[English]
Through CESO International Services, Steve Meissner, Donald MacLeod, Dirk Booy and Al Galusz have at the grassroots level exemplified the time honoured Canadian tradition of international co-operation and responsibility.
CESO volunteer advisers are professionally skilled men and women, usually retired, who share their years of experience with companies and organizations in developing countries.
On behalf of the people of Cambridge, I welcome back these volunteers who have done Canada proud. I urge them to continue playing a role in assisting developing economies of our global village.
To keep a promise he made to his son suffering from an incurable disease, this determined musician from Quebec composed an ode to peace. At 10 minutes past 10 this morning, Quebec time, thousands of men, women and children in America, Europe and Africa, in schools and on the streets, sang together in a single voice.
This event was a rehearsal for the great rendezvous on December 31, 1999, when a global choir will sing the hymn to peace.
This megaproject conveys a message of hope that, on the eve of the next millennium, peace will become a common goal and flourish all over the world.
A Saskatchewan court is calling upon the deputy leader of the Conservatives in the Senate to testify on corruption charges in the Devine government where he was second in command. He is avoiding court by invoking a little used privilege of MPs and senators that excuses them from answering a subpoena for 40 days before or after a session as well as during a session.
In avoiding the court order, the Tories' deputy leader is breaching Canadians' trust in a place where trust should be raised to the highest level. The Senate remains an anachronism yet it has continued to be supported by this Prime Minister.
The actions of the Tories' deputy leader has tarnished the image of all politicians. There is clearly no need to invoke immunity. It exhibits a serious abuse of privilege.
Resign Senator Berntson.
From the provincial byelection in Halifax-Fairview where the NDP got 65 per cent of the vote, to the federal byelection in Hamilton East where we came second getting more votes than the Tories and Reformers put together, to the re-election of the NDP in B.C., and now the NDP Government of Yukon, we see Canadians rejecting what the right-wing Liberals, Tories and Reformers have been telling them.
There is another way. It is not an easy way, but the way of solving our problems on the basis of community and co-operation rather than competition and concessions to the powerful.
Congratulations to Piers McDonald and the Yukon NDP for giving Canadians hope. The next federal election is just around the corner and more and more Canadians appear to know just who the real opposition is.
Sixty high-ranking officials of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement from around the world are gathering in St. John's for a three day convention. This is the first time in the group's history that it has met outside Europe. The choice of St. John's for this year's meeting shows the support that the Canadian Red Cross and the Canadian government have given to the International Red Cross movement over the years.
(1405 )
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the humanitarian services provided by the Canadian Red Cross to the world. Their service and dedication to those less fortunate is well known around the globe.
I am honoured that they have chosen St. John's for their meeting. I want to extend on behalf of the government greetings to the participants.
Not only has the opening of almost 6,000 square kilometres of land for exploration created much excitement for prospectors and mining companies, but it has created great hopes in communities in the area that new, high paying year-round jobs will follow in the future.
[Translation]
Of course, all operations must be environmentally viable. Since the Canadian mining industry is a world leader in the development and implementation of environmentally sound practices, I am convinced that all mining development in the Temagami region will meet Canadian standards.
[English]
I look forward to working with local groups, aboriginal leaders and the mining industry to ensure that any development in the Temagami region is managed in a responsible way.
[Translation]
I will gladly work together with local groups, aboriginal leaders and the industry-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.
The fixed link will now be known as Confederation Bridge. This name recognizes the important role P.E.I. has played in Canada's rich history which has lead to Canadians calling the province the cradle of Confederation.
For all Canadians the name celebrates our rich past and our promising future, a future based on the kind of ingenuity and hard work that is making the construction of Confederation Bridge a reality.
Canadians from throughout the country participated in naming the bridge. The number of submissions as well as the quality and creativity of the suggestions demonstrate the pride that we Canadians feel not only for this incredible engineering feat but for our great country as well.
I would like to congratulate the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, the advisory committee and all Canadians who participated in the bridge naming process. Thanks to them.
We join with all those who spoke before us in saluting your courage and determination. Whether you brought a medal home or not, you are winners. You have made your dreams come true and you are an inspiration to us all.
Some Olympic feats will be forever remembered. For instance, we salute with pride Chantal Petitclerc, who won two gold and three silver medals. Through her efforts and perseverance, she has become an example to all young people, like Donovan Bailey, Annie Pelletier and all the others.
We offer each and everyone of you our deepest thanks for your brilliant performance.
Last week the provincial justice ministers argued publicly that the registration of rifles and shotguns will not be effective in reducing crime; that gun registration does nothing to reduce crimes involving firearms or smuggling; that gun registration is an inappropriate use of scarce resources right across the country. They said that the federal government has repeatedly failed to produce evidence of a correlation between a firearms registry and reduction in crime. They said it is time to target criminals who use weapons to commit crimes, not penalize law-abiding citizens under the guise of gun registration.
If this court challenge is successful, then the hundreds of millions saved will be able to be redirected to fighting real crime and real criminals by putting more police officers in our communities rather than keeping them back in the office processing useless bits of paper.
(1410 )
Who would have believed in the early 1990s when interest rates were over 10 per cent that today they would be reduced to less than 6 per cent? Mortgage rates have declined 4 per cent putting $3,000 in the pockets of the average Canadian family. Interest rates have helped small businesses and the housing market show great improvements and move forward.
Our monetary policy allowed the dollar to drop from 90 cents to 73 cents. This shift, along with Team Canada trade missions, has
increased our foreign trade by 38 per cent, creating some 680,000 jobs in this country. Unemployment has dropped from 11.2 per cent to 9.4 nationally and under 9 per cent in my area of southwestern Ontario.
The government has and will continue to provide positive leadership.
Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths among Canadian women. Approximately 18,600 new breast cancer cases will be diagnosed this year and 5,300 women will die.
In 1992 Health Canada implemented a major initiative on breast cancer totalling $25 million over five years. Our partners in this initiative include the Medical Research Council, the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute of Canada, the provinces and territories.
There are other activities under way. Health Canada supports provincial breast cancer screening activities, the development of care and treatment guidelines, research, five information exchange projects, and strategies for the continuing education of health care professionals.
I applaud the efforts of those who are fighting this disease. October will provide us all with an opportunity to support breast cancer initiatives.
Yesterday, minister Serge Ménard plunged into the fray, stating: ``I would not want this country we will be building to be a country that does not treat its minorities as we wished we had been treated in Canada''.
The minister is in no position to teach anyone anything about how francophones should be treated in Canada. In this respect, I remind him that, in Canada, we have two official languages and, although they are few in numbers, francophones have successfully made their presence felt and done well at every level of Canada's social, cultural and political life.
By the way, Mr. Ménard, when will an anglophone from the West Island become premier of Quebec for instance?
These people support the position held by Quebec and they feel that all must accept the majority decision reached democratically. We must be grateful to these leaders for stating a clear position in saying that ``Quebec's Italian community will remain an integral part of Quebec, regardless of the outcome of the constitutional debate''.
I ask Liberal members from Quebec to follow the example set by Quebec's Italian community and to publicly dissociate themselves from their government's legal action.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would ask you not to use the names of senators when you make statements in the House.
Today we are honouring Olympic athletes, some of whom are with us today on Parliament Hill. The value of their participation and contribution to Canada should not be underestimated or unrecognized.
In my opinion, athletics are as important in one's life as is academics. In some way or another sports have been or will become a part of every Canadian's life. Athletic competition prepares the individual for life and the real world.
An Olympic athlete reaches the epitome of success by not only striving to be the best in a particular sport, but also in wanting to represent his or her country. Hours of practice go rewarded by making the Olympic team and the height of ecstasy is reached if the athlete manages to win a medal for themselves and their country.
(1415)
To all who aspire to be an Olympic athlete, to all who dream, past, present and future, and to all those who represent their country, congratulations.
[Translation]
All of Quebec's stakeholders in the socio-economic and political fields share these two objectives. All, except the Bloc Quebecois.
Believe it or not, the party's general council just adopted a plan of action which seeks two objectives: ``To allow the Bouchard government to spend most of its energy on the economy'', while the Bloc will ``tend the flame of sovereignty''.
The Bloc Quebecois has just demonstrated that it does not give a hoot about the economic problems of Quebecers. The only priorities of its members are to get re-elected and to achieve separation.
It is true that not all laws are popular with all Canadians. However, by respecting these laws we guarantee order in our society. Anyone who intentionally encourages defiance or disrespect for these laws would be acting irresponsibly and should be denounced.
Last month the Reform member for Yorkton-Melville visited my riding of Souris-Moose Mountain in order to advise people not to respect Bill C-68. I find this action irresponsible and now wonder if the leader of the Reform Party agrees with the member that it is not necessary to respect the law. If not, he should say so.
keep the referendum promises he made to Quebecers, and is therefore hoping to gain time by seeking the Supreme Court's opinion on the question of Quebec's sovereignty.
Will the Prime Minister admit that a reference to the Supreme Court will take 12 to 18 months, until after the next federal election, and that this will gain him enough time to be able to appear before voters without having kept his promises, using the excuse that he is waiting on this opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say that, in December, the House of Commons voted in favour of a distinct society, and I hope that the National Assembly will follow suit as rapidly as possible.
Here, the government has assumed its responsibilities and voted in favour of a distinct society. We also promised that we were not going to amend the Constitution without the consent of Quebec. Parliament assumed its responsibilities in the month of December, and we passed a bill giving a regional veto in Canada, which means Quebec has a veto. But the Constitution cannot be amended without the approval of the government of Quebec.
So, if the Leader of the Opposition wants changes, let him tell head office to pass a resolution on distinct society, and accept the veto which they are being offered and which the government of Quebec is turning down.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can talk about the distinct society resolution, but the best proof that this resolution of the House of Commons is not worth the paper it is written on is that at no time has the government asked the Supreme Court to consider it in the opinion it is going to give the provinces.
(1420)
If the Prime Minister believes in what he is doing, there is still time to ask the Supreme Court judges to consider the resolution passed in the House of Commons recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. Let him do it.
Will he at least admit that not only will the reference to the Supreme Court gain him time, but that also, in his mind, it will allow preparations to be made for a possible federal intervention in Quebec's next referendum, an intervention that would otherwise be viewed as completely unacceptable by Quebecers, and that the Prime Minister wants the Supreme Court to pave the way for?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition voted against the distinct society resolution. In addition, the bill was passed by the Parliament of Canada and challenged by no one. A reference is not possible.
Furthermore, in the throne speech, we proposed a series of adjustments to the federation, including our withdrawal frommany areas. We offered the provinces a new manpower agreement,
which the minister is in the process of negotiating with the provinces.
We said that we were not going to use our spending authority without the consent of five provinces. We spoke about a series of things to change the federation. Since February, once again, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to keep the status quo, while we are in favour of change in Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing to hear the Prime Minister say that he did not mention the House of Commons resolution before the Supreme Court because the Leader of the Opposition voted against it. I had no idea I was so powerful. I would remind the Prime Minister that this was not a bill, but a resolution of the House of Commons.
With respect to the Supreme Court's opinion, the government is using this reference to create a false sense of security in the rest of Canada, telling people not to worry because it will be a powerful tool against sovereignty. In Quebec, he says that it will not stand in the way of sovereignty, but will merely provide a legal framework.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his reference to the Supreme Court not only gains him time and allows him to pave the way, but that it also allows him to change his tune, depending on whether he is in Quebec or in the rest of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I speak in the House of Commons every day. Through the House of Commons, I am heard across Canada, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country.
When the hon. Leader of the Opposition says that this was just a resolution, here again he is demonstrating his failure to understand the facts. We passed a bill on the right of veto. It is a bill, not a resolution. It is a bill and the member voted against a bill giving Quebec the right of veto with regard to any changes to the Constitution.
Speaking about promises, we are in our twelfth day of question period and the Leader of the Opposition said in Le Devoir not very long ago: ``When we go back, the priority will be on the problems our people are experiencing, particularly in Montreal and in Quebec. We will be talking about jobs, about the economy. We have suggestions to make''.
Because he is unable to attack us on our economic policies, all the Leader of the Opposition can talk about is the Constitution.
(1425)
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated yesterday that he was proud that, since entering politics, he has never had to back down from anything he wrote as a university professor, does he still maintain that severe judgment of the man who is now his leader?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have never blamed the Prime Minister for the referendum victory by the No. I have simply said that the promises made came too late to have a positive impact on the vote.
That is why prompt action is necessary. That is why it is important to clarify things rapidly, and not to let the separatist camp exploit the confusion, and we are going to clarify a number of things.
It is, for example, incorrect to say that this federation is centralized. It is one of the most decentralized possible. It is incorrect to say that Quebecers do not have a share in this confederation. This is one of the most generous federations there is, and it is wrong to say that this federation cannot change. We shall improve it by working with all of our partners who believe in Canada. It is wrong to spread a whole pack of falsehoods, as the opposition and the independentist movement are constantly doing, and we are going to clarify things as soon as possible.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in that same book, the minister wrote that the Liberals ought perhaps, and again I quote: ``to consider the opinion of the leader of the Reform Party by passing a law clarifying the conditions under which a province can separate from Canada.''
The Minister having stated yesterday in this House that he denies absolutely nothing in what he has written, are we to understand that his thoughts are the same today, that the government ought to follow the plan of the Reform leader, and that consequently he is giving his blessing to the holy alliance of Liberals and Reformers against Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what Quebecers see is certainly all of the efforts being expended to cloud the issue.
The opposition is well aware that confusion can help it win out, and that a clear question, a clear process relating to secession, will bring Quebecers and other Canadians to a reconciliation and will reinforce the solidarity that joins them, rather than breaking it down. They are aware of this, and that is why they fear the undertaking we have begun.
Last night CBC reported another example of the apparent failure of the military justice system under this Minister of National Defence.
Commander Dean Marsaw was court martialled and found guilty of verbal and physical misconduct. However, transcripts and videos of the investigations show the witnesses being badgered, called liars and being accused of not co-operating. Before Marsaw can be dismissed from the forces the minister must confirm the dismissal.
Will the minister show some support for the morale in the forces and immediately suspend the dismissal of Commander Marsaw?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member shows his absolute contempt for due process in the Canadian justice system.
We have a case here of a court martial. I cannot talk about the details but the individual concerned has the right to appeal to the court martial appeal court. That court is composed of three civilian justices, usually of the Federal Court of Canada or the superior courts of the provinces.
I think the hon. member would serve the cause of justice well if he would let the process take its course, allow the individual to make up his own mind as to what to do and not to second guess once again individual cases on the floor of the House of Commons.
(1430 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why will this minister not show some competence and just do what is right for once?
The minister refuses to act on what appears to be a gross injustice. Time and time again we keep coming across instances where the military justice system goes on a witch hunt. Corporal Pernelle is being court martialled for telling the truth to the Somalia inquiry. Dean Marsaw has already been found guilty and is about to be kicked out of the forces. The whole investigation has been called into question.
To restore the integrity of the investigation of Commander Marsaw, will the minister bring the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in to conduct an investigation into the botched investigation?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member admits to coming to certain conclusions based on appearances from some television program.
The fact is we see clearly once again that Reform Party justice is vigilante justice, and that is not Canadian justice.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister forgets that he himself this past summer suggested that the military justice system needs to be reviewed. The military justice system is in shambles under this minister.
There are double standards applied. General Boyle got special treatment when he was interviewed and he was handled with kid gloves. In Commander Marsaw's case witnesses were grilled and accused of lying. It appears that Marsaw was railroaded and the justice system has failed him.
It is time for a complete overhaul of the judge advocate general's office. This is the only way to avoid repeats of events like Marsaw's case.
To restore morale in the Canadian Armed Forces and to demonstrate leadership, will the minister commit to an immediate overhaul of the justice system in the military?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): The hon. member knows that I have said we are reviewing all procedures and practices at national defence and one of them will be the military justice system. I hope Parliament will take part in that review and I hope the hon. member will make some reasoned and informed comments instead of the ones that he has been making.
The hon. member talks about shambles. The only thing that is in shambles is the Reform Party of Canada. Day after day its members come here and they castigate people in the military. They reflect upon the judicial process, the commission on Somalia. They have nothing to say on national unity, nothing on the economy, nothing on agriculture, nothing on social justice, nothing on pension reform. The Reform Party has nothing to say.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I thought there for a minute I missed a day this week.
[Translation]
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Why does the minister want to accumulate a surplus of $15 billion in the unemployment insurance fund instead of reducing premiums, when he himself said that a reduction of seven cents would create 40,000 jobs over two years and that he would be able to reduce this payroll tax to a significant extent?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member is referring is a report by the chief actuary of the Department of Human Resources Development, who prepared a study that found that if we want to accumulate a surplus in the account, to avoid going through what the last government did, we would need a surplus of between ten and fifteen billion dollars.
That being said, I would like to point out to the hon. member that when we came to power, the previous government had intended to raise unemployment insurance premiums to $3.30. We froze them at $3.07 and then reduced them to $3 and reduced them again last year to $2.95. Last year, we reduced premiums by $1.8 billion, which saved taxpayers money on unemployment insurance.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government came to power, it deliberately increased unemployment insurance premiums. It was the first thing it did as far as economic policy was concerned.
We are accused of not asking a whole lot of questions about jobs. I accuse the government of never having an answer on the subject. The Minister of Finance is more concerned about his millionaires than about the unemployed.
Here is my question, and I expect a reply. Does the minister realize that by wanting to accumulate a surplus of $15 billion in the unemployment insurance fund and by refusing to reduce premiums for employers and employees, he has deliberately ordered a tax of $15 billion on employment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the report to which the hon. member referred was drafted by an actuary, by an expert who said: ``If you want a surplus, it will take from ten to fifteen billion dollars''.
Now the hon. member is talking about jobs. Since we came to power, more than three quarter of a million new jobs were created by Canadians. At the beginning of the year, more than 200,000 new jobs were created by this government. During the month of August, more than 82,000 jobs were created by Canadians. Yesterday, we saw that Canada's economic growth is not only very strong but that the IMF says that next year, Canada will have the strongest economic growth rate of any G7 country. Canadians are doing very well, thank you!
Later Captain Alvis denied even being in Somalia at the time of the incident even though his interview had been taped. However, later last night he said that basically the report was accurate but to disregard the part about the shooting.
Will the minister of defence please tell us exactly what happened at that bridge in Belet Huen?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was confused when I read the Globe and Mail yesterday morning. I was confused when I saw the individual on television last night. I am even more confused with the interpretation of events by this hon. member in the House today.
The fact is certain allegations were made in a newspaper. They have been called into question. That is not a matter for me to debate.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all I asked was to get to the bottom of the facts of what happened at the bridge at Belet Huen. I cannot believe this minister is refusing to answer.
An individual is dead from a Canadian soldier's bullet. We know that the military tried to cover up the murder of Shidane Arone in Somalia. It has misreported and misrepresented the death of Corporal MacKinnon at Suffield. Now the minister refuses to give the Canadian public the facts on what happened in Somalia in this instance. Why does he not come clean?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government
has given the Canadian people a commission of inquiry to look into all the matters of concern to the hon. member. Let it do its job.
[Translation]
Mr. Young: Oh, oh!
Mr. Duceppe: If the Minister for Human Resources Development could be quiet, I could carry on. Mr. Speaker, could the minister please stop talking? He is being insolent.
An hon. member: He is not even polite.
Mr. Young: He knows what he is talking about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has the floor.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Transport realize that, by favouring Canadian over Air Canada, he is contributing to the loss of jobs in Quebec? Why do they keep undermining Air Canada and favouring Canadian?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is the one who is somewhat mixed up. He forgets that both Canadian International and Air Canada are in competition with Cathay Pacific. He quotes a Cathay Pacific spokesman who was quite happy to give that information because of course he knows full well it serves his interest and not the interest of the Canadian airlines.
Asking Cathay Pacific what to do with the Canadian airlines on the Pacific is bit like asking a crocodile where to go swimming in the river. It is not a very bright move.
With respect to the issue of jobs, we are not trying to reduce the number of flights. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois who think this is a zero sum game, what one must gain the other must lose, we are trying to expand air traffic.
The new air traffic routes that have been established, including open skies with the United States, incidentally the world's largest international market, have created 1,000 jobs for Air Canada, 700 for Canadian International and in addition, there is-
[Translation]
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. members to please make their questions and answers shorter.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to ask a crocodile to look after swimmers is like asking a friend of Canadian to be Minister of Transport.
If the minister will not talk about Cathay Pacific Airlines, let me put this question to him. Air Canada itself complained, the chamber of commerce complained, all the stakeholders in Quebec complained. Did the Minister of Transport hear away out west about what was going on in Quebec with Air Canada and about all the complaints regarding his actions in the area of air traffic?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has conveniently forgotten that this big expansion in air traffic, generated by the government over the last three years, directly results in jobs throughout the country, particularly in Quebec with Air Canada's head office in Montreal and where Bombardier makes the RJ jet, for which there is, I believe, some 60 orders outstanding at the present time.
The hon. member forgets that our policy of expansion of air travel dramatically improves the situation. I have to assure him that we want to maintain the policy of choice for the Canadian public. In addition, we do not want to give in to the demands of the Bloc Quebecois and Air Canada to destroy a system that we have set up so carefully over the years and which is so much to the advantage of the Canadian travelling public.
Justice Reed states in a letter to the Toronto Star that: ``I am shaken by the thought of the vitriolic attacks I must expect to endure if I make a decision unfavourable to the government''.
(1445 )
What has the justice minister done to create such unprecedented fear in the mind of this judge?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I must concede that there is very little I can teach the hon. member about spreading fear out there. I think he has to figure things out for himself.
The hon. member has referred to a letter written by Madam Justice Reed to a reporter with the Toronto Star. I was sent a copy of the letter. I did not respond to the letter. I do not intend to respond to the letter, nor to comment on it.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is clear to anyone who understands the circumstances that Judge Reed's fear is a direct result of the justice minister's failure to exercise his authority to protect the judicial independence of the courts.
The minister should have immediately suspended Ted Thompson and launched a complaint against his senior official as well as Chief Justice Julius Isaac with the Canadian Judicial Council for their unprecedented interference into the independence of a sitting judge.
Why did the minister not take every reasonable action to immediately assure judges that any interference into their independence would not be tolerated?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could usefully take an hour or two out from spreading fear in order to look at the facts of this case. When he does so, he would discover that some months ago I appointed the former chief justice of Ontario, the Hon. Charles Dubin, a person whose experience and integrity in such matters is beyond question, to look into all of the circumstances surrounding the incident referred to by the hon. member.
That report was received and made public in August. It made clear that the Department of Justice well understands the importance of judicial independence and acts every day on its principles.
The Hon. Mr. Dubin also made recommendations concerning Mr. Thompson and as a result of the report, as the hon. member well knows, Ted Thompson voluntarily relinquished the position he held.
The fact of the matter is that the report established clearly that there was no interference by the Department of Justice with the independence of the Supreme Court.
Last week, federal officials met with the mayors of the towns in Quebec's asbestos-producing region and the main stakeholders in this sector. During this meeting, no federal official was able to specify what financial support the government could provide to fight the French decision.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to financially support Quebec's strategy to defend the safe use of chrysotile asbestos?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I made representations to the European Union and also to the French government with respect to the matter of asbestos. Rather than a total ban, we are suggesting that they look at controlled, safe uses of asbestos. There are some that are not, but there are some that are. I think the health minister and the Department of Health could verify that.
We have offered to send experts to France to assist them in the use of asbestos that can be done safely. We believe that there are some controlled circumstances where it can be used safely. We want to help them in that regard to ensure that the industry survives in Quebec and continues to provide employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would have liked an answer from the Prime Minister himself since this issue affects 2,000 jobs in my region. Furthermore, it is the Prime Minister himself who should be holding talks with the French President.
Since the World Health Organization recently pointed out the risks associated with the use of asbestos, will the government finally wake up and take vigorous action to promote within this organization the safe use of asbestos, as provided for in Directive 161 adopted by the WHO in Geneva?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are as concerned about this employment as anybody in Quebec is. We want to make sure that these jobs remain. We want to make sure that controlled and safe uses of this substance continue to be allowed in the countries to which we are exporting.
The Prime Minister said in the House in the last week or so that he was quite willing to make representations, as indeed is my colleague, the Minister of Health. All of us are concerned about this matter. We are doing our utmost to make sure we maintain that industry.
Could the minister inform the House how the opening of this new office will serve both nations?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to convey my appreciation to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton for their strong interest in this file.
I would like to confirm that yesterday, in co-operation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs for India, we were able to establish a new liaison office in the Punjab. This follows on the Prime Minister's Team Canada trip to India where we dedicated ourselves to broadening our area of relationships.
The office will open in January. The Minister of Foreign Affairs for India was good enough to invite myself and a delegation of Canadians to the opening, where we will focus on trade, investment and the facilitation of immigration.
It is a very good initiative to broaden and deepen the nature of our relationship with that very important country.
Now three alleged war criminals are walking free because the justice minister, through his senior lawyer, Ted Thompson, tried to make a backroom deal with a Federal Court judge.
Today Madam Justice Barbara Reed's letter to the Toronto Star clearly has brought the entire Federal Court system into disrepute, thereby unduly influencing three deportation cases against alleged war criminals now living in Canada.
Will the justice minister directly refer these cases against the suspected criminals to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision, yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that question is a shocking mixture of misunderstanding and misstatement. It is absolutely shocking.
We took the trouble to have a person of unquestioned reputation look carefully through all the facts of this matter. When the Hon. Mr. Dubin reported in August he did not say there were grounds for firing Ted Thompson. What did the former chief justice of Ontario conclude? Unlike my hon. friend, he took the trouble to look through all the facts carefully, speak to the people involved, examine the documents and consider them carefully in accordance with appropriate principles. He concluded that there was no basis to fire Ted Thompson. It was his recommendation that Mr. Thompson should not continue in his present role and Mr. Thompson, as a result, resigned voluntarily.
The report speaks for itself. It establishes that the Department of Justice well understands the principles of judicial independence. My friend should educate himself before asking the next question.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what is shocking is the fact that this minister cannot even clean up his department.
War criminals are walking free in Canada today because the justice minister refuses to honour the principle that judges and courts must be free of interference from politicians and bureaucrats. This is not the first time the justice minister has crossed the line which separates the courts and politicians.
Why does the minister not do the right thing, pack up his bags and go home?
(1455 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a better idea. I will send my hon. friend a copy of the Dubin report and ask him to read it. After he has read it, maybe he can come back and ask a question that is relevant.
Yesterday, a coalition of 130 organizations asked the Prime Minister to take immediate action in the fight against tobacco use. Although the health minister's predecessor promised last December that a bill regulating tobacco products would be introduced in the spring, no such bill has been tabled so far.
Will the minister honour his government's commitments and immediately table a tobacco bill?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. The subject matter has received some public attention in the last number of weeks.
I wish to share with the House that, since we issued the blueprint in November 1995, there have been over 2,300 different submissions from Canadians from different regions of the country.
We are in the process of examining our proposals as they relate to the charter to make sure that we are not back in court as we were on a previous occasion with the legislation. When we do come
forward, we will have comprehensive legislation that will address the needs, not only of the health groups across the country but the young people of this country as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify the fact that, while his department is spending millions of dollars on an anti-smoking campaign, the Minister of Agriculture is subsidizing research on tobacco production in Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the vast majority of funding that is provided by the Department of Agriculture with respect to tobacco is related to agronomic matters and is highly focused on alternatives to tobacco production so that tobacco producers may find ways to diversify away from a dependence on this crop.
The RCMP, while investigating a Quebec senator and her daughter suggested that she be charged with fraud. All Canadians are supposed to receive the same treatment, but it appears that some are more delicate than others.
Why did the justice minister not prosecute the senator for defrauding the Government of Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have now heard from all parts of the fearsome trilogy on justice.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: I am standing here wondering if we put them all together, do we come up with a sensible question? I do not think even then we can do it.
In the case to which my hon. friend has referred, we have to distinguish between law on the one hand and politics on the other.
Let us talk about law for 30 seconds. For law we have a very competent prosecutor, a lawyer in the Montreal office, who looked at the facts, applied the usual criteria and decided that no prosecution should be brought based on legal principles. It was taken to his superior who reviewed the same facts and came to the same conclusion. That is law. That is the way the system should work.
Now let us look at politics. That is politics, a man who does not know the facts, does not know the law and comes to the floor of this House with that outrageous question and tries to make short term political hay. That is politics.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sad part of all the rhetoric that is coming from that side of the House is the fear that Canadians have because these social engineers are not in justice. They do not know anything about it.
(1500)
This senator, the deputy chairman of the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, made a speech on UI. She knows the rules. Why is it that the rules apply to every ordinary Canadian whether they are ignorant of the law or not, but do not apply to a politician or a senator if it was not for social engineering by this minister?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is frightening at the moment is the hon. member.
I think what we should do here is remember that we are talking about a legal system which functioned properly in this case; responsible people applied the correct criteria and produced the appropriate response. All of the huffing, puffing and carrying on is not going to change either the legal principles or the facts of the case.
Since French-speaking communities from coast to coast are an essential element of Canada's social fabric, can the minister tell us what the Canadian government does and intends to do to support French speaking minorities in the education sector?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in St. John's, Newfoundland, I was very proud to sign, on behalf of the Government of Canada, an agreement that has the support of every province, including Quebec.
The agreement provides that up to $1 billion will be allocated to help finance education for minority language groups across Canada, that is anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec.
This means that more than half of young Canadians study in the second language of their choice, either French or English. We are proud to help them.
for youth programs and still has not established a promised $20 million program to help youth repay their student loans.
When will this Liberal government finally show some leadership and come up with a solid strategy to attack youth unemployment in this country? How many more young people must be added to the unemployment rolls before this government finally takes action?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already advised hon. members that the budget that was allocated for youth employment had a couple of components to it. One was directed specifically to students who are still in academic institutions or returning to them in the fall. We did that over the summer, doubling the amount of money that was available.
With respect to the amount the hon. member is referring to, the $45 million, when this money was allocated in the spring we were aware that a lot of young people in this country are not in academic institutions. They require a different kind of assistance in order to find jobs in a very difficult environment.
We understand the member's commitment to youth employment. I hope he will understand that we wanted to make sure we were doing the right thing for those students who do not fit into the traditional strategies of the past where we were simply looking at them during the summer.
That money will be allocated and it will be spent well and on young people looking for jobs in this country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
We are going to be doing a few things differently in the next few minutes. The House will now go into committee of the whole to recognize Canada's 1996 Olympic Summer Games and Paralympic Games athletes.
(House in committee to recognize Canada's 1996 Olympic Summer Games and Paralympic Games athletes.)
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Colleagues, as I said, today is a special day for us here in the House of Commons. For the first time in the history of our country, we are going to bring on to the floor our Olympic athletes. When they come on to the floor they will be coming in through the Canada door at the far end. When they come in, of course you will receive them in a manner befitting Olympians.
[Translation]
Once they are all on the floor of the House, I will say a few words on your behalf and mine.
[English]
After that, I am going to introduce them to you by the events they are in. I will call out their names. I would ask you to hold your applause until I have finished a certain section.
Following that, the athletes will leave the Chamber and you and I, my colleagues, will receive them in the Reading Room for a brief reception. At that time, all the pictures that need be taken can be taken there. The athletes will be very happy, I know, to meet all of you.
With that, remembering always that this is the House of Commons of Canada, the heart of our nation, I invite in your name and in the name of all Canadians on to the floor of the House of Commons our Olympians and Paralympians.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon Canada's 1996 Olympic and Paralympic athletes entered the Chamber.]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1510)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Olympian compatriots and dear colleagues, this summer, the whole world was watching the games in Atlanta. A record number of athletes gathered to participate in the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
These games are a stage for human achievement and friendship among nations. They also promote the participation of nations in a friendly competition and they allow athletes to reach the lofty goals they set for themselves.
[English]
The men and women, some of whom are here, the men and women who represented us the Canadian people in Atlanta were Canada's finest athletes. To have competed there is a remarkable achievement. And you the medal winners, you are recognized as the best of the best in the world.
Some of you surpassed all records of achievement in the history of sport and we in this room and we looking at you on our televisions now across Canada, whether we were in St. John's, Vancouver or Whitehorse, you had us all on the edge of our chairs. Now we Canadians do not usually make a lot of noise but when you won those medals, there were 30 million people up here in Canada pretty ecstatic and pretty noisy. Maybe you heard us cheering all the way down there in Atlanta.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1515)
[Translation]
The Speaker: All Canadians shared in your victories. We are very proud of you. You captivated our imagination. You became the heroes of a new generation of Canadians. You are the pride of Canadian sport and you represent the best that Canada has to offer to the world.
[English]
We do not usually have guests here on the floor of the House of Commons but this is an extraordinary day and we wanted to bend the rules just a little because we here in this chamber and we 30 million Canadians want to pay tribute to you and to congratulate you. Most of all, we want to thank you for bringing such great honour to our nation.
I am going to read out each of your names. I ask you, my colleauges, to hold your applause. I know it will be difficult. At the end, please do not all run on to the floor. I want to get there myself. You will have the chance to meet our Olympians in the Reading Room following this introduction.
I am going to call out the sport and, because we are a bit crowded, I would ask you, when I finish with your section, to please raise your hands and at that time we will receive you in our own Canadian way.
In Athletics: Jeff Adams, Dean Bergeron, Collette Bourgonje, Nick Cunningham, Clayton Gerein, Carl Marquis, Jacques Martin, Colin Mathieson, Brent McMahon, Marc Quessy and Joe Radmore. That is the athletic group.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next category is basketball/wheelchair basketball: Marni Abbott, Jennifer Krempien, Kelly Krywa, Linda Kutrowski, Kendra Ohama and Marney Smithies. These are the wheelchair basketball athletes.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is wheelchair rugby: Garett Hickling, Kirby Kranabetter, Brian McPhate, Al Semeniuk, Daryl Stubel and David Tweed.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is yachting: David Cook, Ken Kelly and John McRoberts. These are our Olympians for yachting.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is athletics: Donovan Bailey, Carlton Chambers, Jason Delasalle, Robert Esmie, France Gagné, Glenroy Gilbert, Kris Hodgins, Ljiljiana Ljubisic, Stuart McGregor, Tracey Melesko and James Shaw. These are our Olympians in athletics.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is basketball/wheelchair basketball: Chantal Benoit, Renée DelColle and Lori Radke.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is cycling: Curt Harnett and Gary Longhi.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is diving: Annie Pelletier.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is goalball: Jeff Christy, Jean-François Crépault and Dean Kozak.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is lawn bowls: Vivian Berkeley and Lance McDonald.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is rowing: Laryssa Biesenthal, Gavin Hassett, Kathleen Heddle, Alison Korn, Silken Laumann, Theresa Luke, Maria Maunder, Marnie McBean, Heather McDermid, Jessica Monroe, Diane O'Grady, Lesley Thompson, Tosha Tsang and Anna Van Der Kamp.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is swimming: Tony Alexander, Rebeccah Bornemann, Andrew Haley, Garth Harris, Marianne Limpert, Curtis Myden, Joëlle Rivard, Elizabeth Walker and Walter Wu. These are our Olympians in swimming.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is synchronized swimming: Lisa Alexander, Janice Bremner, Karen Clark, Karen Fonteyne, Sylvie Fréchette, Valérie Hould-Marchand, Kasia Kulesza, Christine Larsen, Cari Read and Erin Woodley.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The next group is yachting: Kirk Westergaard.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, we have been concentrating of course on our Olympians, but for the people who guide them, who
teach them, who encourage them, we have with us in our galleries the coaches of the Olympians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Olympians of Canada and my colleagues, there are not many moments when a country can feel as proud as we did during the Atlanta games. You have given us moments we will remember for a very long time. You see, you belong to us and we, the Canadian people, belong to you. On this day we claim you.
Merci d'avoir fait honneur au Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Editor's Note: After the singing of the national anthem Canada's 1996 Paralympic and Olympic athletes left the Chamber.]
In point of fact, it was the opposite. I did not tell anyone to break the law. I clearly said that Bill C-68 should be repealed so that people do not have to pay for or comply with useless legislation. When asked directly, I did not dodge the question but said that I will obey the law. We must work hard to repeal Bill C-68-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. With the greatest of respect to the member for Yorkton-Melville, I would rule that is not a point of order. The matter he is engaging in is debate.
Does the hon. member have a question for the Chair, not about the ruling? The ruling is clear, it is not a point of order.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, would this be appropriate as a point of privilege in that it hampers my ability as a member of Parliament to do my job properly if someone makes a misstatement about me?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): No, again I would rule. I guess the suggestion I would make is that he possibly would want to seek counsel from our senior table officers, but my initial answer to his question is no, there is not a question of privilege. Then again, being the frail human that I am, please, as I have done in the past, seek the good counsel of our table officers. They are all here at our service.