Understandably, but how can the minister make light of such events, when in fact the individual using the research centre's network was not only obtaining material, a very serious matter of itself, but was feeding a network, a very large international child pornography distribution network?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree totally with the Leader of the Opposition that we cannot make light of this situation. It is absolutely deplorable. It is disgusting. The individual involved was arrested.
What I was trying to explain in response to journalists' questions is that this phenomenon is occurring everywhere. The Internet, which should be a source of development and change, in the best sense of the word, has now become something that affects not only national defence, but also many people known to members of this House and children at home, because it provides access to totally repugnant information, photos and acts. There is absolutely no doubt about this.
I am hoping that everyone understands we recognize this is unacceptable, and that the person involved, if found guilty, should be punished to the full extent of the law. This morning, I met with departmental officials not only to inform them, but also to ask them to take all possible measures, to investigate and to find out how this sort of access may be controlled.
The whole question of pornography on the Internet will be not only a burden but a major challenge for everyone in all sectors: in government, in the private sector and even at home. I hope that together we will find ways to remedy the problem.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's explanations, and I will ask him the following supplementary.
How does the minister explain to the people who pay the salaries of the department's employees the fact that, in a top security centre of the Canadian army, an employee in an important position, a high level strategic position, can spend the bulk of his time over weeks, if not months, creating pornographic material without any questions being asked? Can the minister explain that?
(1420)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not know exactly how much time the person in question spent preparing his material and how and in what context he obtained it. Technology now enables us to do things we would never have dreamed of being able to do before.
I would say to my hon. colleague, that, under the circumstances, when we come across someone-because the man accused is quite sophisticated and well educated-someone who is sick and wants to obtain child pornography, we must obviously be much more careful in the way we deal with these problems. It is complex, not only here but everywhere.
All I can say by way of explanation is that the sort of people interested in this kind of activity do not share their interest with their neighbours or their colleagues at work. I am sure my hon. colleague would be just as disgusted to find out as I would. No one knows how he managed to use the system. We will find out. An internal audit has been requested.
Once again, I deplore the situation. It is unacceptable. However, it is first and foremost the availability of this sort of material on the Internet that presents the greatest challenge to all of us. Would anyone with a way to control it please let me know. I will give out my telephone number at the end of question period.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is very modest. Everyone knows he may be reached at national defence.
More seriously, though, and this is in fact extremely serious, I would like to ask the minister whether, when it was possible for this employee, unbeknownst to everyone, his superiors and his colleagues, to carry on these activities for weeks if not months, using a Canadian army computer in a top security centre, the minister can be certain, with all the challenges of informatics, that the same thing is not happening with military secrets, for example, or information of strategic importance?
How can the minister assure the public that he has the means to control this if he is unable to control something like child pornography?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question and one that crossed my mind when I was informed of events.
I am assured that, with the way communications work, the link with the service providing access to the Internet is totally separate from what happens on the system used to transmit information of a secret or sensitive nature.
I asked the same question. I was assured that it was a completely separate activity. The man in question was taking information off the Internet, he was trading, if my information is correct. For matters of security, however, the system is totally separate.
I recognize the importance of the question raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have checked, and the only assurance I can provide is that, right now, my informants are confident this sort of activity could not happen.
I am satisfied that this is the end of the story, but I assure you that we will be watching the situation closely.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
We have learned that an individual who is supposed to be working on top secret projects in a maximum security location, right inside an army research establishment, is able, apparently without difficulty and unbeknownst to anyone, to spend weeks and months using army computers to supply an international child pornography network. This lack of control is impossible to understand.
Given the appalling weaknesses in the army's security system, how can the minister assure us, with any credibility, that there are not other similar activities, or even espionage activities, going on within his department or within the armed forces?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as far as espionage goes, it is obviously very difficult. We know that this is an environment in which there are many secrets. We do not know if anyone knows what goes on in an espionage environment.
(1425)
When my hon. colleague asks me whether this could be going on elsewhere, I am going to be very frank, because you are talking about the integrity or the credibility of the minister and of the department. With over 80,000 people working in the department, I would be very reluctant to give you any assurances that there were not among them the sorts of people who visit, here in Ottawa, and throughout the country, as you are all aware, sites that sell very
explicit videos or advertise their availability. The Internet continues to provide this kind of information, not just to people working in the Department of National Defence, but to people in all sectors of society.
This is not a phenomenon associated exclusively with the Department of National Defence. It is a phenomenon that must be addressed. As I told the hon. Leader of the Opposition, we do not have all the answers as to how to control access, or to be certain that no one will abuse this kind of system.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would remind you to always address your comments to the Chair.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, just because it goes on elsewhere does not make it acceptable in this case.
Despite the military police, despite the additional measures that must be part of normal routine in a military research establishment, it was not until the OPP got involved that this scandal finally came to light.
How can the minister explain that, in his department, the same department that held a monumental search a few months ago-they looked in all the files, all the computer files, all the filing cabinets, and they even turned the waste paper baskets upside down, in order to find the missing documents-nobody saw anything then, and that it was not until the OPP investigation that this situation came to light?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member was wondering how these things could have gone on for a period of time. Clearly, no one knows, because if the hon. member or myself had seen this kind of material, we would have taken action.
As for the research establishment in question, it would have been surprising to find any information related to the Somalia inquiry there. But I want to assure my hon. colleague that this will not end here. The issue goes much further, and we will be using the means at our disposal to try to avoid a recurrence of this kind of situation.
My question is very simple. Why the flip-flop? Why is he supporting distinct society and special status for Quebec now when he would not and could not support it in 1990?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the text and the premise of the hon. member's question are simply false.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that but I was quoting from yesterday's Hansard.
We were both here in 1990. She was busy busy with the leadership campaign and knows exactly what the Prime Minister was saying on the campaign trail in 1990.
That was flip-flop number one. Let us look at flip-flop number two. It is also from Hansard; I am not dreaming it up.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he had ruled out a nationwide referendum on distinct society. This flies in the face of the Prime Minister's promise to give Canadians a say in the future of their country. It also flies in the face of his commitment back in 1992, which I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister will remember, to put any major constitutional change to a referendum.
Will the Prime Minister keep the promises he made in 1992 and in the recent throne speech to hold a national referendum on any attempt to entrench distinct society in the Constitution?
(1430 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the premise of the hon. member's question is false.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is something far more serious at stake here than someone standing up and just saying that the premise of the question is false.
I was quoting yesterday's edition of Hansard and quoting something the Prime Minister of the country said in 1992 before he was Prime Minister.
It is easy to toss this off, but when the Prime Minister is going directly against things which he said earlier, that he is about to entrench distinct society with the support of only seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population, surely the Deputy Prime Minister remembers what the Prime Minister did only a year ago, which was to entrench the veto for the five regions in the country.
Since B.C., Alberta and Ontario all have serious reservations about entrenching distinct society and special status in our Constitution, I would like to ask this one more time. How do the government, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister expect to entrench distinct society in the Constitution? How in the
world will it ever pass the five region veto which this government brought forward last year?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we hear the poisonous rhetoric emanating from the Reform Party it is no wonder it is in the position it is in the current polls.
The hon. member, instead of lecturing the Prime Minister on his commitment to recognize the distinctiveness of Quebec, a recognition that he has characterized throughout his career, would be better off if she talked to some of her own colleagues.
I have a quote of the kind of poisonous rhetoric that is emanating from the member for Simcoe Centre who, in a recent unity forum, said: ``French Canadian prime ministers have led this country down the road to ruin. The mood is that they are not doing their job''.
I would like to point out to the member what the member for Simcoe Centre heard from one of his constituents: ``If you dump on French Canadians you are going to send this country down the road to separation''.
You are sending this country down the road to separation. That is the kind of vicious rhetoric which pits Canada against Quebec and we will not stand for it.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would like you to address the Chair in all of your statements, please.
Will the heritage minister explain to the House why, barely one year later, she has now decided to shut down Radio Canada International?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all grateful for the work done by the international component of the CBC.
I am pleased to see that the hon. member, who wants to destroy Canada, is nevertheless supportive of the CBC. Now, this shows a lack of consistency in the Bloc Quebecois' policy. These people want to destroy the country, but they also want the CBC to keep broadcasting abroad.
Regardless of that inconsistency on the part of the Bloc, it goes without saying that the government hopes to find the means to allow Radio Canada International to continue its operations. I have had several discussions with my colleagues regarding this issue. We have not found the necessary funds, but we always want to leave the door open.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not inconsistent on our part to defend the CBC. We paid for it, it belongs to us as much as it belongs to the rest of Canada. Once we have decided to become sovereign and the only thing left to do is to change the name, we will do so.
(1435)
How could the minister pledge, before the Conseil des relations internationales de Montréal, that Radio Canada International would continue to exist as long as she would be Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Is the minister doing the number that she did with the GST?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
The throne speech referred to all Canadians having a say in the future of their country. The premier of Ontario is a supporter of referenda but he also has his priorities right. He wants to talk about jobs and the economy, not the Constitution.
The premiers of the three most populated provinces, including Quebec, are against distinct society, yet the Prime Minister ignores them.
In order to ensure that the will of the Canadian public, not this government, is reflected in any constitutional change, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House that the question on distinct society will be put to a national referendum?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I happen to have a copy of the article that was in the Examiner written by Bob Bruton in which the member for Simcoe Centre was quoted as saying: ``French Canadian prime ministers have led this country down the road to ruin. The mood of the people across Canada is that they are not doing a good job. The mood is that maybe we should try someone else''.
That kind of vicious rhetoric, applauded by his colleagues in the Reform Party, is an unfortunate reflection of why this party is becoming more and more marginalized-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what is vicious around here is catering to the separatists, the distinct society.
The Prime Minister was against distinct society in the Meech Lake accord. Then he was for it in Charlottetown. He was against raising it in last year's referendum and now he is for it.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House why Canadians should support the idea that the Prime Minister himself waffles on and for which does not have the support of the public or of the premiers of Canada's three largest provinces, including Quebec?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to his own comments. His comments were not about separatists. They were about French Canadian prime ministers.
There is no one in this country who has fought harder to bring people together, to build bridges, than Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
When the member labels French Canadians as separatist, he does every Canadian a disservice.
The Speaker: Colleagues, please do not refer to each other by your names but by your ridings.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us why she is still the Minister of Canadian Heritage today, after once again failing to keep her word and save Radio Canada International?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the door is still open as far as Radio Canada International is concerned.
(1440)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister renege on her promise to save Radio Canada International when we all know what the solution is? Everyone knows it and it has been clearly shown that, in making budget choices, she herself has decided to waste $43 million: $20 million on the propaganda agency operating under the name of Canada Information Office and $23 million on the flag project, when all she would need to save Radio Canada International is $16 million?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the decision not to fund half of Radio Canada International was made by the board of directors of the CBC. I hope that the hon. member is not suggesting that we force the CBC to spend money outside of its mandate.
That having been said, there is no doubt that I have worked and continue to work with my colleagues in government. We have been unsuccessful in finding alternate funding to cover the money lost because of the CBC's budgetary problems, but we have not shut the door on anything and, if at all possible, we would like to work together, in co-operation, to find a solution like we did last year.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this exchange on Radio Canada International gives us an idea of just how far out of touch and out of control this minister is. She has absolutely no idea what is going on within her own department.
Radio Canada International's closing was announced in December last year and we had 125 people working for Radio Canada International who did not have any idea what their future was going to be. And now it has been announced again in December this year. What in the world is going on? Why does she not have some kind of idea of where the funding will come from for functions within her very own department?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member actually took the time to examine the estimates of the government he would know that RCI actually falls under the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a news release from the minister dated March 21, 1996: ``The enormous outpouring of support for RCI, both within Canada and around the world, has persuaded us that it is a vital voice for Canada which we must maintain. ``While we have managed to put together a financial package for the coming fiscal year, all the parties with an interest in RCI must now work together to develop a long term funding solution''.
She was responsible, according to this news release of March 21, 1996, yet she has done absolutely nothing, has put the jobs of 125 people at risk and has closed down the voice of Canada internationally.
Why does she not get her act together? Why did she not have some funding in place so that we would not be going through this fire drill with nobody in charge?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I am encouraged by the hon. member's support for Radio Canada because unfortunately when we as a government announced the rescue package last March this very member spoke out against it. This is the same member who recently passed a minority committee report in which he said: ``A national federally funded television broadcaster is not essential''. This is the position that he took before the standing committee on heritage.
Perhaps if he could bring the same clarity of thought to the House of Commons as he did to the committee, then with the support of the Reform Party, the support of Bloc and the support of Canadians we could keep this very vital voice alive.
In letters she sent to cultural organizations confirming grants, the heritage minister asked them to display and promote the Canadian flag, and to encourage pride in Canadian citizenship. Federal government grants to cultural organizations therefore now depend on these organizations taking part in Heritage Canada's propaganda campaign.
Is the heritage minister aware that in these and all her other dealings she comes across not as the minister of heritage but as the minister of propaganda?
(1445)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my country and I am proud of my flag.
I find it completely consistent with my cultural responsibilities, just as Quebec's Minister of Culture wants taxpayers to know where provincial grants come from. We made the same request. Our request is exactly the same as that made by Louise Beaudoin, Quebec's Minister of Culture.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am only too pleased to inform the House officially that it does not happen like that in Quebec. All grants are made by the Conseil des arts et de la culture, and nothing comes from the minister herself.
What the heritage minister would really like is to go down in history as the minister who put all those flags out there.
Does the heritage minister realize that, by making the promotion of culture, unity and the Canadian flag a prerequisite for obtaining grants from her department, she is trying to harness culture to political partisanship?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, as usual, the Bloc Quebecois does not have all the facts. We never required that the flag be flown. We encouraged it, just as Mme Beaudoin did.
When festivals are financially supported by Canadian taxpayers, it is only natural that the Government of Canada should be recognized. For my part, as long as I live in a country called Canada, I will never be ashamed to fly my flag.
Could the minister say what concrete assurances she can provide this House that this action is not compromising the safety of Canadians and that appropriate monitoring procedures will be put in place?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member and all Canadians in relation to the announcement made yesterday by my counterpart, U.S. secretary of energy Hazel O'Leary.
First, I want to remind colleagues that Canada has a lengthy history in terms of advocating the destruction of nuclear weapons. Colleagues will remember that in April the Prime Minister attended the safety and security summit in Moscow where he said that Canada had agreed in principle to look at the prospect of burning weapons grade plutonium in CANDU reactors.
Yesterday my counterpart, the U.S. secretary of energy, announced the conclusion of phase one of an American study to determine safe and secure methods for disposal of weapons grade plutonium. The CANDU reactor is one of the three options that appears on that list. In fact, what now becomes necessary is to do a fuel test in relation to the utility on the CANDU.
What I want to do today is reassure all members of this House that the fuel test is going to be conducted under the most stringent safety and security measures put in place, regulated and monitored by the Atomic Energy Control Board.
(1450 )
Will the defence minister assure Canadians that his government is not going to shut down the inquiry before it finishes all of its work?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry on Somalia has requested the privy council consider an extension of its mandate. Obviously the government will consider that request.
I want to repeat to my hon. friend that I hope all members of this House will express their views on whether or not the inquiry should continue on, if they would like it to go for a year, two years, three years or four years, or if they think there might be some value in trying to learn the lessons of what happened in Somalia so that we can avoid a repetition of the intolerable incidents that took place there.
I guess it is all a question of whether it happens in our lifetime or not.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very fine that the Minister of National Defence would blame the members of this House for the delay in the Somalia inquiry. We have to remember that it was the Department of National Defence that caused the delays in the work of the inquiry by failing to supply documents that the inquiry had requested in a timely fashion.
Canadians want to know about the post-deployment phase of the mission and what went wrong at national defence headquarters and the Liberal government cover-up.
Why will the minister and his government not prove to Canadians that they care more about the truth than public relations? Give the inquiry the time it needs to do its work.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always hesitate to comment on public relations because it is not a skill that I have acquired.
As the government considers this matter I think it will be very important to understand what the position of everyone is with respect to this.
It has been suggested that the government wants to continue the inquiry in order to avoid having to deal with it over the next year or two when an election would have to be called constitutionally. We cannot have it both ways.
If the hon. member through his party wishes to indicate that we should give unlimited time to the Somalia inquiry and the commissioners to do their work, however long that may take, however much it may cost and whatever the results may be, I would certainly ask the government to take that into account. Somehow it does not seem to be consistent with the Reform Party's usual practical and pragmatic and efficient way of approaching things.
Again yesterday, we questioned the Minister of Industry about what is going on at the Space Agency. Once again, he attempted to minimize the allegations against the president of the agency, by reducing them to a mere matter of destroying handwritten notes, but it is far more than that. Obviously, the president of the agency also has a problem with his expense account.
At the time he appointed Mr. Evans to the position of president of the Canadian Space Agency, was the minister aware that he had made an expense account claim which was dubious, to say the least, and which Roland Doré, the former president of the Space Agency, had refused?
(1455)
[English]
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, it is very unfortunate that this member seems to be manipulated by information being spun out by a former employee of the space agency whose position was terminated in a reorganization, who is in the process of suing the agency and who thinks that the official opposition can be a medium for trying to prosecute his lawsuit.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not replying to the question in any way whatsoever.
We will therefore ask him how he can explain that the president of the Space Agency attempted to get reimbursed for a travel and meal claim for a trip to St-Hubert on June 3, 1994, when he travelled as this minister's seatmate on the plane and the meal was provided free of charge?
[English]
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.): First, Mr. Speaker, just to illustrate how silly this is becoming, yes in fact, Mr. Evans did fly to St. Hubert on that occasion with me. No, there was no lunch provided. Second, Mr. Evans did not return on the aircraft. Third, evidently Mr. Evans did drive back to Ottawa. Apparently an expense claim was made. It was not paid and therefore was not improperly paid.
This is getting pretty silly. I would suggest to the hon. member that she let the courts decide whether this friend of hers has a valid complaint or not. The courts can make that decision. She does not need to come into this place in order to try to disparage the reputation of a public servant without having any facts on her side.
Could the agriculture minister explain why Alberta and Saskatchewan wheat pools are allowed to grow and market hulless waxy barley into the U.S. outside the Canadian Wheat Board pooling system yet a farmer like Andy McMechan is thrown in jail for doing the same thing?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is obviously very clear that under the regulations of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and other pertinent pieces of legislation there is an export procedure provided under the law and under the regulations for the exportation of all wheat and barley. All of those who comply with those rules and regulations may export.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Andy McMechan was ordered to refund $55,000 to the CWB pool account, the premiums he gained for selling his grain into the U.S. Yet wheat board officials have directed Saskatchewan farmers to flour mills in Saskatoon who have paid millions of dollars in premiums outside the pool account for unlicensed wheat.
Would the minister of agriculture please explain where in the Canadian Wheat Board Act it allows for some farmers to gain premiums outside the pool and others are thrown in jail?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I obviously am not in a position and would not as a matter of propriety comment upon any particular legal matter which is now before the courts.
Some hon. members: Why not?
Mr. Goodale: Opposition members cry out ``why not''. If they do not understand that fundamental precept of justice, then there is nothing that could possibly save them.
In terms of the particular alleged transactions that the hon. gentleman makes reference to, I would be happy to have the Canadian Wheat Board and the relevant grain companies explain the procedure to him.
Recently in a statement to the Senate committee on banking, the minister committed to increasing the co-operation between regional development agencies, the Business Development Bank of Canada and other branches of its department, including science and research.
What has the minister done to increase co-operation within Industry Canada to promote effective regional economic development and to support science and research in western 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, the matter of the co-ordination of the regional development agencies with Industry Canada and the various agencies that are part of the industry portfolio both in respect of science and technology as well as small business and the information highway has been a matter of the utmost importance to me.
In western Canada we have seen the delivery of a variety of services related to each of those areas through the 91 western economic diversification offices that are available in western Canada in part through the Community Futures Development Corporation. We have seen contributions through western economic diversification to research and development projects such as that by TR labs based in Calgary for wireless telecommunications and through Paprican and Ballard Technologies, both based in Vancouver, from Technology Partnerships Canada.
(1500)
These efforts at co-operation and co-ordination will not only provide diversification of the economy of western Canada but will build a science and technology base that will enable the Canadian economy to grow into the 21st century.
Yesterday a government study showed the huge cost of unemployment of up to $91 billion. The IMF has pointed to the high rate of unemployment in Canada as a cause for concern. Even the private sector seems to have lost faith in being able to create the jobs Canada needs. Indeed it is cutting jobs.
Since the Minister of Finance has no vision for dealing with unemployment, will he pull together the stakeholders in this economy so we can build a vision for the future to deal with unemployment? Or, does he not care about all the unemployed people in the country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we as a government did not adopt the scorched earth policy of either the Reform Party or the Conservative Party in our approach to the deficit. We simply wanted to deal with the question of growth in the economy and the consequent employment that would flow therefrom.
As a result we have put enormous amounts of money into technology partnerships, as stated by my colleague the Minister of Industry. As my colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development has said, we have put enormous sums of money into youth employment. The Prime Minister's Team Canada approach has paid tremendous dividends to the country.
The hon. member may have learned something from that report, but because of the devastating effects of unemployment the government has taken the decisive action it has taken. As a result we will continue to do so.
The hon. member talked about having stakeholder meetings. We have done that with the business community. We have done that with the Canadian Labour Congress. We have done that with virtually every stakeholder. We will continue to meet with Canadians to create employment in Canada.