Yesterday, CBC's The National informed viewers that the ethics counsellor had not seen the minister's expense account, nor her written statement, when he made his decision. We know the Prime Minister's propensity for defending his ministers right to the limit, and sometimes beyond.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, and he is the one under scrutiny in this matter, how he justifies his statement of yesterday that he had checked with the ethics counsellor, when the latter has apparently said that he had seen neither the expense account nor the secretary of state's statement. I would like him to give us some explanations.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as in every matter of this nature, the ethics counsellor was advised of the problem. He spoke with the secretary of state. He then concluded that the explanation was satisfactory.
Allusion has been made in this House to a document that he had not seen, but that had apparently been explained to him verbally. When he saw the document, it confirmed the version given by the secretary of state.
I accept the completely acceptable version given in the House by the secretary of state.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the question is not about the secretary of state. I took the trouble to point out that we accepted her explanations. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is the Prime Minister's propensity for defending his government at all costs, with or without justification.
When, without taking the facts into consideration, the Prime Minister has relied on an opinion given by the ethics counsellor, how can he claim this opinion is of any value, when it was arrived at solely on the strength of a few discussion, without all the documents having been seen? Of what use is the opinion of an ethics counsellor who has not looked into a matter thoroughly? That is the question.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the counsellor checked the document which was shown in this House. He analyzed it. As I was saying earlier, it was entirely consistent with the version given him by the hon. secretary of state.
I have nothing to add. If the hon. member is not questioning the version given by the secretary of state, let him suit action to word and stop asking questions.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, I would like to say to him that I will ask all the questions I want, however I want. That is my affair, not his. And I would like him to be so kind as to answer the question.
(1420)
How can the Prime Minister justify having sought the opinion of the ethics counsellor without personally ensuring, in his capacity as Prime Minister, since it is a question of defending his government's integrity, that all the documents were brought to the counsellor's attention?
Is that not the normal way to proceed, before holding up such an opinion to defend the integrity of his government? Would that not be wiser, more prudent, more reassuring to the Canadian public? And is not the purpose of seeking opinions of an ethics counsellor who does not have all the documents in his possession so that accommodating opinions will be given?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): I said, and I repeat, that all the documents were checked by the ethics counsellor and that the version given by the Secretary of State is the version behind the decision about which I informed the House yesterday, to the effect that there was no intention to harm in this administrative error. And, as it happened, when the additional document was shown to him, the ethics counsellor examined it and concluded that it in no way changed the decision he had initially made to inform me that there was reason to pursue the matter, that the version given by the secretary of state was acceptable.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an article published in the Ottawa Citizen and headlined:
[English]
``The Deputy Prime Minister dodged the blame for budget cuts at CBC''.
[Translation]
-it says, and I quote:
[English]
``Don't blame me for cutting the CBC budget'', the Minister of Canadian Heritage told an audience of journalists in Ottawa, ``blame the finance minister''.[Translation]
The article goes on to say, and I quote:
[English]
``She repeated several times that the finance minister should be held accountable for the cuts''.
[Translation]
Does the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage admit she said that the Minister of Finance, her very dear colleague, should take the blame for the cuts to the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not an actual quote, for the very good reason that what I said at the conference is that, when I became minister responsible for the CBC, I told them at the outset that I could not bypass the budgetary process already in place, but that I would fight for a $100 million programming fund.
The Minister of Finance went ahead with this programming fund, 50 per cent of which will go to the CBC. That is what I said when I was appointed at the end of January. That is what I delivered with the finance minister's support.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it may not be an actual quote, but we saw it live on television. It was even better. Another minister who needs video evidence.
Yesterday, the minister said she was working with her colleague, the Minister of Finance, on multi-year financing for the CBC. In fact, Southam reported last weekend, and I quote:
[English]
``The finance minister told reporters the government intends to do the right thing for the CBC after it has wrestled the deficit to the ground''.
[Translation]
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage again blame her finance colleague next March on television, whether or not it is an actual quote, for her government's future cuts to the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before many times in this House, like all government agencies, like Radio-Québec, the CBC has been cut. Unfortunately, the cuts the Quebec Minister of Culture had to make to Radio-Québec were even deeper than those at the CBC.
We are all going through some difficult times, but I am confident that with the finance minister's support in the upcoming budgets, in the next budget, we will continue to strengthen the CBC for all Canadians.
(1425)
The Prime Minister promised and promised again to restore public trust in our political institutions. Canadians deserve to see the ethical guidelines the government says it has come up with. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to hide behind imaginary parliamentary tradition.
In the interest of restoring public trust and confidence in this parliamentary institution, will the Prime Minister release his guidelines on ethics for cabinet ministers? Yes or no.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a directive that the Prime Minister sends to his ministers for their guidance. Ethics cases are discussed when they come to the House of Commons. Members of Parliament and the press can look at the decisions that are made.
On the case we discussed yesterday, I am satisfied with the explanation given by the Secretary of State earlier today.
These are the facts. The member may not agree with the facts, but I am satisfied the Secretary of State has acted in good faith all along. All the bills have been repaid properly to the crown. There was some problem in the administration but no money was spent illegally or against any guidelines. It was done properly and all the money has been reimbursed properly in good time.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly keen on the Prime Minister just saying the facts. I want to see the facts and I think the Canadian public wants the same.
This has been a very awkward spot. I wonder how many more cabinet ministers on the front bench are in the same position today. Maybe we should ask for a show of hands. Why would it be so
strange or incongruous that one minister would get caught in this kind of bind yet there would not be others? Maybe we should ask for a show of hands. We have seen how well some of these systems work with these imaginary guidelines.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he consulted the ethics counsellor about the youth minister's expense claims. Lo and behold, the ethics counsellor admitted that he had not seen the expense claims, that he just took people at their word.
Let me ask the Prime Minister about their word, about his word and everyone else's word. Will he come good on his word in the red book that he would have an independent ethics counsellor who is responsible and reportable to Parliament, not just to him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last analysis the person who is responsible for the conduct of all ministers is the Prime Minister of Canada. I maintain that and I have the responsibility.
She will be the first one to know if I say someday that it is not my decision, that it is the decision of somebody else. As Prime Minister I have to take responsibility for the activities of all my ministers and I will not give that responsibility to someone else. I will always face all my responsibilities.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of comfort that is to his cabinet or the Canadian public watching right now.
I sense a double standard. The former defence minister was forced to resign for a technical breach of the government's ethical guidelines. Whether the guidelines are public or private, we really do not know what they say. Cabinet ministers are supposed to know what they say but I am not sure they are entirely clear on it.
The Prime Minister stubbornly defends the youth minister who in her estimation and I think in that of the Canadian public did something worse. She admitted today in the House of Commons that it was a mistake and we appreciate that.
However, this minister knowingly signed a document on which she said these were government expenses. I will ask the Prime Minister one more time: Why is the defence minister called out on a technicality yet the youth minister is called safe for a blatant breach of the Prime Minister's guidelines and we do not even know what they say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, days before the form was signed, the Secretary of State indicated that some elements of the expenditures were personal. The expenses were accounted for the same day. When she signed the document she attached a cheque to reimburse her personal expenses.
[Translation]
(1430)
Will the minister, who extols the virtues of his reform, tell us why the number of unemployed is currently so high, while the number of recipients is constantly decreasing?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, allow me to answer the short digression of the member for Mercier. The fact is that 700,000 jobs have been created since 1993.
As for the member's question, it is important to realize that the employment insurance act is the result of an extensive consultation process involving 100,000 Canadians. This legislation will prepare Canadians to enter the 21st century and to adjust to the new market reality.
Using the actual number of hours worked results in a system that is more fair and better balanced. The new program currently allows an additional 500,000 people to be covered, including 270,000 women.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for July and August 1996 alone, the number of UI claimants dropped by 5.3 per cent. According to Statistics Canada, this drop in the number of claimants and beneficiaries is due to the new legislation. Will the minister agree that, contrary to his comments, his reform deprives more than 50 per cent of those unemployed of the right to claim benefits?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we put a very high value on work. We value work and we do not want a passive system that encourages people not to look for work. On the contrary, we are investing in those who are prepared to get training and to take the necessary steps to find work.
We are extremely pleased that our active return-to-work measures meet the needs of Canadians. What Canadians need in our new economy is to go back to work with the proper training.
We are pleased that this reform meets the needs of my constituents in Papineau-Saint-Michel, including women who are poor and who are often unable to work more than a few hours per week. These women are now covered from the first hour of work and they are grateful to us for that.
[English]
Will the health minister admit that every woman suffering from breast cancer who is on a waiting list today is on a longer waiting list because of those cuts?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises an important subject in terms of breast cancer. I do not think there is anyone in the House on either side of the aisle who is not supportive of initiatives as they relate to breast cancer.
The government, in co-operation with a variety of different groups, is contributing a fair sum of money in terms of research and how we can effect positive solutions.
Over the last number of years $25 million have been directed toward research. More has to be done.
We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States to focus not only our capital and our money but our human resources to find the kinds of solutions women and society in general would like to have as they relate to breast cancer.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, representatives of 44,000 Canadian doctors appeared in front of the finance committee this week. What did they ask for? I quote: ``Stop the devastating health care cuts''. They gave the Liberals a failing grade on medicare. They asked for a reinfusion of funds into medicare. Strangely that sounds a bit like Reform's fresh start on medicare.
(1435)
Will the minister steal another plank from the Reform Party, do exactly what the Canadian doctors have asked and reinfuse more money into medicare?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, flip-flops and inconsistency have been characterizations of the members opposite.
In September 1993 the leader of the third party said that his party ``would support user fees or deductibles and would eliminate universality''. Days before the federal election in 1993 the Reform Party said it was opposed to private health care and user fees.
If that is not a flip-flop, if that is not an inconsistency, I say to the hon. member to go back to med school and become a real spin doctor.
What is the minister waiting for to block Polygram's request, since there are no grounds to justify this foreign company's distributing films in Canada, particularly since this is categorically against Canadian policies in this area?
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, as I explained to the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata last week, it is impossible, under the Investment Canada Act, to discuss specifics while the issue is still before me.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the Heritage Canada study which says, among other things: ``We conclude that the Canadian distribution policy is well justified and continues to be pertinent, and that the consequences of its not being applied would be highly prejudicial to the Canadian industry- and contrary to the public interest''.
In reality, what the minister is being asked to do is to ensure that Canadian cultural rules are respected and to not negotiate any cut-rate deals. Will the Minister of Industry assume his responsibilities, do his duty, and reject the Polygram application?
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, I shall certainly assume my responsibilities, and I will explain my decision when it is time to do so.
I would also like to point out that I agree with the hon. member on the importance of Canadian culture. I am pleased the Bloc is also in favour of protecting Canadian culture. I trust that they will work with us to create a country where we can all have a strong culture and develop an appreciation of our two cultures, French and English.
[English]
Yesterday 100 Canadians died and today, tomorrow and the next day 100 Canadians will die from tobacco related diseases.
The Minister of Health has promised without delay tough strong new measures to address this epidemic among us. He promised this twice last June, once in March and once this month.
When will the minister bring forth tough new legislation to address the epidemic in our midst?
(1440 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they do not know when to stop.
I would like to know where the Reform Party really stands. The hon. member for Macleod has said that he does not support tobacco legislation. He said: ``I do not for one second believe that an advertising ban is the way to go''. Then on February 7 he wrote to me and said that he would give me unqualified support for the new strategy for tobacco advertising.
Yesterday he said: ``Reformers see the answer to reducing tobacco consumption in education, not legislation''. But on June 21, 1994 he said that education campaigns were not the way to go.
Canadians and the House would like to know where the Reform Party stands on the tobacco legislation. Is it with the hon. member for Macleod, the leader of the party or the hon. member who has just spoken?
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Health said: ``Judge me by what I do, not by what I say''. That is exactly what we are going to do.
Since the government rolled back the taxes on tobacco there has been a 30 per cent increase in consumption among youth; 10,000 young people will start to smoke every single month. That is at the feet of this member and the government.
Once again, what is this minister going to do to decrease the epidemic? For the children of Canada, what is he going to do to decrease the epidemic in our midst?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were told by the leader of the third party that he wished to reduce taxes. Now the hon. member is in favour of a tax increase.
We accept full responsibility for a comprehensive package as it relates to tobacco and we will introduce the legislation when I am ready to introduce it.
On October 2, in response to repeated requests from the Bloc Quebec relating to the family trust scandal, the Minister of Finance announced new rules for transferring assets out of the country. Yet the minister is still dragging his feet in tabling his bill.
Can the minister indicate to us when he intends to introduce his bill, so as to plug for once and for all this loophole through which billions of dollars have gone out of the country without a single cent of tax being paid?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was a ways and means motion, une motion des voies et moyens-in both languages-which took effect immediately, as soon as I rose to speak in the House.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of the reply still missing. Let us see whether he can provide it in response to a supplementary.
According to the Globe and Mail, a number of big tax firms numbering rich taxpayers among their clientele are displeased with the new guarantees required by the government.
Does the minister intend to bow to these firms of tax specialists, who are calling upon him to lighten the financial guarantees their clients will have to produce when they take assets out of the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Technical problems (sound system).]
The Speaker: That was pretty fast!
[English]
Canadians attach great importance to strengthening our socioeconomic relations with Ukraine, a growing European economy.
(1445 )
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what was accomplished last week when he led a delegation of 70 senior Canadian business leaders to Ukraine?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Canadians have established a very special and important relationship with Ukraine. In the five years since its independence, we have worked very closely with Ukraine in helping to establish basic institutions of democracy.
It is now the government's view that we have to broaden that to a new dimension of trade in economic and commercial relationships.
As a result of the meetings last week in Ukraine, where we had the largest foreign delegation ever to visit Ukraine, we were able to sign over $600 million worth of business arrangements which have established Canada as probably one of the largest investors and participants in the Ukrainian economy.
In addition to that, we signed a deal by which Air Canada will become the designated carrier for Ukraine. We inaugurated the new intergovernmental commission bringing Canadian and Ukrainian business people together to solve many of the problems of red tape and bureaucracy.
I think we have really moved that relationship to a new plateau that will substantially enrich our opportunities.
The real question here is the government's integrity and accountability: $1.2 billion has gone to Bombardier in 15 years with no openness and no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer.
Will the Minister of Industry stop the cover-up and divulge all the repayments that Bombardier has made in the last 15 years?
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 hon. member keeps wanting to talk about this as a loan. I have explained to him a couple of times that we are not talking about a loan but an investment which in fact will be repaid out of royalties as aircraft are sold at Canadair.
I also want to point out to the member that this entire program is not only about science and technology or research and technology. It is also about creating jobs. Yes, these are jobs in Montreal but they support jobs across Canada.
When I flew out to British Columbia last week to give the first contribution under this program to Paprican it was to create jobs in British Columbia as well as in Montreal. When I was in Alberta last July to give money to TR Labs on a repayable basis to support wireless technologies it was to create jobs in Alberta. Where are the complaints from the hon. member about those job creation efforts?
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the cover-up continues.
The government introduced legislation that was to get the highest standards of ethical conduct by public officials and lobbyists yet these guidelines are hidden in the secret vault in the Prime Minister's office.
Today we find that the president of Bombardier's aerospace group, Canadair, sits on the advisory board of Technology Partnerships Canada, the same body that granted the $87 million loan.
Can the minister please tell the House if this situation is a conflict of interest or is it not? If it is not, why not?
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, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question because he gives me the opportunity to point out the important role that we think the private sector needs to play in helping this program to work well.
We put together a private sector advisory board which is helping us to review the parameters of the program in the most effective way. We are using the board to give us a foresight into the technologies we should be supporting. We are asking it to review in retrospect the allocation of funds so that it can give us advice on whether it thinks the effectiveness of the program is as great as it could be among sectors.
I will tell the member that we have been absolutely scrupulous in ensuring that in reviewing any specific application that are made through Technology Partnerships Canada that no member of that advisory council is consulted in the review of the application. This is done entirely by officials. It is based on the guidelines that were set out and made public when the program was announced. We know that the government is creating jobs not only in the immediate term, but into the next century.
(1450)
[Translation]
The federal government was a trustee of the pension fund of former employees of the Singer company from 1947 to 1962. Its mandate was to protect the interests of the employees of this company. However, the federal government allowed Singer to draw funds from the pension surplus, thus depriving retirees of an amount that today is estimated at more than $8 million.
Will the minister acknowledge the demands of former Singer employees by granting them their request for compensation, and do so before the last pensioner dies?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have noted the question put by the opposition member, and I will give him a reply as soon as I have had time to look into the case.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I got in touch with the new minister and his office about this almost three weeks ago, and I may add that the average age of the Singer employees is 80. So we cannot afford to wait.
Would the minister agree that if he lets this dispute go to court, because that is what is bound to happen, it would generate tremendous costs for the taxpayer and mean intolerable delay for the retirees, whose average age is more than 80?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a decision that was made in 1962. I must admit that I was nowhere near the government at the time, so, as I said in reply to his first question, I will look into the case as soon as I have a chance. I can assure you I will give the most comprehensive answer that I can, because this issue is certainly very important to the people concerned, and I think it is entirely legitimate to look into a case instead of improvising an answer.
How can the minister justify implementing this disastrous plan when it will mean lost jobs and higher prices and hundreds of millions of dollars in higher costs for the people of Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. In fact the most recent independent studies that have come out of Nova Scotia have demonstrated that it is going to lead to very large scale job creation among small and medium sized business.
What was indicated in the study that came out yesterday was that the harmonized tax was going to reverse the cash flow drain that was coming out of Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces as a result of the original introduction of the GST.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. The finance officials in Nova Scotia are saying $100 million annually and $200 million in the first year.
While the finance minister is promising jobs, jobs, jobs, the government robs, robs, robs.
Large chains will survive this because they can pass on higher prices to consumers across Canada, but small business will either be forced to lay people off, charge customers more or simply go out of business. Those are not very good options. When Canadians are crying out for jobs, why is the minister setting out to kill jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party in terms of its questions lobs, lobs, lobs.
It was made very clear by independent studies in Atlantic Canada, specifically in the case of Nova Scotia, that the harmonized sales tax will lead to substantial job creation because it will lower the costs for small and medium sized business. For the first time they are going to have the opportunity to incorporate and put tax credits into their cost base which is going to lower their costs. That is the reason they did it. It is a reason that Newfoundland did it.
(1455)
I do not understand why Reform Party members consistently stand up in front of this House and say that they oppose measures that allow Atlantic Canada to compete. Why can they not speak for the whole country?
A previous endangered species proposal came under intense criticism. How does the legislation tabled by the minister today
respond to these criticisms and provide effective protection for species by also protecting their life sustaining habitat?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Marchi: Quite frankly, the Reform are specialists on this file: endangered species.
The government listened to the task force that was put in place, a task force that reflected industry, agriculture and environmental concerns. If members look at the legislation that we tabled today, the first ever federal legislation on endangered species, they will find that 80 per cent of the task force recommendations are covered.
If they check, they will find more territory covered by the legislation than previously. Also, whether the quality is on habitat, offences or including the public, the files have been moved forward.
Last, the provinces and territories need to be complimented on agreeing on a national accord so that we have a national plan and not a patchwork plan to protect and safeguard endangered species.
However, on October 18, a Federal Court judge found many parts of the government's legislation to be lacking and quashed the decision in the Williams case.
Since the government has used Bill C-44 as a cure-all for all the immigration department's problems, what is the minister going to do now to protect Canadians from immigrants and refugees who pose a threat to Canadians.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, in the existing legislation, we have all the powers we need to turn away criminals who come to our country. We even have the power to prevent them from going before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
That was the purpose of the new legislation we passed in this House. Clearly, Canada will never be a haven for criminals.
Knowing full well that reproductive technologies are a health matter, which makes them a provincial jurisdiction, and knowing how much establishing such an agency will cost, how can the minister justify establishing yet another federal agency in these days of budget restrictions?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe hon. members opposite were the first political party to call on me, as the minister responsible for health, to move with dispatch as it relates to new reproductive technologies. We have done that.
We have come forward with a bill that will go to committee. It will be examined. Hearings will take place. If improvements are necessary, they will be made.
It is certainly not the intention of the government or the administration to have any overlap and duplication. Where it is pointed out, we will act accordingly.
(1500)
As far as federal lands are concerned, is the minister prepared to do a full habitat inventory for species currently on the list? As far as provincial co-operation is concerned, can the minister tell us what enforcement powers he has at his disposal if any or all provincial governments fail to include habitat protection within their own legislative framework?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for too many years in this country when it has come to endangered species the time clock on the species has ticked while federal and provincial governments have bickered over the rock that the bird lands on. We argue: Is it your rock, is it my rock and what do we do about it?
Instead of continuing in that old, frustrating and losing manner the government decided to start on the other end. We started with the endangered species.
We will take responsibility on federal lands. We will take responsibility for co-ordinating interprovincial species. We will take responsibility for international cross-border species. The
provinces and the territories have signed on to a national accord that they will take their proper responsibilities.
If we do that, it is not a question of patting the federal or provincial governments on the back, the endangered species will be the winners. That is the object of the exercise.
The minister recently made an announcement regarding the government's race relations and multiculturalism program. Could she please tell the House why she made the announcement now and whether the results of the program review reflect the recommendations of a report which called for the elimination of funding for ethnocultural groups?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.
I would like to state that first and foremost, the Race Relations Foundation is in keeping with a red book promise which we made. Second, multiculturalism is not about ethnocultural organizations. Multiculturalism is about how all the peoples of Canada-the aboriginal people, the French, the English and people who have come here from every corner of the globe-learn to live together in mutual respect with social justice and with compassion.
We will continue to support that and we will continue to fund whatever groups and institutions encourage that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 1, and next Thursday, November 7, the House shall consider the address debate, the concluding portion of the debate on the speech from the throne.
On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday we will consider legislation beginning with Bill C-41, the divorce and child support bill. When this is complete, we will return to the list on which we have been working, namely: Bill C-34, the agricultural penalties legislation; Bill C-47, the reproductive technologies bill; Bill C-62, the Fisheries Act amendments; Bill C-59, the water transportation bill; Bills C-39 and C-40, the York Factory and Nelson House agreements bills; and finally Bill C-46, the Criminal Code amendments.
This completes my weekly business statement.
(1505 )
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will have statements now with regard to the Remembrance Day ceremonies. I recognize the hon. minister of veterans affairs.
On Monday, November 11 we will pause for a minute of silence to mourn the loss of these Canadians. At cenotaphs from one end of the country to the other and in cemeteries around the world where Canadians lie, we will remember them. But today as I remind this House of the coming ceremonies to mark the sacrifice of those who never returned from war, I would also like to remind our colleagues that in the coming week we are also going to pay tribute to the people who did come home.
The Prime Minister has declared the week of November 3 to 11 as veterans week. It is an occasion when people across the country can reflect upon the achievements and sacrifice of Canadians during wartime and in peacekeeping operations around the world.
Canadian veterans have served with distinction, winning respect and gratitude. I would remind this House that these Canadians were drawn from the entire country. They built the foundations of our national spirit.
Hon. members will recall that last year Canadians celebrated veterans week as part of the Canada Remembers program which marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war. Veterans Affairs Canada was very pleased to help co-ordinate many of the events which paid tribute to our veterans. I know many
individual Canadian men and women enjoyed the opportunity to re-create emotions, both happy and sad, from their youth.
Perhaps most important of all, the Canada Remembers celebrations last year gave many of today's young Canadians their first history lesson about what our country accomplished during the war. It gave an opportunity for one generation to speak to another. Young Canadians have grown up without the spectre of war casting its chill over their future. They could be excused for taking our cherished freedom for granted.
I hope that during this year's veterans week we will once again create the bond between the generations that will invite an older generation to tell its stories to a younger generation. I hope too that teachers across the country will use this week to talk to students about Canada's proud history and the important role we played on the international stage during these years.
Finally, I hope that Canadians of all ages will take time to honour those who gave so much of themselves, both overseas and on the home front, to bring Canada through those trying times.
I invite all members of this House to help us honour Canada's veterans during veterans week and indeed all year long.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House today, in my capacity as the Bloc Quebecois critic for veterans affairs, to acknowledge, as is tradition, Remembrance Day and Veterans' Week, which will run from November 3 to November 11.
The least we can do is to set some time aside every year to remember the men and women who served in the two world wars and in the Korean conflict.
From the bottom of our hearts, we thank all those who served at the front, the sailors and airmen from all regions of Canada, the members of the merchant navy, the nurses, and all the men and women who risked or gave their lives to overcome tyranny.
(1510)
Need we remind the House that over 100,000 young Canadians and Quebecers died in the two world wars, while hundreds of others were killed in Korea and the various peacekeeping missions?
Unfortunately, many bloody conflicts are still raging around the globe. I cannot help but think about the serious consequences of the conflict between the Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army. Over 1 million refugees are caught in the middle. Yet, the international community seems totally incapable of mobilizing and intervening between the warring factions. Worst of all, the humanitarian agencies had to leave the area immediately. The consequences are extremely serious. We may be powerless to prevent another disaster for humanity.
If I mention the tragedy unfolding in Zaire, it is because I am also thinking of all those who assume the responsibility for maintaining peace in the world, particularly the Canadian peacekeepers. As you know, more than 2,000 Canadian peacekeepers are currently deployed overseas in places like Bosnia and Haiti.
Today we remember the sacrifices made by those to whom we owe this legacy of freedom and democracy, and by all those who are now working for peace.
The extensive human losses and the horrible suffering endured by all the people caught in these endless wars defy understanding. What can we say to the widows and orphans, the brothers and sisters who lost loved ones forever?
All these brave people fought, all these lives were sacrificed so there would be no more wars. So that future generations would be spared all this pain and suffering.
Again, I join with all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois in expressing our sincere gratitude to all those who gave their lives and, of course, to all the survivors of these tragedies. Let us not forget there are still many survivors who deserve all our admiration and support.
In this regard, I condemn this government's lack of consideration for the members of the merchant marine. Their concerns must be considered a priority. We must make every effort to ensure that this government pays due attention to the views of merchant marine veterans and holds proper consultations with the coalition representing them.
Having said that, I will conclude my speech by saying how much the Bloc Quebecois wants to honour the memory of our veterans and pay them a fitting tribute.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam Speaker, six Books of Remembrance lie in the Memorial Chamber of the Peace Tower, each page bearing the names of those who died carrying the torch of freedom.
Over 114,000 Canadians were killed during the course of World War I and World War II and the Korean war. Many more returned battered in body and spirit.
The peace, security and freedom you and I enjoy comes as a result of the blood they shed and the courage and determination they devoted to casting aside the tide of oppression. Their fate, our future; what a very great price to pay, what a very great debt to owe.
The Memorial Chapel bears the inscription: ``They are too near to be great but our children shall understand when and how our fate was changed and by whose hand''.
Last fall during the Far East pilgrimage, I stood with youth delegates before a marker on a grave in the Commonwealth Cemetery in Yokohama, bearing the name of a young man who at age 19 died as a prisoner of war. He had been captured at Hong
Kong three years prior at age 16. The impact this marker left on our minds and hearts will never be forgotten.
(1515 )
It also took me to my stepfather, Stanley Edward Akrigg, who died in January at age 96. He was a big boy and he joined the Canadian army in 1914 at the age of 15. At the age of 17 he won the military medal and fought in the battles of Vimy Ridge, the Somme and Passchendaele. Two days before his 19th birthday, in October 1918, he lost his brother, who served in the same regiment, to a German artillery shell.
It also brought to mind my cousin, Ronald Loughton Movold, who was a tail gunner in a Lancaster bomber. He lost his life in Europe in April 1944.
The torch of remembrance must pass to those too young to have known the Canadian warriors who were too young to die. The poppies we wear are a time honoured symbol of their sacrifice. They were inspired by the poem written by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae after surviving 12 days of heavy bombardment in his Belgian bunker on May 3, 1915. Through the shelling he saw a cemetery across the road filled with red poppies. Tearing a page from his diary, he wrote the poem ``In Flanders Fields''. We are responsible to remember their gallant contributions so their sacrifice will not have been in vain and to ensure that we preserve the precious rights and freedoms for which they died.
We must also remember the tens of thousands of Canadians who have served in more than 30 individual missions over 36 years of Canadian peacekeeping. More than 100 Canadian forces personnel have lost their lives and hundreds more have been wounded during peacekeeping tours. They too must be remembered.
Our gulf war veterans were exposed to the intensity and volatility of modern day warfare during their fight to preserve the delicately balanced stability in the Middle East. During the war, many Canadians witnessed on their television screens a blaze of oil fires and exploding warheads. In service to our country and the global community, Canadian lives were scarred. Here too we find personal tragedies and sacrifice.
Veterans week, November 3 to 11, is a time to pause, remember and accept our heroes' challenge: ``Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw the torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Fields''.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus today in the House of Commons to pay tribute to Canadian veterans. We pay tribute particularly to those who made the supreme sacrifice: those men and women in the army, the navy, the air force and the merchant navy who gave their lives in World War I and World War II; those who died in the Korean war; those who have died in the course of peacekeeping operations.
Fortunately no one died in the Gulf war but as the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands indicated, there is evidence that people who served in the Gulf war have a variety of lasting effects which need to be acknowledged by the government.
That is why when we gather on Remembrance Day we pay tribute not just to those who died but also to those who came back, as the legion says in one of its creeds, after having given the best years of their lives.
A long time ago, just before my 20th birthday I was cycling with a friend through Holland. We came to a big monument. We had stopped at the Canadian war cemetery at Bergen op Zoom. We went for a walk through the beautiful place which has been kept wonderfully by the Dutch all these years. We realized what we had stumbled upon. We spent a couple of hours there because we were struck with the row upon row upon row of Canadians who were buried there. It struck me that at the time of their deaths they were about the same age as I was then, 19.
(1520 )
It was not until 10 years later that I had an occasion to visit the cemetery at Adagem in Belgium and another 10 years later I visited Vimy. The older I get, the more it is impressed upon me how young these people were, giving more meaning to the passage which is used at every Remembrance Day service: ``They shall not grow old as we who are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn''. If anyone has ever lost a relative not necessarily in war but to an accident at a young age, we all know what that means. Those people are forever youthful in our imaginations. They grow not old.
I was struck, as I always am, by images of those cemeteries, by the images of the Menin gate outside the village of Ypres where the names of 35,000 Commonwealth soldiers are inscribed who have no known grave. Every week the people of that town gather to do a last post ceremony at the Menin gate. They have been doing that since 1918 with the exception of the years when the town was captured during the second world war.
I say this because in Europe, whether it is in Holland, or at the Menin gate or elsewhere, people appreciate what Canadians and other Commonwealth and allied soldiers gave at that time. I think we in Canada could do no less. I often feel that we do not appreciate to the extent that we should what our veterans gave.
I hope this Remembrance Day and in Remembrance Days to come that future generations will be lucky as my generation was. My grandfather served in the first world war, my father in the second world war, but my generation was not called to war. I hope
that will continue to be said about my son's generation and my grandson's generation. We all should devote ourselves to that goal.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, I wish to pay tribute to the many Canadians who sacrificed so much for the peace and freedom we enjoy today.
The first world war ended at 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918 and the devastation was felt deeply. In just a few short years the lives of 70,000 Canadians were lost and twice as many were wounded in the name of peace. I know because my uncle served overseas and was wounded very badly at that time.
The second world war, a horrifying episode in history, claimed the lives of 45,000 Canadians and many thousands more were hurt. Many did come back home and we thank God for that.
Canadians also gave their lives during the Korean war and our armed forces answered when the United Nations called for action to put an end to Iraqi aggression against Kuwait.
Two of my brothers served in the second world war. They were in Belgium, Holland and France. It was not easy. It was not easy for my mother who made all of those fruitcakes to send over to them, who made all of their little pillows. She sent over their socks that she knitted. She cried as she waited for the mail to come, hoping and praying that they would come home safely. Luckily, both of them did.
Canadians have never backed down or run away in the face of aggression. Canadians know that to ensure world peace, the laws that govern relationships among nations must be respected and enforced. That is why we have almost 2,000 members of the Canadian military serving throughout the world on peace and humanitarian operations.
This year marks the 51st anniversary of the end of the second world war. On Remembrance Day, November 11, I would ask everyone to make a commitment to honour the sacrifices made by so many Canadians and to honour all of those who returned.
Last year in Holland during the VE Day celebrations, Canadian veterans were treated like the heroes they are for their role in the liberation of that country. Here at home we must never forget the risks these heroes took and the sacrifices they made so we can enjoy the country, the peace and the freedom we have today. A freedom we often take for granted for which a very high price was paid.
(1525 )
Out of thankfulness, respect and gratefulness, we must work harder than ever to preserve and protect the programs vital to the
well-being of so many veterans. I say that because many of our veterans come to see me because they are worried about the cuts in the last post fund. We must look after our merchant navy vets as well.
Today I say thank you to those who fought for the freedoms that we enjoy. I say thank you to those who continue to wear the uniform of Canada for their extraordinary service to us.
Let us never forget the high price that was paid so that we can live in peace, individually and collectively. We must be vigilant about maintaining that peace.
Therefore, I believe I have the unanimous consent to hold a vote on Tuesday, and I thank the chief government whip for behaving like a gentleman regarding this issue and for showing great openness and understanding.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.