[Translation]
existence of Quebec's nuclear industry. The gradual closing of the office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal and the decision to stop financing the Tokamak project are two decisions by the Liberal government which constitute an attack on a major industrial sector in the Montreal area.
Does the Acting Prime Minister realize that the combined impact of these two decisions on Montreal may permanently undermine the entire nuclear industry in the Montreal area, which has 36 companies specialized in the nuclear sector?
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 the Minister of Natural Resources has explained repeatedly in the House, it was decided that the priorities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would include not only research and development but also the sales of CANDU reactors.
I believe the hon. member is well aware that many Quebec companies benefit as a result of CANDU sales, and that is the priority of this organization.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebec companies could hope to win contracts, and they did, because there was an office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal. The rest is just promises.
However the federal government can do more than just make promises, when it manages to find the $33 million needed to guarantee the survival of the Triumph project in British Columbia.
How do we explain the fact that the government is unable to find the $7 million needed to guarantee the survival of Tokamak in Varennes, which happens to be the most important hi-tech research project in Quebec? Why could the government not find a mere $7 million?
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 of all, I notice it is not the former science and technology critic asking this question, because he sent me a letter saying he agreed with the government's decision to shore up previous investments in Triumph.
A number of scientists at Quebec universities are doing their research at Triumph and also at CERN in Europe. This is a very important package.
Second, I am really surprised to hear the hon. member say that, as far as research and development is concerned, Tokamak is the most important research centre in Quebec. The hon. member is actually saying that all other research in sectors such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and aerospace are less important. And this in spite of the fact that we explained recently in the House that the only hi-tech sector where Canada has a trade surplus is the aerospace sector.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we did not say that we were against the $33 million for the Triumph project. We did not say that.
The minister could look at the blues, in French or in English, and he will see I never said that. He just has a one track mind. I said that if the government was capable of finding $33 million for British Columbia, it should be able to find a mere $7 million for Quebec. I am talking about nuclear energy and the most important hi-tech project in the nuclear sector in Quebec. That is a fact.
I do not understand why the minister does not understand, unless he will not understand-that is another problem, and I am not sure there is a cure.
How can the minister go along with patriating the entire nuclear energy sector to Ontario? And subcontractors will follow. These are major contracts. How can the government patriate all this to Ontario, at a time when economic spinoffs in this sector are starting to materialize?
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 believe the lack of understanding comes from the other side of the House.
Mr. Young: No doubt about it.
Mr. Manley: The hon. member should realize that science and technology produces benefits for all Canadians by creating the research which then creates jobs in commercial applications.
(1120)
Only recently, we made some very important investments in the Montreal area and elsewhere in Quebec. We invested non only in Canadair, which is very important, but also in Mitel, in Bromont, which is engaged in research or semiconductors. We have invested in biotechnology at the biotechnology institute of the National Research Ccentre in Montreal, to create a kind of incubator that will create jobs in this sector.
There is more to it than just saying: All right, you cut here, but if you did not find the money there, because we have limited funds, so we must establish certain priorities. The priorities in the Montreal area are the pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology and aerospace, and that is the kind of investment we made.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I imagine it
will greatly reassure the Minister of Industry, since I will be taking the liberty of quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, so I trust both of us will understand the same thing.
On October 22, in Montreal, in a fine speech filled with good intentions, the Prime Minister stated as follows, in connection with the high tech industries: ``In the future, the federal government must, and will, help these industries to expand in Montreal.'' Yet this is far from the situation in reality. Again this week, we learn that the federal government is speeding up the closure of CITI, the Centre for Information Technologies Innovation, in Laval, and has given up on the idea of privatizing it, despite an offer from the private sector, which was made in due form.
Does the minister realize that closing CITI, which had more than 135 high tech jobs two years ago and received some $13 million annually, is not the way for his government to help high tech industries to expand?
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, we made the decision to begin by privatizing CITI some years ago, and we negotiated in good faith with MicroCell the possible purchase of the centre.
We have determined that accepting the proposal they made did not represent a good return for us. It must be understood, however, as I have just stated, that priorities need to be determined. Where does the money come from to help Canadair? Where does the money come from to invest in the Institut de biotechnologie?
Sometimes choices have to be made. We have taken what I consider to be wise decisions. If a good proposal for the privatization of CITI could not be found, perhaps that was the best choice.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker, the minister is very skilled at dragging out red herrings by reminding us that the $85 million interest-free loan to Canadair is not just some trifle.
Of the 143 federal research centres in Canada, 23 were located in Quebec. Is he going to realize, finally, that the Liberal government is the one undermining the economy of Montreal, and that CITI, Tokamak and the high tech sectors of Atomic Energy of Canada being moved-in case these have slipped his mind-are blatant examples of their bad faith?
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, what astounds me is that, every time the Bloc asks science and technology related questions, they pass themselves off as victims.
(1125)
The figures, in actual fact, are as follows. They indicate clearly, if the National Capital Region is excluded, as Quebec does for its own figures, that Quebec receives over 27 per cent of science and technology spending. Still more important, moreover, is the efficiency of our spending, since the objective is to create jobs and not just to be theoretically in favour of science. If the objective is to create jobs, we find that 41 per cent of R & D tax credits are claimed by Quebec businesses.
This tells me that our investments in the sectors I have noted: pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, aerospace, are more effective in Quebec, because they have created businesses capable of claiming tax credits. This is a strong sector in Quebec. They need to see themselves as winners, not losers.
Because of his close association with the Prime Minister, even the ethics counsellor is viewed as part of the damage control team.
Will the Prime Minister set the ethics counsellor free so that he can do the job Canadians expect him to do for them instead of merely being another mouthpiece of the Prime Minister and his government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is doing the job expected of him by Canadians. This is clear by the rulings he has issued and the overall manner in which he is carrying out his work.
At the same time, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is the one who has to take ultimate responsibility for his ministers and he is also doing that. This is a further sign of the high priority he puts on ethics and integrity.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in all of my years of teaching I did not allow my students to mark their own exams. This government has marked itself and claims that the appointment of the independent ethics counsellor has been achieved, and yet we observe that the ethics counsellor receives his instructions from the Prime Minister and answers to the Prime Minister.
What is the Liberal working definition of the word independent?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the way the ethics counsellor does his work that he is operating independently, using his own good judgment.
The comment of the Reform spokesman is an unfair and unjustified reflection on the good work done by the ethics counsellor.
That is why when the Canadian people mark the Reform Party in the next election it will be marked as a complete failure and the hon. member will be back attempting to teach.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that we are not here attacking either the person or the work of the ethics counsellor. We are challenging the conditions under which he must try to do his work.
No one knows this government's standards of ethical conduct. The ministers should know them, but it seems they do not. Canadians in general and even ordinary MPs in the House do not know them because they are kept a secret. The standards which are upheld change from day to day. It is like taking a measurement with a rubber ruler.
Can the Prime Minister please explain why he is afraid of divulging the standards that he expects from his ministers?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that because of his views on integrity and the high priority he places on it that he feels that no one can take a higher degree of responsibility than he. He has conveyed his rules and standards to his ministers. He is ready as Prime Minister to be accountable to the Canadian people. I would think that when it comes to using a rubber ruler, if the hon. member continues with these questions the Canadian people will take him to the office and use a rubber ruler on him in the next election.
[Translation]
Can the Acting Prime Minister give us an update on the current situation in Zaire and tell this House if humanitarian workers from Canada and Quebec are currently safe?
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are seven Canadians in the national humanitarian organizations in that region.
Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, plans are being implemented for their evacuation. The Department of Foreign Affairs is closely monitoring the situation to ensure that all efforts are being made to ensure their protection.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is cause for alarm as the centre of Goma is now being pounded by mortar and gun fire. As a result, foreign nationals have been confined to their hotels.
Can the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State tell us what orders the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued regarding the Quebecers and Canadians working over there, and what measures it has actually planned to help these workers in case they are unable to leave the battle zone?
[English]
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the seven Canadians I talked about are in the Goma region. As I indicated earlier, we are preparing plans for the evacuation of those Canadians. We are monitoring the situation very closely.
Number two, the guidelines for the ethics counsellor to administer must be made public so they have credibility.
My question for the Prime Minister is why are they not made public so that they can stand the test of the public and determine whether cabinet ministers are ethical in their actions?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister treats these guidelines as confidential advice from him to his ministers.
The important thing is that the Prime Minister considers himself ultimately accountable to Parliament and to the Canadian people
for the conduct of his ministers. If we are concerned about parliamentary procedure, then surely what the Prime Minister is doing is totally consistent with the highest standards of parliamentary procedure, namely the accountability of the Prime Minister to Parliament and through Parliament ultimately to the Canadian people.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's answer, can the minister explain, in terms of the ethics guidelines that allow a minister of the crown to make a deposit on a fur coat and go on to charge thousands of dollars of expenses on a government credit card, how that is ethical? It is not based on whether there is reimbursement or not. Could the minister explain that kind of unethical conduct in a cabinet of this country?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I refer my hon. friend to the findings of the ethics counsellor on this matter. He confirmed his earlier ruling through a further review of the matter.
I also refer my hon. friend to the very complete and forthright statement of the Secretary of State for Youth. I think this provides a complete and satisfactory answer to my hon. friend's question.
(1135)
In 1994, the information commissioner said, regarding a similar case involving the golden handshake paid to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that the rule was simple: whenever anyone gets a gift paid by taxpayers, the public has the right to know about it. Given that the Bank of Canada had to disclose the benefits paid to its governor, why is the minister still trying to circumvent all the rules and hide this information from the public?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we also have lawyers who give us the best possible interpretation of the act. The interpretation is that General Boyle is entitled to the same benefits, the same pension and the same protection of personal information as other officers, public servants and people covered by the act.
In this case, the entitlements and amounts to which a person is eligible are considered to be personal information whose disclosure is prohibited under the Privacy Act.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, no government minister talked about a gift. It is the information commissioner who told us that and we agree: it was a gift to the governor. Unless I am mistaken, the government, regardless of the act, the precedents, the public opinion and the interest of Canadians, is interested only in hiding at any cost the amount of the golden handshake that taxpayers had to pay, following General Boyle's gaffes.
Does the Minister of Defence realize that, by continuing against all logic to hide this information from the public, just after taking over his new responsibilities, he is perpetuating the lack of transparency displayed by his predecessor and condoning the secrecy that is poisoning the armed forces?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the terms and conditions relating to the departure of governor in council appointees are a Treasury Board responsibility, which is why I am answering these questions. Obviously, if the hon. member does not agree with the interpretation given by our legal officers, he can go to the information commissioner.
As for us, we feel that General Boyle faithfully served his country and that he is entitled to the same protection as any other Canadian, under the Privacy Act.
While the minister dithers, 40,000 Canadians die of smoking related illnesses every year.
I ask the government how many more Canadians have to die from smoking related illnesses before it brings legislation into the House?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the Minister of Health is working with due diligence to ensure that a new piece of legislation will be brought forward. As he said yesterday, he will introduce it when it is ready.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at an example of due diligence.
Last March the Minister of Health promised legislation forthwith; forthwith twice last June, twice last month. The hon. member who just spoke promised a year and a half ago that legislation would be coming forthwith and that she would do anything to stop Canadian children from smoking.
While the government is dithering about the issue, 250,000 children take up smoking every single year.
I ask the government, for the sake of the children of this country, when is it going to bring tobacco legislation to the House?
(1140 )
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is working actively to complete the legislation, to have it ready for Parliament.
We do have to make sure it is consistent with the rulings of the Supreme Court. I hope the concern expressed by the hon. member, which we share, will be confirmed when the legislation comes forward by the full and active support of the Reform Party.
That will be the test because we intend to bring it forward as soon as we can in light of the challenges we have in having the right kind of legislation.
Following an incident that took place in 1995 during a labour dispute involving Ogilvie Mills in Lachine, a strikebreaker was found guilty of assaulting a striking worker and leaving him with a permanently disabled wrist.
So as to avoid other violent incidents during labour disputes covered by the Canada Labour Code, will the minister admit that the federal government should follow the lead of Quebec and of British Columbia and pass antiscab legislation?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for almost a year now, under my direction and that of my predecessor, consultations have been held throughout the country. I will have the honour, next Monday, of tabling in this House amendments to part I of the Labour Code. I therefore invite the member to examine them Monday.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since it has always been said that this would not be included in the labour code, I have trouble understanding the minister's reply. Are we to understand him to be saying that the use of scabs does not aggravate labour disputes and that antiscab legislation would not help to establish and maintain civilized negotiations?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Sims committee has made recommendations. There was departmental consultation. The bill will be tabled Monday, and the question of regulations affecting replacement workers will be covered in the bill. I there ask the member to be patient, and he, along with all members and all Canadians, will be able to examine it Monday. And we will have an opportunity to debate in this House how the government plans to resolve this important issue.
Automobile airbags were designed to save lives. However, statistics indicate that people are being injured and killed by these same safety devices. Children in particular are at risk.
What action is the minister taking to ensure that airbags save lives, not jeopardize them?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nepean for the best question of the day so far.
Some six weeks ago, I wrote to the auto industry on the urgent need to improve airbag performance. I am very pleased to report to her and to the House that the auto makers have responded positively and constructively. They announced this morning in Washington that from now on airbags will be depowered.
I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. It allows me to say, Mr. Speaker-you, I know, are a parent of young children-that it is tremendously important to have seat belts done up, the children in the back seat and to make sure that we cut down on this dreadful toll of over 3,300 Canadian lives lost annually in automobile accidents.
The Liberals have cut back funds to search and rescue, fisheries surveillance and enforcement, TAGS benefits and fish hatcheries in British Columbia.
The Liberals have hurt coastal communities, not helped them. They say that taxpayers cannot afford these services any more, but they say that taxpayers can afford an $87 million corporate handout to Bombardier.
Why is the Prime Minister more concerned with the corporate welfare of multibillion dollar companies than the welfare and safety of our coastal communities?
(1145 )
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the undertone and the assumptions behind the question are really not correct.
However, for the hon. member's benefit and for the benefit of the House and the coastal communities, I will tell the hon. member what we have done. We have put together a salmon revitalization plan that has resulted in record returns in the Skeena River, where he is from, and the Fraser River, where it is double what was expected.
The government has signed an unprecedented memorandum of understanding with the British Columbia government, a province that he represents, for the roles and responsibilities in the fisheries and an impact analysis on the very coastal communities that he says this government does not care about.
Not only do we care about the coastal communities, we have made a commitment. I will reiterate that commitment in the House today to ensure that they are looked after.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the fisheries minister for Canada suggests that the Fraser had a record return this year, I wonder what he is smoking.
The legacy of the government is broken promise after broken promise. Outraged fishermen will not forget how the Prime Minister preferred to cut coast guard services from B.C. to the Gaspé to the east coast to pay for million dollar grants to rich corporations. Take from the poor and give to the rich, that is the Liberal way.
If the coastal communities of the Gaspé had given $170,000 to the Liberals in political donations would they have had their coast guard services cut?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the hon. member is not in trouble with his constituents. He is from Skeena and if he checks the blues he will see that I said it was the Skeena River that had the record run. He said Fraser and I just wanted to make sure the hon. member does not get in trouble with his constituents.
As we speak, a three member team, one from the British Columbia government, one from the federal government and an independent analyst is going around listening to what the coastal communities have to say. They have made an interim report on which we will act.
[Translation]
In the report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled yesterday, the Liberal members recommended establishing a federal consumer protection bureau.
Since according to the White Paper, the government is in favour of reducing overlap and duplication in regulations that apply to the financial services sector in Canada, how does the Acting Prime Minister react to this recommendation from the Liberal committee, which would have the effect of creating further overlap and duplication?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report was received very favourably by the government. A tremendous jobs was done by the finance committee, as you know, whose members represent all the political parties here in this House.
As far as the consumer is concerned, there is no doubt that we are all very concerned about the fact that, in many cases, the consumer feels he is not being treated fairly by the financial institutions. It is therefore our intention to look at the report and examine it very carefully.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Globe and Mail reports that this bureau would require only about 20 hours' work per week to deal with all of Canada, in other words, half the workload of a single civil servant. How can the federal government justify this additional intrusion in an area which in any case is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces? Does the government want to give the impression that it protects its citizens, although it is obvious that this bureau will be useless?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that both, and in many cases all three levels of government will have to work together. But he is also aware that a committee of this House has the right to draft a report, to conduct investigations and to examine what it believes is important, and it is the government's responsibility to respond to the committee. We intend to do so at the appropriate time.
in Manitoba remains in doubt while the government ignores its task force recommendation to privatize the facility.
(1150)
Is the natural resources minister going to do anything to ensure these research initiatives and jobs remain in Canada?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised this question last week. An adequate answer was given by the Minister of Natural Resources.
I appreciate the respect the hon. member has in the House but he knows we are still talking about that. He knows we have had to cut back. Reform Party members talk about smaller government. I wonder what they would do if they were in our position.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a specific suggestion for what we would do if we were in the Liberal's position.
The U.S. Brookhaven Institute is in a position to pick up jobs that Spar Aerospace would otherwise give to the cyclotron in Chalk River. The same situation exists for Whiteshell where our scientists are leaving for the United States due to inaction on the part of the government.
I have this specific suggestion for the minister. Would the minister use $3 million of the $40 million in refund that is coming from the European Space Agency to keep the Chalk River facility open and start the process of privatizing Whiteshell as was called for in the task force report?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to follow the budget of the Reform Party, which is not a platform but a springboard into the swimming pool of disaster, there would not be any atomic energy in Canada or the world.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The minister recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to present his 1996 fiscal and economic update. Now that the minister is working on the 1997 budget, can he tell the House how Canadians can get involved and have their views represented in the content of the next budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very timely as we are now going into the prebudget mode.
As she knows, the prime focus for national consultation will be the House of Commons finance committee which has already had five weeks of hearings here in Ottawa and next week is to embark on the national consultation. The committee will be going from coast to coast to coast.
At the same time, there are other vehicles. We have invited Canadians to write to us directly. I will be meeting with individual groups. Because I am aware of the hon. member's interest, I would like to highlight the ability of individual members of Parliament to hold forums in their ridings. In past years those forums have proved to be of enormous benefit.
The main focus, which I am sure the hon. member is driving at, is that we have made the budget process open and transparent. That is one of the reasons we have been so successful in our budgets.
Since his appointment, the new defence minister has kept rather mum about his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment. As we know, his predecessor had not ruled out buying new submarines and wanted to equip the next class of shipborne helicopters for anti-submarine warfare.
When is the minister going to make public his intentions regarding plans for major purchases of military equipment, and will he once and for all drop the idea of spending several hundreds of millions of dollars on submarines of dubious usefulness?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's role with regard to defence, not only its own, but in terms of its well known responsibilities towards its allies, requires that we proceed with extreme caution when deciding to purchase military equipment.
We are not ruling out anything, but I can assure my colleague that we do not intend to spend billions or hundreds of millions of dollars without taking into account all criteria that have a bearing on such a decision. I hope to come to a decision on the purchase of some of the elements the member mentioned in a not too distant future.
(1155)
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to having a debate in the House of Commons on his purchasing plans so that the urgency and usefulness of such purchases be publicly discussed, in view of our financial priorities and means?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the wonderful things about Parliament is that all decisions made have to be accounted for to all of our peers.
The policies of the Government of Canada with respect to national defence, I think, have been articulated. They have been the result of unprecedented consultations. We have had the white paper and the joint parliamentary reports. We have had debates on our participation in various military activities around the world.
We will continue to function in an open and transparent way, always trying to balance the needs of domestic and international security with our capacity to pay the bills.
Canadians have a stake in how their crown corporations are run. They have a right to know what is going on and the Radwanski report makes it clear that Canadians have legitimate concerns regarding Canada Post.
My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. The Liberal government promised Canadians more open and transparent government. Will the minister deliver on that promise and make Canada Post open and transparent by making it subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to the scrutiny of the auditor general?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is a very valuable corporation. It belongs to the people of Canada, but it also has a commercial mandate and, as such, one must respect commercial confidences.
That being said, I have asked Canada Post to look at establishing a plan to ensure that it operates with the most openness and transparency possible.
This week CBC Radio is celebrating 60 years of service. Especially in remote areas, it is a vital link that holds our country together. For example, CBQ in Thunder Bay serves half the province of Ontario.
Despite all the rosy promises in the red book about stable multi-year financing for the CBC, when will the government deliver on one of its most important commitments to the Canadian people? What is the future of the CBC and stations like CBQ with the Liberal government?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has consistently spoken about the government's commitment to the CBC.
Let us not forget that the government continues to fund the CBC to the tune of almost $1 billion. There is $200 million which is going into a production fund and $100 million of that will be used by the CBC for specific programming which will enable local communities to produce Canadian programming, especially in British Columbia.
With one breath the government and the minister say they are committed to removing barriers to interprovincial trade. With the next breath the finance minister announces his GST harmonization plan, which in the words of the Retail Council of Canada ``divides the Canadian economy into two separate entities''.
If the industry minister is committed to removing interprovincial trade barriers, as he says he is, why is he supporting the finance minister's harmonization plan which is, in itself, a barrier which will hurt Atlantic Canadians?
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, of course I support, without reservation, everything the finance minister does. I want him to know that.
I would also say that the issue of interprovincial trade barriers is a very important one. In fact what has been accomplished in Atlantic Canada is a demonstration of what could happen with the kind of co-operation we are trying to achieve. Instead of it being a barrier to interprovincial commerce, that there are rates that differ across these provincial barriers, what we have got there is the opportunity with a harmonized system to give consumers exactly what they want, which is the ability to go to the cash register and know that they are paying the price that they saw ticketed on the counter.
(1200)
What we face in interprovincial trade barriers, as the hon. member knows, is very often the result of provincial governments exercising their constitutionally valid powers to favour businesses or citizens within their own jurisdiction without having a broader view of what could be done if they were to take down the barriers.
I hope he will join with us in supporting our efforts to encourage the provincial governments to operate on a consensus basis once and for all to create a truly harmonized federal national market in Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
During question period the government House leader made what I call verbal physical threats to my colleague from Elk Island by the use of what he calls a rubber ruler. I think that provokes debate. I would appreciate asking the hon. government House leader to withdraw that threat from the floor.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should have been listening more carefully. The reference to the rubber ruler was made in the first place by his colleague the former school teacher.
I did not threaten to use the rubber ruler on my hon. friend. I said simply that the Canadian public in the next election was going to do it in a figurative and symbolic way. If this offends my hon. friend, I would be happy to withdraw the reference, but I cannot speak for what the Canadian people will ultimately do.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the Chair should rule that as a point of humour, rather than a point of order. The hon. member for Elk Island on the same point of humour.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since I was named I would like to simply say I thought that Liberal S and M meant smoke and mirrors.