We have known since yesterday that the discussions between the Office of the Prime Minister and his own department, the Privy Council, and General Boyle have been very lengthy and probably very difficult. However that may be, members will recall that, for over a month now, in response to our questions, the Prime Minister has been rising in this House and telling us time and again that he has confidence in his minister, in his former Minister of National Defence, and that he has confidence, every confidence, he said, in General Boyle.
How can the Prime Minister explain his sudden about-face today regarding the individual in whom he had such confidence a few days ago? What has changed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, General Boyle, who met with the defence minister, sent me his letter of resignation this morning. I accepted it with regret. I did not ask him to resign, but he felt it was in the interest of the Canadian armed forces and of the defence minister that he hand in his resignation.
It was his personal decision. He made it in the interest of the troops. We were of the opinion that he could have waited until the end of the inquiry to see whether he had committed an error or not. But he thought, because of the controversy in which he found himself, that it was in the interest of the new defence minister to be able to choose his staff. I think his consideration is very admirable and very courageous.
I thanked him for his service to the country. Now that he has gone, the defence minister will recommend, in the near future I hope, a successor. In the meantime, General Boyle's assistant will perform his duties on an acting basis.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister tried to convince us that the former defence minister had resigned over an action that had absolutely nothing to do with the Somalia inquiry. The minister was saved by an unfortunate letter.
Now, he is trying to convince us that the chief of defence staff has resigned, but that nobody had anything to do with it, when we know that officials from his own department were talking with the general for several hours yesterday afternoon. The Prime Minister can always take another run at it.
I would simply like to say this: Will the Prime Minister not admit that the fact is that he was too protective of his friend, the former defence minister, who in turn protected his friend the chief of defence staff, all in order to avoid admitting that he made a mistake in choosing the former defence minister, who made a mistake in choosing General Boyle?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the defence minister's letter of resignation Friday was very clear, and that was his only reason for resigning. He sent me a letter of resignation, which I accepted, because he had been informed that he had committed an error, in contravention of the guidelines issued to all ministers. He assumed his responsibilities with great honesty. I know that all members in this House will want to acknowledge that over the last three years the Minister of National Defence who resigned Friday did an exceptional job, efficiently carrying out the necessary cuts, closing bases, and reducing the number of employees and generals. I am very proud of him.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should take a leaf from the army's book and record the exploits of the former defence minister on video?
Can the Prime Minister assure us, first of all, that the lengthy discussions in his own department yesterday, between his officials and General Boyle, were not for the purpose of making General Boyle's exit an easy one, and second, will he promise that no offer will be made to General Boyle before we know the conclusions of an interim report that will shed light on the falsification of documents in the Canadian armed forces?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, General Boyle has handed in his resignation. He has not asked the government for any favours. He even clearly said that he did not wish to receive an appointment, even if we had wanted to offer him one. And he will leave under conditions suitable for a retiring chief of defence staff.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Defence.
Yesterday, the new Minister of National Defence stated that the problem would not be solved by assigning responsibility to a single individual, but by tackling the whole system.
Yesterday, the new Minister of National Defence said that the idea of an interim report to cast light on operation document tampering, as demanded by the official opposition, was an interesting one.
Does the minister realize now that this is not merely an interesting idea; the government has no choice but to require an
interim report, and promptly, if it wishes to get to the bottom of this scandal and find out all those involved.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very important to keep tabs on what one says in this House and elsewhere. What I said to the hon. member and others is that I was going to look at the suggestions made by Mps and others.
What is important for me at this time is to acknowledge that the chief of staff has submitted his resignation and that it has been accepted. Now we will proceed to investigate the Somalia situation thoroughly.
Perhaps this is the time to indicate that those calling for an interim report on what has been found out to date in the Somalia inquiry ought to keep in mind as well that it is also important to find out exactly what went on in Somalia.
We ought not to lose sight of the fact that what is important here for Canadians is to know what happened there, who was responsible, how such a thing could happen, and how it can be prevented from happening again. That is what we will be trying to find out.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, having an interim report does nothing to prevent a complete investigation of what else went on in Somalia.
Does the explanation of the minister's reticence to call for an interim report not lie in the fact that his government does not want a report on document tampering to come out before the next elections. This could smear not only General Boyle but also, of course, the former Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister himself?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in recent days, two people have taken some very difficult steps. First my colleague, the former Minister of National Defence, resigned, and now today, General Boyle has done so as well.
(1425)
I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask my honourable colleague whether he is serious about wanting to find out just what happened in this entire incident, as he was calling for yesterday in terms of an interim report on the entire Somalia situation. I am prepared to commit the government, provided we have the support of the opposition and the other members of this House, to making a request to the Parliament of Canada from the House of Commons, asking those who are investigating the Somalia events not only to provide us with an interim report, but also to give us a report on what went on in Somalia so that action may be taken as soon as we have it in hand, by the end of March, as set out in the instructions given to the inquiry.
[English]
As recently as last week the Prime Minister was telling this House that General Boyle and the former Minister of National Defence enjoyed the government's complete confidence. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what happened between last Thursday and today to destroy that confidence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of National Defence gave me a letter of resignation. I accepted it. The letter of resignation was very clear. The letter of acceptance of the resignation was very clear. They are public documentation.
The former Minister of National Defence showed a high degree of public service when he said: ``Unfortunately, I broke the guidelines that you have established, Prime Minister. I resign''. I said that I hope some day I will have the opportunity to welcome him back in the cabinet. He is a very honourable man, a good parliamentarian and a dedicated Canadian.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's explanation is incomplete and contradictory.
The former defence minister was allegedly forced to resign for interfering with a quasi-judicial tribunal. This apparently violated an ethical guideline of cabinet. Yet over the last two years, seven other ministers of the government have interfered with the CRTC, a quasi-judicial tribunal, and have gotten off scot free.
Will the Prime Minister release to this House these ethical guidelines which permit seven cabinet ministers to interfere with the tribunal without penalty, but which required the minister of defence to resign for doing so?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I formed the government three years ago, there were no guidelines of conduct for ministers in relation to their communications with quasi-judicial bodies.
When we had a controversy in the House, I said that they were to be clarified. I have clarified them. The ministers received new instructions after that. Unfortunately, in the case of the former Minister of National Defence, he broke the guidelines.
These guidelines existed in writing in previous governments. They were never made public. They are instructions from the Prime Minister to his ministers. It is for the ministers to deal with the Prime Minister.
In the case on Friday, I received a letter of resignation and I accepted the letter.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question was simply, would the Prime Minister release to this House these guidelines that permit this contradictory behaviour.
Some of us come from jurisdictions, for example a jurisdiction in Alberta, where the most rookie minister of the government knows there are only three ways to communicate to a quasi-judicial tribunal: through the statutes, through an order in council, or through public testimony before the tribunal.
Why is it so difficult for that rule to get established in practice here? I ask the Prime Minister, will he submit to the House these ethical guidelines which permit such contradictory behaviour from his ministers?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a reality that we debated in this House. A minister of the crown at the same time is a member of Parliament. He has some obligation to the people who vote for him to try to help them solve their problems. The minister as a member of Parliament indicated in his letter what he had done. He broke the guidelines but he will always have the responsibility of being a member of Parliament.
(1430)
It is very difficult to combine the two responsibilities. I advise the ministers to be very prudent. In this case the minister felt that he had been imprudent. I checked and the guidelines were broken and I have accepted his resignation. It is a very honourable thing.
If the hon. member thinks that this is not severe enough, tell me, should there not be any members of Parliament made cabinet ministers? It is that way in other jurisdictions. In France a member of Parliament has to resign his seat as a member of Parliament to become a member of the cabinet, but I am a defender of the British tradition and I am following the British rules.
According to today's issue of the Globe and Mail, the government has devised a parallel system enabling the Prime Minister's Office to organize as it pleases the management of information requested under the Access to Information Act.
Will the Prime Minister confirm the existence of such a system?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is the government. The Privy Council must ensure that what goes on in all the departments is co-ordinated and that, if there is any problem in the public administration, the Prime Minister is informed.
Putting in place the necessary mechanisms to know what goes on in the public service is the first rule of good management for a Prime Minister. This is precisely the way I run the government.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the access to information request concerning the former defence minister goes back to August.
How does the Prime Minister explain that he stood up for his former minister throughout this period, when he was fully aware that his minister might have violated the code of ethics for cabinet members?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every day, hundreds and even thousands of information requests are made by journalists, academics and members of Parliament. It costs millions of dollars for the public service to find the related documents.
My office was informed on Tuesday evening. I was personally informed on Wednesday morning, and the minister handed me his resignation on Friday morning. I think the government did what it had to do. Once we were informed, we took action within hours.
For months now the Prime Minister has said that the former defence minister and General Boyle were operating the armed forces to the satisfaction of the government, no major crisis. Since then the minister and the chief of defence staff have resigned under a cloud and on the heels of many scandals. Yesterday the new defence minister admitted that the armed forces face a major crisis.
How can the Prime Minister explain the flip flop? Does the Prime Minister believe there is a major crisis in the armed forces or not?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first place the hon. member alleges something the Prime Minister had said, that there is no crisis in the armed forces.
I know that the hon. member and every member of the House is aware of the Somalia inquiry, not just the situation with respect to the inquiry surrounding the activities of General Boyle. General Boyle was not in Somalia. General Boyle was not in the videos that the hon. member and others have seen. General Boyle was not a commanding officer in Somalia.
The hon. member I think does the House a service in raising the question as to whether or not there is a crisis in the armed forces. I said yesterday and I repeat today, the replacement of a defence minister and the resignation of the chief of defence staff will not correct serious problems in the Canadian Armed Forces that were reflected in the activities in Somalia.
(1435 )
I am sure the hon. member will join with me in ensuring that we encourage the commission to report as quickly as possible on what happened, why it happened and who was responsible for what happened in Somalia.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, again Canadians are getting used to no answers in the House of Commons.
We have to remember that nothing honourable happened today. The person who resigned admitted to lying to the military police. They have admitted to lying and to breaking the spirit of the Access to Information Act. The government is responsible for those actions.
The Canadian public have listened month after month, day in and day out to this Prime Minister saying there was no problem at the Department of National Defence. Does the Prime Minister accept full responsibility for the mishandling of the appointment of the former chief of defence staff, General Jean Boyle?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the House and Canadians have listened to questions being put with respect to the situation which surrounded General Boyle.
The hon. member refers to honour and that there was no honour in what was done today. I believe that anyone who has as much respect as the hon. member does for the armed forces would recognize what kind of a heart wrenching situation it had to be for an officer of the calibre and the age of General Boyle to have to come to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and in the best interests of Canada for him to offer his resignation to the government.
The hon. member and I may agree on some things, but I have to disagree, and I believe that most fair thinking Canadians would disagree, when he suggests in any way that what General Boyle did today was not the honourable thing to do.
[Translation]
Can the Solicitor General tell this House why this offender, who was not abiding by any of his parole conditions, could remain free instead of being sent back to prison?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the National Parole Board is a quasi-judicial body. We should get its recommendations any time now.
I cannot comment on the decision made by the National Parole Board, because it is a quasi-judicial body. However, I can tell the hon. member that the board is investigating and that we should receive its report in a few weeks.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what specific guarantees can the minister give the House that there will never be another case like the Marcel Blanchette incident ever again in the Canadian prison system?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one such incident is one too many, I agree. However, our system is working very well. I cannot believe that the hon. member is suggesting that we get rid of the review process and the National Parole Board.
The system is working very well and has been fully tried and tested. In this case, we will check with our sources and, as I said earlier, wait for the upcoming report before taking all appropriate measures.
The minister promised Reformers in the House: ``I will give a detailed response to the panel's recommendations''. In fact, his message was so unclear it took his officials four more days to write up a press release.
After three years of preparing for this big day, why was the minister's statement so vague and underwhelming? When will the minister specifically tell prairie farmers what he plans to do?
(1440 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. gentleman's frustration. Of course he is perfectly at liberty to call his own news conferences, but he prefers to come to mine in order to guarantee some attention.
On Friday I had the opportunity to outline to the news media in Regina and across western Canada the general directions being pursued by the government with respect to grain marketing and changes in the Canadian grain marketing system. Yesterday a very detailed statement was issued outlining the focus of those changes.
Legislation is presently being prepared. It will be presented to the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly had a lesson on how not to hold a press conference. It is a good thing the minister is not the chief electoral officer because our democratic process would be in shambles.
How can the minister call a plebiscite of producers when he does not know what the question will be, he does not know who can vote, he does not know what constitutes a majority and he does not know if the vote will be binding?
Will the minister commit today in the House to giving all western Canadian barley producers a clear, honest question on whether they want the choice of how they market their barley?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly on Friday and very clearly again yesterday what the nature of the question would be.
Let me quote: ``They'', that is farmers, ``will be asked a clear cut question about whether they wish to put all barley, both feed and malting, on to the completely open market for all sales or would they prefer to retain the current marketing system through which the Canadian Wheat Board, as modernized by the other changes announced by the government, remains the single desk seller for all barley sales for export and domestic barley sales for human consumption''. It is very clear and very specific.
[Translation]
Today, the minister finally tabled the report on the review of Canada Post Corporation's mandate. She has stated the she will not privatize Canada Post Corporation so long as it has a public policy role to fulfil.
Can the minister tell us how she defines the public policy role that Canada Post Corporation has to fulfil?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we live in a vast country that includes a number of remote areas, and I imagine Quebec also has remote areas. It is obvious that all Canadians across the country want to receive their mail; it is a necessity for them.
As long as this necessity exists, Canada Post Corporation will have to keep on serving Canadians.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister has announced today her choice to stop the delivery of unaddressed advertising mailings, while rejecting the recommendation contained in the report regarding an increase in postal rates.
Will the minister wait after the next election to authorize a five cent increase in postal rates as recommended in the report?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if that is the Bloc's position. Does it want us to increase postal rates? We think that small and medium size business and people living in remote areas would have to bear the cost of such an increase, and we are not willing to do that at this time.
On July 1 the first phase of Bill C-12 came into effect. Could the minister tell the House exactly how the new employment insurance legislation provides income protection for low income earners everywhere in Canada?
(1445 )
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada needed a new and modern system of employment insurance. We have actually ef-
fected a very dramatic shift from a passive role to an active role in assisting people to go back to work, which was absolutely necessary. The changes are about getting people back to work, allowing people to help themselves and responding to the way people work today in the new economy. It was important for us to address the issue with the new economy.
The goal is to help people to go back to work when there is work available and for employers to accept a larger responsibility to create more employment for these people.
Why is the government reducing Canada pension plan benefits when it promised it would not?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has not made a proposal along those lines. When the federal and provincial governments came together, both examined a series of options. This happens to be one of the options. It was set out in the consultation book that was signed on by all of the provinces unanimously.
That option was discussed. A number of individuals throughout the consultation process, in fact some in the hon. member's own province, subscribed to this as a thesis. However, no decision has been taken. What was agreed to by the finance ministers was that we would examine the situation, look at the total package and eventually come to a consensus.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response because there are a good number of seniors who are very nervous about what is likely going to happen to their pensions and other income. The last budget cost seniors up to $1,200 each through the elimination of the age limitation tax credits.
We know that the provinces are very upset about allowing the federal government to use unemployment insurance premiums to offset the cost of the CPP premiums. They think the two should be linked in that the unemployment insurance premium should be reduced while the others go up.
Why would the government break faith with Canadian seniors, especially the most needy seniors, when we look at all of these threats to them, particularly the 50 per cent tax on income? Why are the Liberals breaking their promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer the question, but first I have to figure out what the question is.
The government made it possible for Canadian seniors and for a whole generation of young Canadians to know that the Canada pension plan, the OAS and the guaranteed income supplement would be there for them. We did not want to make the same mistake the previous generations of politicians did, which was simply to defer this problem until such time as the Canada pension plan got into such difficulty that there would be no other solution except the terrible one that is advocated by the members of the Reform Party.
In our budget we brought down a seniors benefit that will be as good if not better for 75 per cent of Canadians, better for nine out of ten women in the country, that will allow Canadians to hold their heads high as they recognize the-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Since 1986, the Canadian government has required Portuguese citizens visiting Canada to have a visa. However, Portugal does not require Canadians to have a visa to visit that country. In fact, it is the only country in the European Union on which Canada imposes this requirement. When it was in the opposition, the Liberal Party was against this requirement.
(1450)
When will the minister decide to remove the visa requirement for Portuguese visitors as it has in the case of other countries?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we regularly review our visa policy in this country.
A number of factors are taken into consideration. As you know, many visitors come to Canada, and at the same time we must also control our borders. As for the situation concerning Portugal, this week I will have the pleasure of discussing the matter with the Secretary of State of Portugal who will be visiting us.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I may remind the minister that this measure is utterly discriminatory against a friendly and allied country.
Could the minister explain why she has maintained this visa requirement, although Portugal is the only country in the European Union to which it applies?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, situations vary from country to country. We decided some time ago to remove the visa requirement for Chile. As you know, we have to reinstate this visa due to a very particular problem we have with illegal immigrants to this country coming from Chile.
When we make a decision of this kind, we have to look at several factors, which means finding out whether the country where these people come from properly controls the passports and visas it issues and whether or not a large percentage of visa applications are turned down.
That is the context we are looking at. And that is why I am quite prepared to the reopen discussions with the Portuguese authorities on this question.
This morning I presented a petition from more than 25,000 people from across Canada asking the minister to toughen up the justice system for criminals who have committed sexual acts and crimes against children.
Does the solicitor general agree with these petitioners? Does he agree with their specific demand that local RCMP officers be given permission to notify Canadians whenever sexual offenders are about to be released back into their communities?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was just those concerns that lead the government to consult and then produce Bill C-55 which was tabled in the House some two weeks ago.
Through Bill C-55 changes were proposed to the criminal justice system that will enable us to take that burden from the shoulders of police. This will be done by enabling sentencing judges, in the cases of repeat sexual offenders, to impose not only a prison term but to ensure that at the end of that prison term there is an appropriate period of supervision in the community to safeguard the interests of Canadians and their families.
After the sex offender is out of prison at the end of the sentence, there will be a period during which the offender will have to report, if appropriate, to police, let authorities know of the whereabouts of the offender, continue treatment if that is required and even in the appropriate cases wear an electronic monitor. That is the most effective way to deal with this threat to our security.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that in Bill C-55 the only communities that must be notified of a release of a sexual predator are aboriginal communities. There is no such provision in his bill for the rest of the communities. It is a weakness in that bill.
Since April of this year there has been a delegation order sitting on the solicitor general's desk. The solicitor general merely has to sign that order and local police officers will be given the authority and the permission, the delegation, to release that information to communities when those sexual predators are released back into the community.
Will the solicitor general sign that delegation order and will he do it today?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that order but I will bring it to the attention of the solicitor general at the earliest convenience.
(1455)
In one of her recommendations the minister directs Canada Post to improve rather than reduce the quality of service in rural areas and to include the establishment of a reasonable delivery standard for rural areas.
Will the minister guarantee to the House today that she will establish these standards, ensure that rural service will meet the needs of rural Canadians and not just Canada Post and include all rural Canadians in setting up these standards?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we responded immediately to certain areas of recommendation in Mr. Radwanski's report is exactly because of our concern for all of the regions of the country, and in particular the rural areas.
In order to ensure that service standards are increased I have directed Canada Post to move forthwith in this area. As well, I am preparing to meet with stakeholders myself. I am waiting anxiously to hear their suggestions.
In an article published last weekend, the minister wrote that the number of francophones outside Quebec has increased by 50,000 since 1971. What she failed to mention is that 90,000 francophones stopped using French during the same period. In other words, their assimilation continues.
Why is the minister trying the hide the fact that a total of 340,000 out of the 1 million francophones outside Quebec have become anglicized and that the assimilation rate is growing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we should keep in mind that the question comes from a member who compared francophones outside Quebec to paraplegics in wheelchairs.
We should also emphasize that this member, who speaks French rather well, is a Franco-Ontarian who learned to speak French in the great Province of Ontario. So when the member claims that francophones outside Quebec are not very good in French, he should first look in his own mirror.
The government has done nothing to curb the production, sale or possession of violent, degrading pornography.
Why has the Minister of Justice gone back on his commitment to take strong measures against this sort of filth?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two concrete measures come immediately to mind. We have taken these measures to do exactly what we said we would do.
First, working with my colleague, the Minister of Industry and his blue ribbon panel on the information highway, we are looking at specific measures we can take with the international community to deal with violence and pornography on the Internet.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: Second, the justice committee has produced a paper which identifies a variety of strategies to deal with violence and pornography in television and movies and the entertainment industry.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: They are measures we are sure will strengthen our ability to halt the kind of unacceptable material to which I know the member and I do not want to see our society exposed.
Those are only two of the many measures we have taken to fulfil our commitment in the red book.
The Speaker: Colleagues, whenever a question is being asked or an answer is being given, may I ask you please to listen to both the question and the answer. I do allow a certain amount of time and that time will be allowed.
He knows there is strong support across the country and in the Association and Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Federation of Students and the National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies for renewal of a federal infrastructure program that would earmark 20 per cent to upgrade labs, libraries, technology and other research and development infrastructures.
Will the minister agree to support this very important proposal that would both create jobs and meet the very serious need for academic infrastructure upgrading?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are at present looking at an infrastructure program. As the hon. member mentioned, there has been a submission by the universities of very high quality based on research and development. This in itself would be one very good reason for going ahead with an infrastructure program.
Would the minister tell us, has the Canadian Tourism Commission been effective? Is it generating new tourism business in this country?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member represents one of the finest tourism destinations in Ontario.
The member will know what a fine example the Canadian Tourism Commission is of partnership between the federal and provincial governments, the private sector and the tourism industry. It has led year over year to a $1 billion reduction in the tourism account deficit; a 13 per cent increase in international tourism receipts; and an almost 2 per cent increase in employment in the tourism sector.
Tourism is big business and this government is seeing it grow even further.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.