a very common sense way. In my memories of Bert Hargrave that will be the marquee of his gentlemanly, sophisticated and rational way of dealing with responsible matters for his constituents in southern Alberta.
If we recall part of Bert's history, he was born in 1917 in Medicine Hat and attended school in that city. He received a bachelor of science in agricultural engineering from the University of Saskatchewan in 1942. Bert served the country in World War II in the Canadian army RCEME corps from 1942 to 1946, serving in northwest Europe.
After returning he married Amy Reinhart and they lived near Walsh, Alberta. Often in our conversations we talked about the beautiful rolling hills, that gem of the southeastern part of our province of Alberta.
Bert was an active member of the agricultural society, in particular the cattle industry. Once in a while I would say to Bert: ``You come to meetings and you are so proud that you would even wear a little bit of that on your shoes for us''. He was known for that. He was certainly an active member of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and gave that organization good leadership.
Entering politics was something that Bert had not really thought about until the early 1970s when he became increasingly concerned over Canadian agricultural policy. Thus at that time he sought the Progressive Conservative nomination for Medicine Hat. He never looked back, winning in 1972 by a margin of 5,600 votes, and won re-election in 1974, 1979 and 1980.
In 1979 he was appointed as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture where his firsthand knowledge of agricultural issues and his common sense shone through. He fought for the average farmer, whether it was urging tax relief for drought stricken farmers or fighting for the rights of cattle farmers against U.S. beef bans or the injustice of the Crow rate.
Bert retired from Canadian politics in 1984, citing his own failing health and the loss of his beloved wife one year earlier. He returned to his farm which was never far from his heart but kept abreast of federal politics. Bert served as a member of the senate of the University of Lethbridge during the period when my wife Ingrid was the chancellor. He made a common sense contribution to the institution's success.
In 1993 he was inducted into the Alberta Agricultural Hall of Fame. He lived on his farm until this past June when he moved to the Central Park Lodge in Medicine Hat. He passed away in his room on Tuesday, September 24, 1996. Bert is survived by his son and his daughter and four grandchildren.
On behalf of the Reform Party of Canada I would like to extend my sincere sympathies to his family and his friends. Our thoughts and prayers are with you as you remember Bert this afternoon.