When questioned before leaving for Asia, the Prime Minister said that the only solution for Canadian was to restructure the company rather than look to the government for assistance, because the company's problems were the result of bad management, and an infusion of federal funds would not help resolve this problem. The Minister of Finance took a similar line Wednesday.
Since the Prime Minister has already made his government's position plain, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who authorized the Minister of Transport to open the public purse and come to the assistance of Canadian by offering a rebate on fuel tax?
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, this government has taken a great deal of interest in the
case of Canadian Airlines, because many of the company's employees and clients have been deeply affected by the events of the last few weeks.
I would point out to the member that 1,273 employees of Canadian Airlines International live in Quebec. I think it important for everyone that a bit of interest be shown in finding solutions to these problems.
It was therefore necessary for airline management, creditors, governments and employees to draw up together a plan that could work. This step has almost been completed. Since the Prime Minister's departure, all groups have tried to work together, except for one union. Now all the interested parties have come together with a common plan.
(1130)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. minister that what is important is that we follow the example of other countries. All the major countries in the world, including France, England and Germany-with the exception of the United States, which has a population of 300 million-have only one national airline. We are enjoying the luxury of having two. Therein lies the problem. If we really want to save jobs, we must accept a long term solution and have just one national airline.
We know that a number of airlines, besides Canadian International, are now experiencing financial difficulties. Others, like Air Canada, have made it back to the profit side of the ledger, but only after many years in the red. What criteria will his government use to decide which carriers will be entitled to the fuel tax rebate and which will not? What will be the determining factor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this must be made very clear. The rebate will be offered to all airlines under the same conditions. In return, a company will have to give up substantial tax write-offs.
In other words, this could amount to payment of higher taxes to the federal and provincial governments in the future. Let me be very clear: this is an offer that will be made to all airlines.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see such a medley of answers. I hope that the minister who feels moved to reply to the next question will give me the right answer, because we are moving along with the specific information given us first by the Minister of Industry and then by the Minister of Finance.
By changing the rules of the market, by subsidizing fuel, as it seems prepared to do, is the government not contravening one of the NAFTA rules, and will it not leave itself open to economic reprisals from the United States, and even from other competing companies in Canada?
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 can confirm for the member that a tax rebate is not a subsidy according to NAFTA.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health presented us with the main thrust of the tobacco legislation he plans to introduce shortly. This was a vague and fuzzy list of the measures he is planning, particularly with respect to the sponsorship of sports and cultural events on which he intends to pass regulations.
Can the minister indicate more clearly what he intends to impose in the way of restrictions on promotional material at sports and cultural events? In other words, can the Players Grand Prix, for instance, still be called that?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we outlined the strategy of the Government of Canada to deal with tobacco consumption in the country. Seven major elements were outlined to the public in terms of what action we will be taking.
We have put in place some restrictions with regard to sponsorship promotion that companies will have to abide by. However, I want to indicate to my colleague opposite that we are not banning sponsorship in this country. Not at all. We have restrictions on that promotion. The details will be contained in the bill. I hope to give notice later this afternoon, with the tabling of the bill on Monday.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure us that his bill will be more specific than his speech, and that he will not try to slip past us, as regulations, and therefore without debate, more stringent measures concerning sponsorships?
(1135)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 11,000 Quebecers die each and every year as a result of tobacco consumption. As the ministry of health, we have had to show some leadership on this particular file. There is leadership but it has consequences. The consequences are that there are restrictions on sponsorship promotion. It will be regulated. We will consult with
the industry. We will consult with the various cultural groups to make sure there are workable solutions.
Make no mistake about it, there are restrictions and there are restrictions on sponsorship promotion.
The government has now followed the lead of B.C. and Alberta in offering Canadian Airlines some relief on oppressive fuel taxes, but the offer may be meaningless. It is good only if Canadian's employees vote to accept the restructuring package and the government will not do anything to ensure that those employees get that chance to vote.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the government's convoluted tax rebate offer is worthless if the employees are not allowed to vote on it, when will the government take action to protect the democratic rights of Canadian's employees?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I am certain that he is aware of section 108 of the Canadian Labour Code. It precludes the Minister of Labour from ordering a vote in circumstances such as he has referred to.
The hon. member knows full well that the best way to ensure that workers at Canadian Airlines have the right to vote is that we continue to put public pressure on the union leadership.
However, if the hon. member is suggesting that the Government of Canada intervene in terms of legislation in order to effectuate a settlement there, he is away out of line in terms of what the collective bargaining process is all about.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting the minister should raise section 108.1. Yesterday the Reform labour critic placed a motion before the human resources committee asking for an immediate review of section 108.1 of the Canadian Labour Code in order to ensure the democratic rights of Canadian Airlines employees. The response to that by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour was: ``Giving Canadian employees the right to vote is a waste of time for this committee''. The Liberal and Bloc members then proceeded to vote against the motion.
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. In the cold light of day, and after a good night's sleep, is he prepared to withdraw those unacceptable comments and support the democratic rights of Canadian employees who may lose their jobs if this government does not act?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the context of the words which the hon. member makes reference to, but I do not think there is a member on either side of this House who does not want the members of the CAW to exercise their right to vote on a particular package.
What the hon. member must understand is that we have the Canadian Labour Code which outlines the procedures that employers as well as workers must follow.
I would encourage the hon. member as well as his party to continue to put pressure on the various unions which are involved here in order that that right may be exercised.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government's response to a plea by Canadian's employees to be allowed to vote on the company restructuring program has been that it is up to their elected union representatives. Those union officials are supposed to be like MPs, and I say supposed to be; that is representatives, not rulers.
It is both clear and democratic that Canadian's employees whose jobs are on the line should have the right to decide on their own future. It should not be left in the hands of Buzz Hargrove whose job is not at stake, who will still have his job even if Canadian folds.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The choice is democracy or dictatorship. Buzz Hargrove has chosen dictatorship. Is this government willing to choose democracy by protecting the democratic rights of the union workers of Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the hon. member's questions I concur wholeheartedly. Union members should have that right in terms of the package before them.
(1140)
But in view of the restrictions we have within the law, it is incumbent on the leadership to provide that right to their members. That is an internal thing they will have to deal with in the weeks and the months ahead.
Last week, the Toronto Star reports that the Minister of Canadian Heritage also declined any responsibility in this area.
My question is for the heritage minister. Does she intend to shoulder responsibility in connection with the organizations affected, and will she propose alternative solutions when sponsorships are reduced?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Let us be clear. The first objective of the legislation and the proposals we outlined yesterday is health. When 11,000 Quebecers are dying each and every year as a result of tobacco consumption it behoves the government to take action.
There is no need for a replacement fund because we have not banned sponsorship across the country. It will be a corporate decision of those individual companies concerning what they do and the amount of money they provide to various sponsorships across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister said earlier that there will be restrictions, there will be repercussions on sponsorships, we are assured of this.
Departmental employees stated before the heritage committee this past March that they were working on a report to assess the impact of the Minister of Health's policy on cultural and sports events, as well as a draft recommendation and suggested timeframes.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. As we speak, has the minister received these recommendations, which are aimed at offsetting the effects of the Minister of Health's policy on cultural and sports events, given that the government has always sent a message to the organizers of cultural and sports events that they should link up with the private sector?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is this: sponsorships are still legal. No one needs funds to replace sponsorships which have not been banned.
The minister said very clearly in response to the transport critic for the Reform Party that the government wants the workers to be able to vote on this legislation. As the minister said, the government knows that the present provisions of the Canada Labour Code do not allow that.
The government is here to pass legislation for the benefit of Canadians. If it wants the workers to be able to vote on this, why will the government not give the workers the ability to do so?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two reasons. First, we respect the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
Second, as we speak, the Minister of Transport is in the province of British Columbia having consultations and discussions with various representatives of different unions to impress on them the need to allow workers of the CAW to have the right to vote on this restructuring package which is not a part of the collective bargaining process.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government, despite the fact it says that it wants the workers to vote, is hiding behind the provision of the labour code that Mr. Hargrove is using to prevent a vote.
Yesterday I was at the human resources committee meeting. The parliamentary secretary suggested this is a temporary solution and may not be a profitable solution in the long run. That is not what the company, most of the workers or provincial governments say, and it is not what the federal government has said.
Is the federal government refusing to allow a vote to occur because it really does not believe in the future of Canadian Airlines?
(1145 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been a long time supporter of Canadian Airlines. Many in this caucus and many members in this cabinet are very supportive of Canadians Airlines.
The hon. member has it wrong. It is not the Government of Canada, it is not the Government of British Columbia and it is not the Government of Alberta. It is the union leadership of the CAW, namely one individual who is at fault here. The pressure must apply to him and his cohorts in order to give union members the opportunity to vote.
The government's attempt to save its plan in Zaire will have lasted only 24 hours. The agreement on the food drop mission announced yesterday was seriously questioned today. Zaire is opposed to the agreement, humanitarian organizations are sceptical
and even General Baril does not seem convinced, since he would use this option only as a last resort.
Since the Canadian government's proposal to drop food has met with strong local opposition, are we to understand that the minister submitted this proposal without considering all the consequences? In other words, was the minister making a last-ditch attempt to save the plan?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. After the meeting on the weekend with representatives of the countries concerned, especially the military group, we carefully assessed all recommendations. We consulted many countries on the level of consensus for international initiatives and especially to assess the information on conditions in Zaire.
In the process, we received the support of 20 countries. We have the support of major humanitarian organizations, including the Red Cross committee and other international groups. Granted, there are some people, especially those in the Reform Party, who are critical. But the major humanitarian organizations agree on the need to provide humanitarian aid to the refugees.
There is an international consensus among the 20 countries which will be meeting in Ottawa today to confirm this mission and guarantee the capability of the international community to distribute humanitarian aid in Zaire.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently sees opposition coming from only a few groups. However, according to our information, that is not the case.
Does the minister realize, as a number of intervenors in the field have pointed out, that a food drop in a region where there are still groups of armed rebels may threaten the safety and even the lives of refugees who are now without protection?
That being said, and although we do not question the minister's good intentions, could he tell us whether he intends to obtain the agreement of the main partners in the field or propose another option? Could the minister tell us, considering all the opposition, whether other alternatives have been considered?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I make it very clear that we consulted with the major humanitarian organizations before we put the proposal forward. As I said before, the media can find the odd individual because there are always critics everywhere, but we first established that there should be a headquarters at Entebbe so that there is a multilateral force on the ground able to make evaluations and responses.
Second, they would be given a mandate to undertake reconnaissance missions to develop good information in Zaire to determine where food assistance would be most appropriate, where the refugees are and how they can be most effectively delivered.
(1150 )
At the present time that there is no access for convoys to go in. That access has not been given by the countries but we do have the opportunity to provide air assistance.
The comment was made by one minister of one of the governments of Zaire. I would like to point out to the member that there is total confusion in Zaire. There are two premiers. No one is sure who is in control. The fact is that we have received the full approval of the President of Zaire in discussions with Ambassador Chrétien.
Those are the conditions we are working under. I am not saying it is a panacea, that it is a full answer. However, I do believe most Canadians, with the exclusion of some of my friends opposite, want this country to continue to provide leadership to mobilize whatever efforts are possible by the international community to support humanitarian aid. That is our mission and we are fulfilling that mission.
The McDonald commission in 1979 obtained secret cabinet documents by an order in council and the then clerk of the privy council, Michael Pitfield, admits the decision is discretionary and lies with the Prime Minister.
Since there is a choice, why has this Prime Minister chosen to hide the files?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the McDonald commission occurred before the introduction of section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why do we care about these documents?
In 1985 Saxon William Forbes was born. He was given a tablespoon of blood to bring colour to his cheeks. He was constantly sick, diagnosed with HIV and today he has full blown AIDS. This did not have to happen.
Regulations were drafted in 1984. The government of the day decided to quash them. Today the government also has a choice. If it wanted to, it could release the documents to Krever. Why will the Deputy Prime Minister not release those documents?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to get to
the bottom of the issue surrounding the blood scandal more than the government. The commissioner has the capacity to compel any previous minister to testify. I believe at least one previous minister of health has made a public statement suggesting that she would like to go before the commission to provide information.
The fact is that commission counsel has suggested that her testimony is not necessary. If any clarification can be brought to the matter, I am sure that the commission and Mr. Krever will do their best to compel those witnesses to come forward and put all the facts on the table.
In Canada, it is estimated that between 26,000 and 35,000 persons carry the AIDS virus. An average of 3,000 new cases are identified each year in Canada. It is a sorry state of affairs, since Canada, along with Australia, is one of the countries where the average age of those with the disease has dropped since the start of the epidemic.
Given the proportions of this scourge, is the minister prepared to renew the national AIDS strategy for five years with its budget of $40.7 million a year? Is he prepared to make the commitment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the subject matter to which he made reference is a serious issue. It has been given serious attention and will continue to receive serious attention.
We have provided substantial moneys for this fiscal year, the next fiscal year and thereafter additional moneys will be made available. We are presently reviewing the programs we have in place.
By the testimony from many experts across the country, the interventions by government have been very helpful and very successful. I look forward to constructive suggestions being made by the hon. member as well as the standing committee, the subcommittee of which he is a member, as well as from other Canadians as we get closer to the time at which we will have to re-evaluate our position on additional moneys.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a little more leadership would not hurt.
Can the minister assure us that there will be a third stage to the national AIDS strategy and that it will cover all the needs of those with the disease, namely, treatment, community group support, prevention, education and research? I invite the minister to take a firm stand.
(1155)
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. What is needed is a national strategy. The federal government, being one part of that strategy, would like to do everything that it can within its fiscal resources. I hope that other governments, non-governmental organizations and others can be a part of the solution and that they will not just stand back and complain.
Many of the activists who I have met across the country have come forward with some very valuable and constructive suggestions. I look forward to that continuing as we get up to the time at which re-evaluation and decisions will have to be taken.
I was in Yellowknife not too long ago as part of the natural resources committee study on rural economic development and I heard some very deep concerns about the depletion in the availability of carving stones for the Inuit. I understand that there has been a major discovery of alabaster on Victoria Island recently.
Can the minister tell the House if NRCan played a role in that discovery and what it means for northern communities and Canada?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important question. It is both a question of cultural and economic concern to the people of the north.
This summer, during a regular geological field survey near Holman on Victoria Island, one of the geological survey mappers discovered a very large deposit of alabaster which will enable many people of the north to continue their important carving activities.
The geological survey is committed to mapping and documenting resources such as this. We appreciate that this is important, not only to the economic self-sufficiency of this region, but it is an important part of the culture of this region.
Surely the minister must know that Canada was one of the main proponents in establishing the World Trade Organization. It took nine years at the Uruguay round of the GATT to establish rules to handle disputes of this nature which are extremely important, more important in many cases than our NAFTA rules of dispute.
Would the minister not agree that it is time to use these rules to defend Canada's interest in these types of trade disputes?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the past 15 years there has been, almost in every year, a countervail action taken by the United States against the Canadian softwood lumber industry. This has caused major uncertainty in the industry. It has resulted in major costs to the industry. There was $800 million collected on export fees alone by the United States during one period. It has caused enormous disruptions in the marketplace.
The Canadian government negotiated a five-year agreement in which there will be no countervail whatsoever so there can be an orderly marketing arrangement between Canada and the United States without any threat of trade actions. That agreement was based on a level of 16.4 billion board feet, which is the highest level in the last 10 years, with the exception of one year, based on average exports.
That was the deal which was arrived at. It was supported by the exporting provinces. It was supported by the industry. It was put into an agreement and now the export market is proceeding.
In the meantime, certain lumber companies rushed to the border, exceeded their quota and they are now in the position of saying: ``We do not want to play by the rules any more''.
The Minister for International Trade set up certain safety valves. They can borrow quota against their values for next year. They can provide extra fees if they want to export more. It is all there, but they cannot continue to say: ``Simply because we are not getting our cake and eating it too we want to change the rules''. The rules are there to ensure there is effective marketing and safety of the industry against countervail costs being imposed by the United States industry.
(1200 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, surely this minister would know that every time Canada has had a trade dispute with the United States on softwood lumber we have won. In fact the $850 million he talked about was fully rebated to Canadian producers.
The only thing that has happened is that the United States has done an end run on us and changed its domestic legislation which means that we will probably not win at the NAFTA panel any more. That is why we are suggesting we should take this dispute to the World Trade Organization.
We have been in contact with many producers in the last few weeks. In fact, we surveyed companies and 80 per cent of those which responded want us to cancel this deal and walk away if we are countervailed by the United States again and to take this to the World Trade Organization.
Why will the government not honour that kind of concern by those companies that there is a threat of massive job layoffs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I would invite the hon. member to be a little more detailed. I certainly take his representation but if he wants to produce those calls, those responses, those companies, I am sure the minister of trade would be very happy to take that representation.
In the meantime, the minister has established an advisory committee made up of members of the industry from across Canada to provide him with that kind of advice in terms of constantly reviewing the agreement to determine quota levels and ways of administering the agreement.
Rather than a random phone call survey, I would suggest the hon. member put his case and his information to the minister of trade. He can take it to the advisory committee which represents the entire industry and determine if those cases have been made. The hon. member constantly comes to the House and grandstands the idea of ripping up the agreement and going to dispute. This is simply continuing the uncertainty and the problems rather than trying to make this agreement work.
Yesterday, we heard about some questionable accounting practices and the outrageous perks of the Canadian Space Agency chairman, Mr. Evans. More details came out today. The chairman has reportedly been given a severe reprimand by the information commissioner for deliberately destroying certain documents.
In light of such disturbing facts, does the Minister of Industry recognize that his former advisor, who now heads the Canadian Space Agency, is bereft of credibility when it comes to heading one of Canada's leading institutions, an internationally renowned institution?
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 have in my hand a letter from the information commissioner of Canada. The hon. member's allegations are false. The letter does not say that Mr. Evans destroyed documents, and Mr. Evans has clearly denied destroying any documents.
Second, I can tell the hon. member that, upon joining the Canadian Space Agency, Mr. Evans immediately renegotiated the arrangements between the agency and the U.S. He helped me by preparing the agency's long term space plan. He has done an outstanding job. As a result of his efforts, the space agency is respected worldwide.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the allegations were made by the commissioner of information, who is also a very credible person. If the accusations are false, blame the commissioner of information. It seems to me this situation is starting to look like the Boyle affair. The minister cannot just sweep it away.
In light of the very serious accusations hanging over the space agency chairman's head, will the minister recognize that he has no choice but to immediately suspend Mr. Evans, his former advisor, and call a public inquiry into the questionable accounting practices of the Canadian Space Agency and its chairman?
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 source of the allegations referred to by the hon. member is Michel Vastel, a journalist, not the commissioner of information. I have his letter in my hand.
Mr. Crête: Table it.
Mr. Manley: It does not say that Mr. Evans destroyed documents. Why would he want to destroy the reputation of a man who has served Canada well? It is outrageous to see how irresponsible the people across the way are.
I can table the letter, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Go ahead, table it.
(1205)
Mr. Manley: They do not want to hear the truth on the other side. Since Mr. Evans has been at the head of the space agency, we can say that some pretty terrific things have been done, not only for Canada, but also for Quebec, in terms of francophone representation within the agency.
I can quote statistics. When Mr. Evans joined the agency, three of the 14 members on the executive committee were French speaking. There are now eight. In addition, we are negotiating a major contract for Phase II of RADARSAT. Discussions are under way with a consortium led by Quebec companies.
I repeat, Mr. Evans is doing an outstanding job.
The contract raises some important legal questions, particularly with regard to who owns the tapes.
My question is for the solicitor general. Since it appears that Olson and his lawyer own the tapes, what is to stop them from selling those tapes to the media or other sensationalists?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tapes in question were not produced by Olson but by the staff of the Correctional Service of Canada. Therefore, and this is not changed in any way by the wording of the agreement which was signed in June 1993, the tapes in question belong to the crown and not to Mr. Olson.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect the opinion of the hon. minister but I hold in my hand copies of the registration under the Canadian Copyright Act which clearly puts Clifford Olson and his lawyer in possession and in control of these tapes.
The facts are that the lawyer and Clifford Olson do possess the tapes and they do have control. There is a real chance that Olson will either release or sell the tapes to the media.
I appeal to the minister on behalf of Sharon and Gary Rosenfeldt and other parents who have lost their loved ones to this sick maniac. I call upon this government to act immediately. Will the Solicitor General confiscate and destroy the Olson tapes? Yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Olson is not personally in possession of any of the videotapes in question. Second of all, the lawyer in question is in possession of five of them. He has previously undertaken not to make them public, but in any event I am advised that legal action is being undertaken on behalf of the crown to regain possession of the tapes from Olson.
I further want to point out that registration of a copyright does not establish copyright but merely amounts in law to a claim. If
there is a certificate of such a nature, I am advised that this does not in law actually create a right in copyright.
Graduates from programs like communications studies at the University of Windsor want Canadian jobs in a Canadian film and television industry. What has the Department of Canadian Heritage done to help these talented young Canadians find work in this growing Canadian industry?
(1210 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that on November 27 the agreement was signed establishing the first contracts under the Canadian television production fund. There are a range of projects including: ``B.C. Times'' in British Columbia; ``Cotter's Wilderness Trail'' from Alberta; ``Wind at My Back II'' from Ontario; and ``le Théâtre dans tous ses états du Québec''. There are $160 million worth of applications.
Members of the Reform Party will be happy to know that this new fund will lead to 30,000 direct and indirect jobs in what is an incredibly vibrant and growing industry, the Canadian film business.
The United States refused to give a second mandate to current UN secretary general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose term will end on December 31.
Since Washington used its veto power to go against the will of the 14 other countries forming the security council, and against the will of most members of the United Nations, what does the Canadian government intend to do to convince the United States to reconsider its decision?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we expressed our support for the secretary general on several occasions. We did so multilaterally and bilaterally, and our Prime Minister expressed that support directly to the President of the United States. Unfortunately, we are currently not a member of the security council, which will make the final decision.
I hope a solution can soon be found, because, right now, the work of the United Nations is being hindered by the debate or the process relating to this issue. This is a concern for all involved, given how difficult it is to arrive at a solution. We will certainly continue to state our support for the secretary general.
What is the solicitor general doing to fix this situation?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general is referring to the difficulty of the corrections service in receiving information from provincial institutions, courts, local police forces, provincial corrections departments and so on. It has been working to get agreements with the provinces to get this information. I have asked that this be expedited and that this be put on the agenda for meetings with provincial ministers.
I want to use this opportunity to speak here in question period to urge my provincial counterparts to sign the necessary agreements as soon as possible so that the corrections service will have all the information required to enable the right types of decisions to be made.
In any event, I want to add that the auditor general strongly supported the concept of offenders spending part of their term in the community under supervision as the best way of protecting the public. It was also pointed out that the concerns are based on a relatively small sample. However, that does not mean that this is not a problem and I am striving to see it corrected as soon as possible.
table the letter from the Information Commissioner of Canada so that members may see it.
I must say that in the heat of the moment after the exchange, I may have been heard by the stenographers to have referred to the hon. member as a ``menteur''. Out of respect for the traditions and rules of the House I would wish to withdraw that comment.
(1215)
The Speaker: I do thank the hon. minister for the voluntary withdrawal of that word. We will take the letter and it will be tabled.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order was precisely to have you ask the minister to retract what he said about me following the question I put to him.