For many years, federal initiatives have had a crushing impact on Montreal's economy. To mention a few: the Borden line, which killed the petrochemical industry in Montreal; decisions in the air transportation sector, which, following the opening of Mirabel, compromised the viability of this airport; federal procurement policies, which penalized Quebec and Montreal; the way federal spending on research and development is directed, which penalizes Montreal's economy. These are all decisions that over the years have undermined Montreal's economy.
If the Prime Minister means what he says about wanting to help Montreal's economy, why does he not review his government's decision to put a stop to federal participation in the Tokamak project in Varennes, which provides the greater Montreal area with quality jobs in the high tech sector? That is a big help to the economy.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government was forced to make cutbacks in this area, and we had to-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien: Yes, cutbacks were made in Quebec, in Ontario and all Canadian provinces. It was felt this particular program was not a priority at this time. Other cuts in the same sector have affected similar scientific projects elsewhere in Canada.
We would probably have preferred to keep it, but the Minister of Natural Resources indicated many times here in the House that she could no longer keep this program because there were other priorities.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister goes to Montreal, speaking to all Quebecers, says he is willing to give Montreal's economy a boost. People suggest certain projects that will help Montreal's economy, improve the job situation and provide for a better future, but he says no. He refuses to invest $7.5 million in these projects.
I will give him a second chance to show his good faith regarding Montreal. We know that Atomic Energy of Canada is a Crown corporation that refers its important decisions to the minister responsible.
Why did the government approve the transfer of the office of AECL to Toronto, which may eventually deprive Montreal of high tech companies in this sector, another area where the Prime Minister could help Montreal if he were so disposed?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in fact the crown corporation AECL has not closed its office in the city of Montreal. In fact, it retains an office in that city. I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is because of AECL and the sale of Candu reactors that there is a nuclear industry, a private sector industry, that employs thousands of people in the Montreal area.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had nothing to tell the people of Montreal. Today, he has nothing to say to the official opposition. I will give him a third chance.
In recent years, the Liberal Party of Canada was fiercely opposed to Bills C-22 and Bill C-91, which encouraged the development of pharmaceutical industries in Montreal, a sector that is in good shape. I may recall that the entire Liberal Party voted against Bill C-91, except perhaps for the Minister of Finance, who was absent
at the time. Under constant pressure from the Ontario caucus, the government recently wanted to review the regulations of Bill C-91.
If the Prime Minister really wants to help Montreal develop its economy, will he promise today that he will not in any way change Bill C-91, which his party voted against but which is a godsend to the pharmaceutical industry in Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a few seconds the Leader of the Reform Party will rise to accuse me of investing too much in Montreal on Monday, by helping Bombardier develop a new 70 seat aircraft to take advantage of an increasingly accessible market. We have been helping this company for a very long time. It is now the sixth largest aircraft manufacturer in the world and very soon will rank fourth. The company received $85 million on Monday. We have to choose our priorities, and that is the one we chose.
As for the pharmaceutical industry, the legislation is in effect. There will be a review at some time, as required by law. We will have to see whether the pharmaceutical industry is fulfilling its obligations to engage in research and development and to locate facilities in Canada, and if it is, the legislation will be maintained. The industry has made certain commitments which I hope it has met. When the House of Commons reviews this question, a decision can be made. It is true that in the past three years there has been pressure to amend the legislation, but we have not done so. The leader of the opposition does not seem to be aware of that fact.
How can the Prime Minister reconcile yesterday's fine promises to help Montreal with his plan to create a securities commission in Toronto, when we know full well that this would further weaken Montreal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the decision to designate Montreal and Vancouver as international banking centres has yet to be made. Second, in his speech yesterday, the Prime Minister listed a whole series of measures the federal government has adopted to help Montreal and Quebec, of which the announcement about Bombardier is but one example. In the private sector, the pharmaceutical and aeronautical industries do more research and development in Quebec than elsewhere because of the federal government's support for R and D.
(1425)
As far as the securities commission is concerned, the federal government's position is very clear: if the other provinces want to, we are ready to co-operate with them. It is up to them. In fact, all those who favour this option do so because they want to protect Quebec's financial industry, because they are very much aware that Montreal is not in competition with Toronto, but with New York, London and Frankfurt. That is what we will protect.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is arguments like those raised by the minister, which border on recklessness, that have crippled Montreal's economy and continue to do so.
We have no answer regarding the pharmaceutical projects, as the Minister of Finance was hiding behind the curtains when this matter was raised. Again today when we asked about the securities commission, we received no answer from the Prime Minister or even the Minister of Finance.
I put the question again to the Prime Minister. Will he promise in this House to mind his own business and not put in place a Canada-wide securities commission that will further weaken Montreal?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking us to oppose the will of other provinces that want to protect Canada's financial industry. They are telling all the industries in Quebec that want to issue shares in Canada they will not be able to do so in the future because everything will be moved to New York.
They are saying that the people of Montreal and Quebec cannot compete with other countries, and I say to you that I am a proud Montrealer, that I am not afraid of anyone, that it is the hon. member who is afraid and he should admit it.
The government professes to be concerned about the overburdened Canadian taxpayer and yet it refuses to set targets for tax relief. The best way to create jobs in this country is to balance the budget and to lower taxes.
The finance minister says he is interested in setting measurable targets. What are the minister's targets for providing tax relief to overtaxed Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, our record can speak for itself. In not one instance have we increased personal income taxes, having succeeded a government that had increased them 39 times.
In each of our budgets we have brought in selective tax cuts designed to help the poor, to help the disadvantaged, to help research and development and to help in the creation of jobs. If what the hon. member is saying is will we accept his thesis, his philosophy, that the kind of tax cuts that ought to be brought in are those tax cuts that will help the rich while gutting the programs and the poor, then we say no.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister says that he opposes Reform's tax relief proposals. In other words, therefore, the minister is against giving single mothers earning $20,000 a year a 95 per cent tax cut as we propose.
The minister has just said he is against giving tax credits to stay at home parents. The minister says he rejects the changes in personal and spousal exemptions that Reform proposes, proposals that will directly benefit over 13 million Canadians and two million taxpayers respectively.
Why is the Liberal government so opposed to giving single mothers, families and over 13 million Canadians tax relief as Reform proposes?
(1430 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not against providing single mothers with help. If the Reform Party will look at the last budget it will see that we increased substantially the working income supplement for families with four children.
If it will take a look at what we have done in the case of education credits, if it will take a look at a whole series of measures which we have brought in, every single one is designed to help the poor, to help single mothers. The Reform Party voted against every single one of these.
I will tell the House what we are against. The hon. member talks about helping single mothers. We are against gutting welfare programs because that is what single mothers depend on and that is what Reform has used to pay for its tax cuts for the rich.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the finance minister is against cutting welfare budgets, why has he cut $7 billion out of federal transfers to the provinces?
Reform's tax relief proposal will help all taxpayers but it will help low income Canadians and Canadian families the most. Thirteen and a half million Canadians will benefit from Reform's plan. Over one million middle to low income Canadians will pay no tax under Reform's plan. That is $2,000 in tax relief per family by the year 2000 under Reform's plan compared to the $3,000 income deduction that families experience under the Liberals.
Will the government set some firm targets for tax relief or are the Liberals satisfied with the crippling tax burden facing Canadian workers, families and employers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our first budget we provided tax relief for Canadians. In our second budget we provided tax relief for Canadians and we will continue to do so.
The reductions in transfers to the provinces were less than 3 per cent of their revenues and they were substantially less than the reductions in transfers that were recommended by the Reform Party. The Reform Party essentially said it would gut those transfers. What we have done is a lot less.
Let us deal for a minute with this question of families. The Reform Party stands up and says it wants to protect the Canadian family. In those provinces where the Reform Party will gut equalization are there not Canadian families who depend on the public services that would be provided? Do Canadian families not depend on maternity, sickness benefits and unemployment insurance?
The Reform Party would eviscerate welfare payments. In the weird, narrow definition of the Reform Party, are there not Canadian families on welfare who require help? Is its vision of this country so narrow that it cannot understand the needs of ordinary Canadians?
The Prime Minister was in Montreal yesterday, where he shed crocodile tears over the sad state of the Montreal economy. Yet, the federal government's procurement policy clearly puts Quebec at a disadvantage. The value of federal goods and services not purchased in Quebec amounts to amounts to $1.2 billion, which represents a loss of $600 million to $700 million for the Montreal area, I repeat a loss of $600 million to $700 million.
Instead of crying over Montreal's economy, will the Prime Minister act positively and constructively, and restore fairness in federal procurement, which would create thousands of jobs in the greater Montreal area? Will the Prime Minister take action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in our system, government procurement is through public tenders. Each province, in fact, each citizen may submit a bid.
(1435)
Some things are bought in one part of Canada and others in other parts, and all the provinces are treated equitably. If the hon. members are suggesting that we should stop using this system and award contracts only to those we like, that would not be honest government. It would amount to systematic favouritism.
One of the actions we have taken was to set specific rules providing a level playing field for everyone. If they really did respect the wishes of Quebecers, who, twice already, have said they want to remain in Canada, they would stop talking about referendums. Businesses would then not be leaving but moving to Montreal.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the referendum is an issue they raise when they have nothing else to talk about. I have a specific proposal for the Prime Minister.
Why does the Prime Minister not agree to making federal procurement in Quebec proportionate to the size of its population? For Montreal alone, this would represent a $500 million increase, which, in turn, would create 10,000 new jobs in the greater Montreal area. Why did the Prime Minister not make this commitment yesterday? Is the Prime Minister serious about Montreal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member rise in this House and tell the public that, under the equalization payment system through which the Canadian government provides assistance to any region of Canada experiencing financial difficulties-and they say they appreciate it-last year, because its revenue was below a certain level, Quebec actually received an extra $500 million from the federal government?
Will the hon. member rise in this House and admit that our good policies have resulted in lower interests rates over the past 18 months and that the Quebec government actually saved $625 million because there is a good, responsible government in Ottawa?
The GST saga continues. The Liberals promised taxpayers they would axe, scrap and abolish it-the Liberal equivalent of ``I'll respect you in the morning''-then they covered that whopper up with a billion dollar pay-off that doubled the tax in Atlantic Canada, followed by the Deputy Prime Minister's resignation. Then they broke their promise to end the GST on reading and now, just like the Tories used to do, they have cooked the books to bury the billion dollar pay-off and fudged their deficit figures.
Since we have known for a long time that their word is not any good-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put his question now.
Mr. Solberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the finance minister tell Canadians why he is now prepared to sacrifice the fiscal credibility of the country in order to pull another fast one on the voters?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. Despite the obvious problems of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the auditor general has expressed a clear, unambiguous approval of the government's books. There are no reservations. He has given us a clean opinion.
As a matter of fact we have never had a reservation on the books since we have taken office. The auditor general said that the government had acted in a way that was even more prudent than he would-I was about to use the word conservative, but I caught myself.
When we took office we found that the previous government had made a series of commitments that were not consolidated in the books. As a result the books did not provide a proper statement of the government's financial condition. We have made sure that any liability is recognized at the time it is incurred. That is proper accounting. That is what we have done.
(1440 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the finance minister's chin is growing.
The government just put hundreds of new tax auditors on the payroll to ferret out these same types of scams in the small business sector. If the finance minister did these things in a private sector company he would be in jail.
Will the finance minister commit today to stop the creative bookkeeping and meet the same standard that he expects small business people to meet when his auditors come knocking on their doors?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we had done in the private sector-
An hon. member: Accounting 101.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Exactly. Accounting 101.
If we had done in the private sector what we did here it would be called accrual accounting, which is what most businesses happen to use.
The hon. minister has promised to give the member a lesson in accounting 101 anytime he would like to have it.
What we have done is recognize the liability at the time it was incurred. If what the hon. member wants to do is accuse the government of in fact having done better on the deficit this year than we announced, that is a lot better than what the previous government was accused of, which was to always understate the deficit.
The fact is we probably have the cleanest books of almost any government around.
However, we looked at the Liberal agenda, which will be-
The Speaker: I would ask you to not use props.
Mr. Duceppe: You are right Mr. Speaker, I should not have shown this, it is awful.
I looked at the list of resolutions for the Liberal Party congress, which will form the basis of their platform. I found 20 priority resolutions relating to the economy, however, not one of them had to do with Montreal. The only thing about Montreal was a very short reference in the eighth paragraph of one of these 20 resolutions, a ``whereas'' clause. There will not be much room for Montreal on the Liberal agenda.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister: how can he tell Quebecers that he is prepared to take the first steps, that he is shedding tears over the plight of Montreal, that he wants to do something for Montreal, when nothing will be said about Montreal during the Liberal congress?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I guess my visit to Montreal did not go unnoticed. I guess the announcements we made regarding Canadair did not go unnoticed in Montreal. The other initiatives we are taking in the Montreal region must be effective, given that the Bloc Quebecois is so upset today.
Let me say one thing: we implement programs in every region of the country. We know, and I acknowledged it before, that, because of the current problems in Quebec, where everyday the provincial government says it will soon hold a referendum, businesses are leaving the province because these irresponsible people will not recognize that, twice, Quebecers have opted to remain in Canada, since it is in their best interests.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for once the Prime Minister used the right word, which is a rare occurrence. He said his visit did not go unnoticed. He is right. His visit was not remarkable, it merely did not go unnoticed.
The Prime Minister talks about uncertainty. But who is generating uncertainty in Quebec when the Prime Minister of Canada challenges democratic rules when he threatens to partition Quebec, when he goes so far as to have his picture with Howard Galganov in one of his members' pamphlets? Who is generating uncertainty? Who has an interest in generating uncertainty, if not the person who has made a career of denigrating Quebec?
I ask the Prime Minister: How can he reconcile the speech he delivered yesterday in Montreal with the fact that all his actions relate to plan B, a plan which even Daniel Johnson repudiates?
(1445)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have spent 33 years in public life and I learned a long time ago that insult is the weapon of the weak, the weapon of those who have no arguments.
I have been in this House for over 30 years and I was elected for 28 years in a riding that is 98 per cent francophone. I have always protected the interests of my constituents based on my conscience, and they have always renewed my term of office.
I have also always respected democracy, but I know these people do not want to respect democracy. They do not want to accept defeat. They do not want to admit that Quebecers want to remain Canadians, and this is why Montreal is currently in trouble. People are leaving Montreal because of the political uncertainty. But we say it is possible to be proud Quebecers and to be proud Canadians at the same time.
He may want to give 101 accounting courses but he needs 101 ethics courses.
Is the minister cooking the books?
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to be very judicious in his comments. I would ask him now to please pose his question.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance fixing the books this year to give himself a billion dollar cushion next year
because of his high tax, high unemployment, interest free loans to Liberal contributors coming off the rails sooner than we think?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are implications coming from members of the Reform Party that the auditor general did not express a completely clean opinion as to the books of the government. I repeat that the auditor general did. And the hon. member ought to have at least the decency to recognize this.
In terms of when a liability should be recognized, it is a generally accepted accounting principle, generally accepted in international commerce as well as domestic commerce, that a liability should be recognized when it is incurred. The liability was incurred in the year in which it was booked.
What the auditor general has said was that all the details of the agreement had not been fully worked out. If the hon. member would like to hang round the House for about 15 minutes at the end of question period, that particular question will be answered for him.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think that was a pretty long and technical answer. It added up to fuddle-duddle. The point is the auditor general pointed out that he is breaking his own rules and accounting rules and everybody else's rules to accomplish what he has set out to.
Why does politics become more important that truth in accounting, honesty in reporting and responsible management of Canadian finances?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if my answer was a little too technical. Perhaps one of his colleagues might explain it to him.
Let it be very clear that at the time we took office there were a lot of doubts expressed as to the credibility of the government's financial projections.
(1450)
It was very clear to us that if we were going to re-establish confidence in the management of the economy by the new government, it was important that we recognize liabilities when they occurred, that we be as prudent as possible and that we go the extra mile to do so.
That is what happened in this case. It may well be that the auditor general has said we have been excessively prudent but I can tell members that is not a bad accusation to carry in the international money markets.
Yesterday, in the Public Accounts of Canada the auditor general accused the government of breaking its own accounting rules to distort its deficit. Yet the Liberals were the first to cry foul when the former Conservative government pulled a similar stunt.
Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that he has deliberately inflated the 1995-96 deficit by close to one billion dollars so as to purposely reduce the real deficit for 1996-97 by a corresponding amount?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have just said, the auditor general has given a very clear opinion on the government's financial statements. What he said was that because the agreement in principle, not the detailed agreement, had been signed, the amount should have been included in another year, but we wanted to be more cautious, because it is very important to establish the federal government's credibility on international markets. That is what we have done.
I repeat, the auditor general has given a very clear opinion about the federal government's books.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, will the Minister of Finance admit that he is actually cooking the books, purely with an election in mind, in order to mislead the public about the federal deficit?
The Speaker: The question is not in order.
[Translation]
When I have a second, I will be able to ask my question.
[English]
The government strategy is to increase exports and double them by the year 2000. Could the minister please inform the House how he intends to meet this target, and how the government will achieve its jobs and growth strategy by the beginning of the next century?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, coming off a record year of export increases, I am pleased to inform members of the House that in the latest statistics for the month of August we reached an all time record of $23.3 billion. That is an export level that we reached for the first time. Furthermore, we reached a trade surplus in that same month of again a record of some $4 billion.
For the first time in a dozen years we turned the corner in terms of the current account surplus. We are getting new trading companies involved in this trading operation, particularly small and
medium size businesses because that is where we are creating the jobs.
For every billion dollars of new exports, 11,000 jobs are sustained in this country. We are becoming more proactive. We are retooling, re-engineering our services so that the small and medium size enterprises continue to grow, continue to provide for record export levels.
Yesterday in this House I asked the government to explain the connection between Bombardier's receiving huge government handouts and the fact that it contributed $170,000 to the Liberal Party over the last three years. I got no answer.
Section 121.(2) of the Criminal Code specifically outlines the rules against government kickbacks.
My question for the Prime Minister is would he explain-
(1455 )
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I have a difficult time in that I allow quite a huge preamble, but I never know where some members are going when they ask their questions. It seems to me that there is an insinuation here.
I would ask the hon. member to please withdraw his last words about kickbacks.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that comment.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for that and I ask the hon. member to put his question now.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister explain the difference between the spirit of section 121.(2) of the Criminal Code and the ongoing relationship between Bombardier and the Liberal government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody pays much attention to the type of completely distorted statement by the member, but we cannot expect much more from him.
The reality is that we have a law in Canada on electoral expenses and contribution and it is all public. I have a list of corporations that have given to the Reform Party, and I do not call those kickbacks. They are people who are contributing.
What we did yesterday or the day before with Canadair was to help a company that is becoming extremely competitive in the world today. It is sixth in the world as a builder of planes and it will be fourth soon.
I want to tell people that the company is very successful. It contributes to my party. It may contribute to other parties. It is all public. All contributions are public.
It is completely unacceptable to accuse us of providing a loan, which is to be repaid, to a successful Canadian company because it has given a contribution to the Liberal Party. But we know the level at which this member of Parliament loves to operate.
Yesterday, the minister asked about our policy on disclosing severance settlements. I remind you that our policy is the same as the Quebec government's, which is based on Quebec jurisprudence and puts severance pay in the same category as regular compensation, which is in the public domain.
If the minister is willing to be open, I am giving him another chance and asking him again to confirm that General Boyle received over half a million dollars in severance pay, and whether or not he intends to make this agreement public?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I told him yesterday, I hope my hon. colleague understands that the rules are the same for everyone. Not only for General Boyle, but for every public servant, every member of the military, or anyone else working for the Government of Canada.
The settlements reached with General Boyle are within the rules established by Treasury Board. If the hon. member wants to find out more, he knows what he must do, because we in Canada have laws on the protection of personal information, which, I hope, will be respected in both Canada and Quebec.
(1500)
University Professor Ted Morton has stated:
Without imputing any illicit motive to anyone involved-the timing of this proposed change could not be worse. Sceptics will claim it is unacceptable that a chief justice who is about to benefit from the justice minister's proposed pension policy change now sits in judgment on the justice minister's Quebec reference-the most politically sensitive constitutional case of the decade.Did the justice minister anticipate that his proposed pension reform could undermine the perception of impartiality of the chief justice and, if not, would he care to comment on Professor Morton's concern?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should first caution the hon. member that he is speaking about the office of the chief justice of Canada, the highest office in our legal system in this country.
I caution the hon. member that he is speaking about a person who occupies that office, the Right Hon. Antonio Lamer, who for over 30 years as a judge has demonstrated an unimpeachable character and integrity. I caution the hon. member to approach this issue with those factors in mind.
By raising this issue in this way, this hon. member has demonstrated more than anything else his own lack of judgment and his own regrettable approach in the business of politics.
This bill, as the hon. member well knows, is a technical amendment identified years ago, indeed before there were even any spouses on the bench. It was brought forward in Bill C-42 at the first appropriate time.
An hon. member: This is not an appropriate time.
Mr. Rock: It deals not just with the chief justice and his spouse. There are other judges on benches in Canada who are married to each other.
An hon. member: Who? Name one.
Mr. Rock: It does nothing more than bring judges' pensions into line with all the other public service pensions, including members of Parliament's pensions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: I suggest that the hon. member should do his homework, learn the facts and not come to this House with suggestions that call into question the integrity of the chief justice of this country.
The minister is aware that there is strong support from the government of B.C., the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations and other key stakeholders for the establishment of a United Nations international biosphere reserve in Clayoquot Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Will the minister tell the House and Canadians whether the Government of Canada supports the designation of Clayoquot Sound as a biosphere reserve and, if so, whether the government will contribute a fair and equitable share to help make this a reality?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member for his question and his concern. It is an issue that obviously touches a very passionate chord in British Columbia and indeed with all Canadians.
The government is currently looking at this. I know my colleague the minister of heritage, myself and others in government, together with the ambassador for the environment, a proud resident of British Columbia, the Hon. John Fraser, are working hand in glove.
We hope at a very early juncture to bring a very successful conclusion to this very real issue.
According to the United Nations Agriculture and Food Organization, there are 800 million hungry people in developing countries. Next week at the world food summit what is Canada going to do to help the world's hungry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada takes the world food summit to be held in Rome in November very seriously for a number of reasons.
Canada played a pivotal role in the founding of the FAO in 1945. We hosted the 50th anniversary ceremonies of the FAO in Quebec City in 1995 where the foundation for this summit was laid. It is also worth noting that Canada is one of the world's most productive nations in food and food products so we have a particular responsibility as we head to the Rome summit in November.
We will be emphasizing the principles of peace, democracy and human rights in our presentation.
(1505 )
We will be talking about the proper functioning of the world trading system so that it will be reliable from both the point of view of exporters and importers. We will be talking about the contributions to be made to productivity and sustainability by organizations like the PFRA and CIDA and private organizations like the UPA. We will also want to talk with both exporters and importers about
how we can all work better together on security of supply in the world and a vastly improved distribution system.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.