There are people who had weeks of insurable employment in 1996. I would like to ask him how these weeks of insurable employment, which made them eligible for benefits, will be converted into hours so they can qualify for benefits as of January 5? On what basis will these weeks be converted? This is a very simple question. I expect an answer, and easy on the philosophy.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public is also interested in the quality of a reform, in the spirit behind it, in modernizing a system that has become obsolete. I am always very grateful to the Bloc for giving me a chance to talk about this excellent employment insurance system.
To answer the hon. member's question, this was in the legislation from the very beginning. In the case of any person who worked a certain number of weeks during the last 26 weeks of 1996, each week will be deemed to have been a 35-hour week.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): That took some doing. Mr. Speaker, I imagine the minister consulted one of his officials who has a good head on his shoulders, and there are always a few. However, I have a problem for him, since he is in an answering mood today.
A person who, for instance, worked eighteen 40-hour weeks qualifies for benefits, not only under the former legislation, but also under the legislation that will come into effect. So if a week is supposed to be worth 35 hours, does this mean that under the new standards, this person will not be able to receive benefits? I would appreciate an answer.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reform will encourage this person to go on working a little longer in order to have the number of hours required. In the case of a new entry, provided the number of hours totals 420, that person will be covered or, in the case of re-entry, eighteen 35-hour weeks will bring him to the 420-hour threshold.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Things are getting better all the time, Mr. Speaker. I think we have got the minister into the habit of consulting his officials. Obviously he had not done so yesterday. Maybe on our third try, we will get a third answer.
Yesterday the minister referred to a father in East Montreal who had three jobs, in each of which he worked a 14-hour week, and who will now be covered under the new standards.
(1420)
However, I have the following question. Since according to one of the standards under the new system, someone who quits his job loses all his privileges, will this father from East Montreal, if he quits one of his jobs, meaning he would no longer work 42 hours but 28, qualify for unemployment insurance, and I will let the minister consult his parliamentary secretary who seems to have all the answers.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this employment insurance reform makes it far more attractive to go back to work, compared with the old system which the opposition is so keen on preserving, an opposition that voted against coverage for part time workers, an opposition that voted against modernizing a system to adjust it to the modern labour market. I think that is entirely unacceptable.
Under the new system, the same presumptions will apply, that is, someone who quits his job for no valid reason is not insured, but if someone quits his job for a valid reason, a decision is made on a case by case basis. We can then determine whether he qualifies for benefits.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
I would start off by saying that our laughter is not because there is anything funny. For more than three weeks now we have been asking questions of the minister and he has been responding like someone who was not familiar with the issues-and, indeed, he is not. We are delighted to have played a part, on behalf of all Canadians and Quebecers, in getting him to consult others.
Can we be sure, then, that the minister will be in agreement with the recommendations of the employment insurance commission,
which, contrary to what he says, have not been adopted, and are on the agenda of the employment insurance commission?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this opposition provides me with one surprise after another. These things are part of the reform as soon as they are in the act, so I cannot understand why suddenly, three weeks later, they wake up and notice a subject that has been very widely covered, as they well know.
On this matter, I can assure you that the minister is totally in agreement with this interpretation, and we shall be on the workers' side. Each of the weeks worked in the last 26 weeks of the year 1996 will be deemed to have been 35 hours in length. We are giving them the benefit of the doubt, taking the workers' side.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here we are with one surprise after another for, in reality, everyone in the employment centres is waiting for the decision to be made. What was set out in the act was for there to be transitional arrangements, and we have been calling for these for weeks, so there is no reason to make fun of us.
My question to the minister is this: In these transitional measures, will someone who has worked more than 35 hours, say 40 hours, in 1996 be credited for 40 hours weekly, or for a maximum of 35?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the weeks worked in 1996 will be deemed to have been 35-hour weeks. Starting January 5, 1997, we start with the new system, which is in the workers' best interests. It will cover a potential 500,000 additional workers not covered at present. The hours-based system starts on January 5, 1997, and this is a system the opposition voted against.
Michael Pitfield, a former clerk of the privy council, says that the cabinet can release whatever it wants to release.
(1425 )
Perhaps I will ask the Minister of Health. Why is the Prime Minister choosing not to release these 30 documents that Justice Krever is asking for?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a constitutional convention that a current government does not have access to nor does it release the cabinet confidences of a previous government. This is a well established practice and therefore a convention in the Canadian system of parliamentary government. It is also well established in other countries with similar systems of parliamentary government.
In that sense what the Prime Minister is talking about is part of our law. This convention is specifically backed up by section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act. Therefore what the Prime Minister said is quite consistent with our system of parliamentary government.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is fine for the minister to hide behind that, but I think the evidence shows frankly that this is discretionary in that the Prime Minister can do that if he chooses to do.
This looks weak. This looks like flimsy excuses. It looks like nothing more than a cover-up. There are people dying because of this and we need to get to the bottom of it. The only thing that stands in the way of Krever's quest for truth is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone. He has the power to release the documents. He has the power to explain why legislation was shelved under the leadership of Mr. Turner and Mr. Mulroney in 1984.
Again, what is this Prime Minister trying to hide? Why will he not simply do the right thing and the honourable thing and let these documents be released to Justice Krever so he can do his work and get to the bottom of this?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the unwarranted assertion that the Prime Minister is hiding something that he should be releasing. I want to further say, and I can be corrected if I am wrong, that the Deputy Prime Minister said she had been informed that none of the documents sought by Mr. Justice Krever were produced during the government of the Right Hon. John Turner.
The Prime Minister is in fact doing the right thing. He is following and acceding to the constitutional convention which is part of our parliamentary government that a current government does not have access to the confidences of a previous government nor does it release such confidences.
The hon. member, as in so many other instances where she has been wrong, is wrong on this one.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the minister to say that he categorically rejects my argument here, but frankly there are thousands of people in this country who have been infected with hepatitis C or have died from
AIDS who categorically reject this kind of nonsense from this government.
Justice Krever and the victims of tainted blood do not have time for the Prime Minister and this minister to keep waffling on this issue. Michael Pitfield, a former clerk of the privy council, said: ``The government that wants to is the government that can''.
For some unknown reason, the Prime Minister and his government are lacking the political will to help these 15,000 victims discover why the blood supply and the federal government have failed them for years and years.
I ask the minister once again, let us not play games here. This is far larger than a political or a partisan issue. Will the government release the documents to Justice Krever so that this full inquiry is something more than a sham? Let us get to the bottom of it. Release the documents.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the only exception to the convention I have mentioned is where specific criminal charges have actually been laid against a minister or a former minister.
I want to further say that it is my understanding that Mr. Justice Krever has other means to get at the information by summoning before him previous ministers.
Miss Grey: They refuse to go.
Mr. Gray: The hon. member says previous ministers refuse to go. I am advised that Mr. Justice Krever has the power of subpoena and if he wishes to use it then he is in a position to question former ministers. The only thing wrong here is my hon. friend's attempt to exploit this tragic issue in a way which is not founded on convention or the facts.
(1430)
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister still hold to his Tuesday version of the facts, that a millionaire transferring a family trust abroad must pay taxes to Revenue Canada and interest owing on unpaid taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said last week. When taxes are due, they must be paid. If, for one reason or another, a tax due is not paid and the tax is duly levied, interest accumulates.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. We have a Minister of Human Resources who does not know his business, a Deputy Prime Minister brandishing flags at all and sundry and a Minister of Finance who is uninformed about the tax system he claims to manage.
In the technical document he tabled with his ways and means motion on October 2, he said that when a family trust is transferred abroad, and I quote: ``The person transferring must provide Revenue Canada with a guarantee of future payment without interest costs''.
He says there are interest costs, and his document says there are none. We just do not understand this government any more.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is the member opposite who does not understand the tax system.
The change we made to the system means that, when someone leaves the country, it is quite likely the tax is not due, since the item in question was never sold; so there is no capital gains tax. We want to be sure that, when the item or shares are sold, the tax will be paid by someone who is now a non-resident. So we insist on a debenture.
Unfortunately, the situation is clear enough for the member to perhaps have some difficulty understanding it.
I would like to ask the solicitor general, very plainly, could he state for this House that these documents did not come from the administration of Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was simply repeating to the House my recollection of what the Deputy Prime Minister had said as to what she had been informed by the clerk of the privy council. I have no further information that I can convey to the hon. member.
If he would like to specifically indicate what documents he is talking about, if he has any such knowledge, I will see if I can obtain further information on a proper basis for him.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the excuses continue.
It is interesting that the cabinet has called these documents draft regulations, every one of them. It is also interesting that the draft regulations were given to Krever. In fact, I happen to have those draft regulations with me today.
I ask again, since these regulations are not draft regulations that they are hiding, exactly what documents are they? I ask again, did they come from the administration of Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I see no way to answer my hon. friend's question unless he precisely identifies the documents he is talking about. If he is talking about documents of which he has a copy, which he said Mr. Justice Krever already has, why is he wasting the time of the House asking his question?
We have learned that a record number of people in Canada and in Quebec are experiencing financial difficulties and are being forced to dip into their registered retirement savings plans. At the same time, banks and major department stores are charging exorbitant interest rates on their credit cards and the government is refusing to assume its responsibilities with respect to this issue of public concern.
Does the Minister of Industry realize that the low interest rate cards being touted by the secretary of state the day before yesterday are available only to clients who are well off financially, and that it is those in the middle class who are paying for others through the elevated rates still in effect on regular cards?
(1435)
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of credit cards is one of the market dealing with matters. When there are lower interest rate cards which are available to some, others can be cut out who may want cards and who are eligible now for the higher rates.
It is a matter of the marketplace taking care of the situation as it exists at the present time.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, an Industry Canada report that came out last September stated that interest rates charged credit card holders are still too high, given the fall in the Bank of Canada rate. The Minister of Industry himself said at that time, and I quote: ``The president of the Bankers' Association does not perhaps understand that consumers are fed up''.
How can the Minister of Industry take the completely unacceptable approach of doing nothing, while interest rates are dropping everywhere but on credit cards? Why does the minister not join the coalition of 150 MPs who are trying to improve the situation for the average member of the public?
[English]
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the minister has always taken the position that he encourages banks to reduce credit card interest rates. In dealing with a group who had signed the requests, he was certainly supportive of the group in dealing with the high interest rates that are being referred to.
Again, there must be encouragement by the public to the banks to reduce the rates. This can be done in many different ways. One way is by not utilizing the cards and another way is by applying for the lower interest rate cards.
Will the minister break the log jam preventing agreement with the provinces on CPP by agreeing to match increases on CPP premiums with long overdue decreases in EI premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no linkage between CPP premiums and EI premiums any more than there is between CPP premiums and other payroll taxes such as imposed by the provinces, workers compensation, health or education levies. In fact, each has to stand on its own feet.
The member's question is very pertinent. One would really hope that the joint stewardship of the CPP between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments will lead all
parties to deal with the immediate need for financial stability of the plan.
I am, I must say, quite optimistic that we will arrive at a solution. I would prefer to have done it by January 1. We may go beyond that but I believe there is goodwill on all sides to arrive at a solution.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a poll confirmed what financial institutions have known for some time. Canadians are cutting back on their RRSP contributions. They just do not have the money after the Liberal policies reduced after tax family income by $3,000 on average.
Will the minister help Canadians by giving them tax relief in the next budget, financing it by more spending reductions and giving Canadians the smaller federal government they want?
(1440 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have brought in selective tax benefits for Canadians in all of our budgets and we intend to continue in that vein.
The hon. member put his finger on it when he said that if there are going to be further tax cuts they will have to be accompanied by cuts in social spending. I congratulate the Reform Party for at least having outlined those areas where it believes ongoing cuts in spending should be made. I encourage the Reform Party to speak to their other extreme right wing cousins, those in the Conservative Party, and ask them to outline where they would make the cuts.
Amendments to the Canada Elections Act proposed by the government allow the chief electoral officer to use only the Quebec civil register and Quebec driver's licence information to establish the list of electors for the next federal general election.
In view of the representations made by the official opposition as well as by the Quebec government and Quebec's chief electoral officer, is the minister now ready to reconsider his position and to allow the use of the permanent list of electors established by the Quebec government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to examine the representations made by Quebec's chief electoral officer, but the bill is now being considered in the Senate. Therefore, I cannot give a more detailed answer at this time.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has a choice: since it controls at least half of the other place, it could act immediately by having Bill C-63 amended, or it could do so in this House.
Since we know that taxpayers in Quebec and Canada would save at least $15 million if Elections Canada used Quebec's permanent list of electors, why are the government and Elections Canada still refusing to use that list?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think this House passed an amendment regarding the use of Quebec's and other provinces' lists of electors.
As I just said, the bill is in the other place. I do not think it would be wise for me to comment on what goes on in the other place. Again, I will consider the representations made by my hon. friend and by Quebec's chief electoral officer.
It was reported in 1994 that radioactive waste dumped nearly 50 years ago at the Chalk River nuclear site is polluting local vegetation, swamps, lakes and wildlife. This waste is now seeping into the Ottawa River and is posing a possible health risk to area residents.
What is the minister doing to stop this leakage immediately and to ensure the future safety of our natural resources and human health?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to reassure the hon. member and those who live in Chalk River and along the Ottawa River in relation to the story that appeared today in the Ottawa Citizen, the leak in question was reported to the AECB some number of years ago. Since that time the AECB has been monitoring the situation and taking whatever steps that have been necessary.
I want to reassure the member that the atomic energy board has stated that the leak in question presents no threat to the public or to the public health. The level of contamination is well below limits set by the AECB in relation to health and safety.
I also want to reassure members of the House that this leak is not from radioactive waste streams. The leak comes from water from
the bays in which the used fuel from the reactors is stored. It is important to reassure people that we are not talking about radioactive waste in this context.
The Certified General Accountants have produced a study that confirms what Reformers have been saying all along, that lower taxes create jobs, real permanent jobs, not the McJobs that the infrastructure program allegedly created. The CGA say a $4 billion personal income tax will create 108,000 new jobs by the year 2001.
Given the overwhelming evidence that lower taxes create jobs, will the finance minister agree to start lowering taxes so that Canadians can have those jobs that they really do deserve?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances it is quite clear that I will have to change my definition of an extremist.
Whether it be a $4 billion tax cut or whether it be as the Reform has suggested a $15 billion to $20 billion tax cut, the fact is that one has to pay for it. The issue is not whether one would like to see a tax cut. There is nobody in this House who would not like to see a tax cut. The question is: What programs would have to be cut, would have to be given up, in order to pay for that tax cut?
The government is not prepared to see health care impaired. The government is not prepared to see old age pensions impaired. This government is going to stand behind the basic social fabric of the nation and under those circumstances, we will stay the course.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Reform would put more money into health care. We would fix the programs that the government has destroyed, the $7.2 billion in cuts to transfers. Reformers believe by the way that real compassion is not putting money into welfare; it is getting more people off welfare.
The CGA says the 20 per cent reduction in UI taxes would create 68,000 jobs by the year 2001. As a matter of fact, the Reform plan calls for a 28 per cent cut in UI premiums. Imagine how many more jobs that would create. Today the Liberals on the finance committee are saying that UI taxes cannot be lowered. Will the finance minister ignore the recommendation of the finance committee and lower payroll taxes to create the jobs that Canadians so desperately want?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, dealing with the last part of the member's question, I would like to thank all members of the finance committee for the report which came out today. I say to the chairman and the members who wrote the majority report, it appears to be a very good document, very constructive and worthwhile.
[Translation]
Although I have not had the opportunity to read the minority reports in full, I would like to mention to the Bloc finance critic that-
[English]
I would like to thank the financial critics from the Reform Party. I am sure the work they have done will be of the same quality as in the past.
The hon. member said that the Reform Party does not intend to cut health transfers. Let me simply-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We will call you offside for using a prop. The hon. member for Bourassa.
At its last convention, the Liberal Party of Canada passed a resolution calling for the lowering or the outright elimination of the $975 head tax immigrants must pay when they apply for residence in Canada. This tax which is particularly outrageous, unfair and discriminatory for refugees comes on top of the $500 processing fee for each application.
(1450)
Can the minister tell us whether she intends to comply with the request put by members of her party and what exactly she is considering doing in response to their demand?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe I have a better knowledge of my party's resolutions than the member for Bourassa. I was at the convention when this resolution was passed. Clearly, my department will follow through with it.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister is not a loyal member of the Liberal Party since she has no intention of complying with her party's resolutions.
The vast majority of people working for agencies involved with assisting immigrants, labour unions, a number of community groups, the Bloc Quebecois and now members of her own party are asking her to change the rules. What more does the minister need to take action?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member for Bourassa who is questioning my loyalty to my party to come and join our ranks. The least we can say is that the House is not unanimous on this issue.
I say again that we are going to look into it very seriously.
First Mirabel, now Pearson. Mirabel cost taxpayers billions. Unbelievably we are heading in the same direction with Pearson. Taxpayers may have to pay $662 million in compensation to the former developers of Pearson. The government has been found at fault but has been stalling settlement since February.
Will the government commit to settling with the Pearson Development Corporation before the next election so the voters will have a clear picture of this whole sorry mess?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the transfer of Pearson to the local authority, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, took place on December 2 and was very successful. I am delighted that we now have Pearson in the hands of local people from the greater Toronto area who represent all facets of the municipalities and the people involved in operating the airport and using it. They will be able to exploit all the advantages for Pearson.
We want Pearson to be the premier airport to the east of the Mississippi, the central point for connections from Europe and that entire region of North America. To achieve this, approximately $2 billion of expenditures and upgrading at Pearson airport are needed over the next few years. I am confident that the new administration we have put in place at Pearson and the transfer of the airport to that new authority will result in Pearson taking its rightful place as the gateway to Europe for all that part of North America.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I never did find out about the $662 million.
Since the new corporation was introduced, the new Pearson airport authority has indicated that it will cost $2.5 billion to redo Pearson. It has ruled out user fees to pay for that. It claims that the $2.5 billion can be raised solely from bonds, increased volume, and-wait for it-restaurant fees.
Has the government studied the Pearson authority financial plan? Will it assure this House that the taxpayers will not pay one cent for the renovations at Pearson airport?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started off by making references to drinking. When he talks about $662 million to be paid by the people of Canada to buy out mythical profits of a Tory corporation, perhaps he is in the area where something is affecting his judgment.
(1455 )
Let me now go to the issue of fees at airports. Vancouver International Airport, our newest airport, is occupying the same relative position for Asia which I hope Pearson will be in for Europe. Forty-two per cent of the revenues of that airport come from the stores and restaurants which are operating on airport property. It is that which provides a great impetus and money so that it is not necessary to have large increases in landing fees.
I admit to the hon. member that in Vancouver the local authority in its wisdom saw the need to put on a departure tax which ranges from $5 to $15. The local authority in Toronto in its wisdom is choosing a different financial formula. That is what I mean by using local people's knowledge and initiative and local people's entrepreneurship to make the local decisions which suit local conditions.
Members of the aquaculture industry are concerned that a subsequent NAFTA agreement will allow low cost Chilean aquaculture salmon products into Canada and the U.S. due to Chile's low hourly wages and virtually no environmental standards requirements.
Can the minister ensure Canada's aquaculture industry a level playing field in Canada's agreement with Chile and in any subsequent NAFTA agreements?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member's question, I wish to say that there is no history of dumping measures between Canada and Chile. We are not aware of any evidence of the dumping of salmon by Chile into Canada. As the member knows, Canadian imports of salmon have been duty free for a number of years.
I wish to assure the member that if there is evidence of dumping we will use the appropriate mechanisms in the agreement to seek a proper remedy, up to and including countervail duties which are still permitted under the agreement.
[Translation]
One week after it was announced that a consensus had been reached among 20 countries on the disputed food drop mission over eastern Zaire, the multinational force has not been given the green light yet to help some 300,000 refugees who are still stuck in that area.
We were also informed this morning that a political meeting would be held this weekend to set the date for the operation to begin.
Since the situation over there is not getting any better with the new offensive by the rebels and the incursions of the Ugandan Army into the Zairian territory, which makes the dispatching of assistance even more tricky, what does the minister now intend to do to ensure that the humanitarian assistance can be delivered efficiently?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, we must distinguish between the two aspects of the problem: the humanitarian dimension and the presence of serious political turbulence in the area.
The mandate of the multilateral forces is limited to delivering humanitarian assistance and, as you know, we have taken several initiatives. General Baril has developed an action plan with the help of our partners. We have supported the refugees.
Yesterday, I attended a meeting with Sadako Ogata, the High Commissioner for Refugees. We discussed how the multilateral forces and the partners could work together with the United Nations and other organizations to ensure the refugees' safety.
If is very important to ensure now that the mandate is still to protect the refugees, but we must also encourage the movement of refugees in order to solve the problem.
(1500 )
In British Columbia hospitals, patients are being fed by volunteers because of cuts to nursing staff. Sick patients are being dumped out to home care and home care budgets are frozen.
We are going to put in $4 billion to restore health care funding. What is the minister going to do to ensure that these essential health care services will be funded properly?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made reference to statements I made at a convention of our party. I wish to share with the hon. member some statements: ``Saskatchewan has a stronger health system today than it did four years ago. The provincial health spending has stabilized and better health services are now being provided''. This was from the provincial minister of health in Saskatchewan.
In the province of Quebec, Mr. Rochon said on May 28, 1996 in the Medical Post: ``Less money can be devoted to health care while maintaining the same level of population health''. Dr. Rochon set a target of 8.5 per cent of gross domestic product as the level that Quebec's health care expenditures should not exceed. ``We can devote less money to that sector while maintaining accessibility of care in the level of the health of the population''.
These are provincial ministers of health who have the direct responsibility to deliver health care. It is not the Reform Party that should stand in this House and condemn provincial governments for the hard work they are trying to do to protect and enhance the health of Canadians. Shame on the Reform Party.
I ask the Secretary of State for Veterans to demonstrate compassion for this family, to do the right thing and replace these medals given in recognition for two brothers who died on the European front in World War II. Will he do so?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to get the details from the hon. member. If it is possible, I will see that the medals are returned to the family.
Yesterday the Royal Bank announced record profits of close to $1.5 billion, the largest profit of any corporation in Canadian corporate history. The Royal Bank is also Canadian Airlines' lead banker. It has literally made tens of millions of dollars from Canadian Airlines.
Why are the workers at Canadian now being asked to kick in $15 to $20 a week? Can the government indicate what sacrifices the Royal Bank of Canada is making? What is the Royal Bank of Canada's contribution to the survival plans? Does he not believe the Royal Bank and other bankers and lenders have a social responsibility to ensure the viability of Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the difficulty of restructuring Canadian Airlines and turning it from a corporation which has had chronic losses year after year, totally $1.3 billion over the last decade, to a profitable corporation in the black requires corporate restructuring.
It also requires of course the creditors, including the Royal Bank, to take their share of that restructuring. It also requires to get the credibility of the corporation in front of those corporate creditors to have all in the Canadian family showing their willingness and determination to make the restructuring work.
That is why last week I went to Vancouver with two other governments, the Government of Alberta and the Government of British Columbia, with five unions and the company. We were working together to get to a common front to show that we were determined to allow restructuring to work.
Now that we have-
The Speaker: That concludes question period.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today, tomorrow and Monday, if necessary, we will continue the second reading debate of Bill C-70, the sales tax harmonization bill. When this is concluded we will call Bill C-60, the food inspection legislation, followed by Bill C-23, the nuclear safety bill.
On Tuesday we plan to have the first day of the prebudget debate during normal sitting hours of the House. But discussions are taking place to permit a special debate in the evening on the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights on what I believe is its 50th anniversary.
The remainder of the week will be taken up by the second day of the prebudget debate and the legislation I have already mentioned. If there is an opportunity to consider other matters, we will discuss the agenda on the other side of the House. This concludes my weekly statement of government business.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.