Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the Prime Minister made such a statement, so that we are not forced to conclude that some look-alike played a dirty trick on him, because we all know that the Prime Minister definitely did not tell a lie?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is quoting from an interview given by the Prime Minister on CFRB on August 26. I would like to put the quotation in context by giving it in its entirety.
[English]
He said: ``Yes, I will abolish it, but I need the money. It is taking $15 billion and I will have to collect another $15 billion. So you go and sit down in a very civilized way and say to the provinces that the poor small businesses have items with federal tax, other items with provincial tax, or both, or sometimes none. So we have to clean up that mess and produce $15 billion''.
[Translation]
I think the member should at least be honest enough to quote the Prime Minister in context.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the most honest people are the ones capable of supplying their own answers to questions put to them, instead of relying on a finance minister who admitted to having made an honest mistake.
The Prime Minister did not conduct the last election campaign on his own. He did it with a team, which was elected with a majority, except in Quebec. The Minister of Finance admitted that it was an honest mistake; the Deputy Prime Minister resigned because she thought she had understood, along with many other people, that the Prime Minister had promised to scrap the GST, and this was the Minister of Finance's understanding as well, because he said it was an honest mistake. If that was not his understanding, there is an inconsistency, because he said it was a mistake. So, this whole business is certainly confusing.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain that the Minister of Finance said that it was an honest mistake, that she resigned, that everyone understood the same thing, except the Prime Minister, who claims he did not say, or did not think he said that? We would like to understand these three versions, his version, her version and the version of the gentleman who is not answering this morning.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that, when I made the statement here in the House, I did so for the government.
(1120)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is an even bigger problem.
I am pleased to hear the Minister of Finance, who speaks on behalf of the government, being so honest, but those of us who took Politics 101 always understood that the Prime Minister was part of the government. He is therefore speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister if he is speaking on behalf of the government. He is therefore saying, on behalf of the Prime Minister: ``It was an honest mistake''. That is not what the Prime Minister is saying. The more versions we hear, the less we understand. You need a strong
ego to be in politics. Every politician knows this, but what you really need most is a very large amount of humility.
Would the Finance Minister promise to advise the Prime Minister to show a little more humility, and above all, to have the wisdom to admit his mistake, honest or not?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat.
Here in this House-and the Prime Minister happened to be here- I was speaking for the government. When a minister speaks in the House, he does so for the government. I gave the circumstances, and I made the statement.
Once again, I think that we should look at what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign, even in the interview cited by the member. The Prime Minister said, in English:
[English]
We will look at other alternatives. All sorts of systems are being proposed. We wanted to take the time to sit down with the provinces. That is what we did. We wanted to listen to business people. That is what we did. We wanted to listen to citizens. That is what the Prime Minister said and that is what we did.
[Translation]
That is what we did. The House finance committee took two and a half years to look at 20 options. In the end, they heard from small and medium size businesses, those that create the most jobs, and we did what they wanted to do, which was to institute a process for creating a harmonized tax, which is much simpler and more effective when it comes to job creation.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have a big problem, as my colleague, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has pointed out, because the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are both members of the same government, claim to speak on behalf of the government, but are not saying the same things. We are in trouble here, it makes no sense.
During the 1993 campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, ``We will scrap the GST''. Yet this week he informs us that ``scrap'', when translated into French, becomes ``harmoniser''-harmonize.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he explain to us why it will cost the federal government $1 billion to scrap the GST in the maritimes, when harmonizing it in Quebec cost him nothing?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that, when fundamental changes occur in a province or in a region of the country, it is the responsibility, the duty, of the federal government to help that province or region to adjust. We have, moreover, done just that on many occasions for Quebec. We have done so on many occasions for the western provinces.
We made an offer to the provinces which would have sustained a loss of revenue as a result of harmonization. We offered to help those provinces. The ones eligible were the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The provinces which were not eligible under the criteria were Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. The three Atlantic provinces accepted the offer.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it really takes a lot of courage for the Minister of Finance to defend the totally undefendable position of the Prime Minister. He has my total admiration.
In another vein, we were speaking of the provinces just now. According to Quebec Minister of Finance Bernard Landry, Quebec would be entitled to $2 billion in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal GST.
Will the Minister of Finance respond favourably to Quebec's demand for compensation, or will he give Quebecers proof that they are left footing the bill for a bad campaign promise?
(1125)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to the hon. member's question, and I have already responded to Mr. Landry: we have offered compensation to the provinces which sustained losses. Quebec did not. Ontario will not. The same goes for Alberta and British Columbia.
I do not think the hon. member would want me to offer compensation to provinces which did not sustain a loss. That would make no sense.
``Scrap, kill and abolish the GST''. That is what the Prime Minister promised Canadians in the last election. That is he promised the House Commons in May 1994 and that is what he promised his own caucus evidently. We have the tapes and the tapes do not lie. Now we have the eye witness account and proof from the member for York South-Weston.
I ask this question once again because we still do not have an answer. Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke it and he blew it? Fess up.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, every time I heard the Prime Minister deal with the question of the
GST, he put it within the context of a government that was unable to give up $15 billion in revenue.
The Prime Minister made it very clear it was crucial to sit down with the provinces and come up with a simplified system that would work. What the Prime Minister said was what this government did.
It put in place a House of Commons finance committee that went across the country for two and one-half years. It looked at 20 alternatives. At the end of the piece those who were creating jobs, the small and medium size business community, said to us: ``We would like to see a harmonized tax. We want to see one tax auditor, one set of tax forms''.
This government wants to create jobs, unlike the myth on the other side. Basically that is what the small and medium sized business community did and gave us a tax system that is going to work.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think it has been proved time and time again that the tax system is not working. This minister has a nerve to try to blame this on the provinces. It is just unbelievable.
This morning this same finance minister admitted to the Press Club that the Liberals may have promised more than they could actually deliver.
The finance minister has apologized twice now. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has apologized once. What is the problem here? Can the Prime Minister not admit that he has some shortcomings? There is no great shame in that. Just say sorry.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people would like to know this. Members of the Reform Party were part of the finance committee that went across the country. They said they supported the harmonized tax. In fact Reform members said they would go beyond the harmonized tax and would tax food and drugs. We said we would not do that.
How can the Reform Party stand up in the House and criticize the harmonized sales tax when it is part and parcel of its policies?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minority report said quite clearly that Reform would balance the budget first. That is the first sentence in that report. That is the only way that we can offer Canadians tax relief, by balancing the budget first. Any government that brags about overspending $28 billion can hardly be proud of its accomplishments.
The Prime Minister is the only person in this country who really believes that he did not promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. Life must be pretty nice for the Prime Minister in his imaginary world. It truly is a magic kingdom.
The finance minister has admitted that he has made a mistake. The Deputy Prime Minister also did that. Why can the Prime
Minister not just swallow his pride and spit out his foot and simply say sorry?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as are most other industrial countries, Canada is going through fundamental economic change as a result of the technological evolution. As a result of the interdependence of global trade, as a country we are doing very well.
The House of Commons ought to be debating the fundamental issues of the day, yet what do we hear day after day? Reform Party members stand up, totally disconnected from the reality of the Canadian people and engage in personal attacks. They attack minister after minister, member after member, because they are unable to deal with the issues that concern Canadians.
Canadians want to talk about unemployment and how they can get back to work. What Canadians want to talk about is the preservation of their social programs. When will the Reform Party wake up and smell the roses and understand that Canadians want the House to deal with their problems?
[Translation]
Obviously things are out of kilter at the space agency. The vice-president and financial comptroller was let go for doing his job, because he criticized the dubious practices of senior management of one of Canada's major research institutes. The minister is taking the word only of those primarily involved, those who are the subject of the allegations, in his inquiry where he concluded that nothing happened.
How can the minister responsible for the space agency claim that he fully investigated the allegations made by Mr. Rinaldi, the former vice-president and financial comptroller, when he did not even take the time to meet this person, who was dismissed for refusing to countenance fraud.
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 question is based on false allegations. In any case, public servants throughout the Government of Canada have lost their jobs because of budget cuts.
Some of them, no doubt, consider it unfair that they lost their jobs. Some, including Mr. Rinaldi, have lodged a complaint against the government. The court will decide if he is right or not. I am not prepared to meet with every public servant who wants to make a complaint.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the minister responsible for the space agency would do well to consult his former colleague at national defence, because his scenario is strikingly similar to what he did, to the cover up, and it could end up in the same place.
Mr. Rinaldi was definitely dismissed. A year and a half ago, he filed a grievance. What did the government do? And why is Mr. Rinaldi in court? Because the government is dragging him to court to contest the arbitrator's jurisdiction. It will be a year and a half when the federal court finally decides on the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator. There are neverthess limits to misleading the public, Mr. Minister. You are pretending arrogantly you do not understand-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member knows full well she must address her remarks to the Chair.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we know where arrogance leads, do we not? How can the minister go on protecting his former adviser, who has now become the president of the space agency, when, if he assumed his responsibilities, he would call for an outside inquiry to bring to light all these serious allegations regarding the president of the space agency and his executive vice-president, Mr. Desfossés?
[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, let us understand what the Bloc is asking here.
As I recall over a number of days of questions, it has asked for a public inquiry on three issues. Bloc members complain that a secretary tore up hand written notes after she had transcribed them on a typewriter.
They complain that Mr. Evans submitted a travel expense claim of $116 when he travelled by automobile from Saint-Hubert to Ottawa, although the amount was never paid to him.
They complain of an amount of just over $500 which was paid to a former employee of the space agency who later became employed as a political assistant in my office. When the issue was raised it was debatable. Therefore, the individual in question, out of an abundance of caution, repaid the money without any pressure other than the question having been raised.
(1135)
These are the issues on which they wish to have a public inquiry. What is really happening here is that these people are using the House of Commons as a place in which to prosecute a claim which ought to be dealt with by the civil courts.
I do not know why they think an issue that could be raised in the courts is a one-sided issue. For my part I am quite anxious to hear the evidence presented in court and to see what the courts decide. However, in terms of the allegations that have been brought forward, there is no substance based on which I could take any other action than let the courts decide. I would encourage them to do likewise.
The finance minister admitted in April and again this morning at the press club that the government had made a mistake with its GST promise.
I ask the government why the Prime Minister does not join with his colleagues and admit that he made a mistake when he promised Canadians he would abolish the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the context in which the Prime Minister made his statements is very clear and a matter of record. They make it clear that the government was unable to give up the $15 billion to $18 billion of revenue.
The fundamental issue is the nature of the public debate within this House. Somebody, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, once told me that when one enters politics and it comes down to the basic decision of what is good for the country, if there is any difference between that and what is politically right then integrity is doing what is good for the country.
My colleagues of cabinet who are here and indeed those who are in caucus know full well that at the very first cabinet meeting we had, the first thing the Prime Minister said to all of us was that in any individual instance if a choice has to be made between what is politically right and what is right for the country we will choose what is right for the country in every single instance. In cabinet, the Prime Minister has chosen to do the right thing. I will tell members right now that he is a man of great-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, a supplementary.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the members opposite for that standing ovation. I appreciate it.
This is not the 1960s. The Prime Minister should quit living in the past. He should be aware that we are now in the 1990s and technology has produced something called videotapes. By now, almost every Canadian has seen those tapes. They know in what context that promise was made before and during the election campaign.
How can the Prime Minister deny the existence of the evidence? How will he continue to deny the evidence of his broken promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on behalf of the government and made a statement. That statement speaks for all of us.
If the hon. member wants to talk about contradictions, perhaps he would tell us why it is that in the most recent discovery of the need to create jobs in this country by the leader of the Reform Party and his party, he has been able to deny the fact that in 1993 in Penticton, the Reform Party brought down a program. At that time the leader of the Reform Party had no difficulty saying that it would cost jobs but jobs were not as important as cleaning up the deficit. How is the Reform Party going to deal with the fact that in its 1995 taxpayers' budget it said that the short term employment impact of spending and deficit reduction was negative but manageable? What kind of job loss is manageable? Is it 30,000? Is it 50,000? Is it 100,000?
(1140)
How can they talk about integrity when they stand in the House of Commons and contradict every single thing they have in their own policies?
The Minister of Human Resources Development is jubilant, every time he talks about negotiating active employment measures with the provinces and the flexibility of federalism. When confronted with the figures of his own department, which show that between 1993-94 and 1996-97, Quebec suffered major cuts totalling $160 million in funding for active measures, the minister denies this.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to confirm whether or not the federal government proceeded with cuts of around $160 million in all active measures in Quebec alone between 1993-94 and 1996-97?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in questions put by the hon. member. The question she asks is at this point somewhat hypothetical. The question she asks is what will be the active measures for the province of Quebec.
She knows and the House knows that we are negotiating with the province of Quebec at this moment with respect to part II of the EI legislation. Under part II of the EI legislation we will be negotiating with the province of Quebec on active measures. When that negotiation has been completed we will be able to tell her what the amount of dollars will be that will go to the province. Until that negotiation is complete I do not think she or I or anyone else knows because we are still in the negotiation process.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly did not understand the question. My question concerns all moneys spent on active employment measures between 1993-94 and 1996-97, as indicated in the department's figures.
I will to quote the Minister of Human Resources Development, who said this week: ``I am always shocked by the attitude of people who like to fiddle in around with this figure or that figure''.
Will the minister finally admit that his own government has been fiddling with the figures, since the additional $800 million for active measures were drawn from the unemployment insurance fund, a procedure that actually camouflages a substantial drop in the amounts formerly spent on employment measures which came directly out of the consolidated fund?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the member is having difficulty understanding the finances of the Department of Human Resources Development. It is for one reason. She is looking at the old programs that the province of Quebec used to have.
We have made significant changes in programs. Those significant changes, for example the EI legislation, have moved a lot of money over to active measures. An additional $800 million is going into active measures in the next number of years. That necessitates program shifting from one area to the other.
We have also committed $300 million for TJF. The member knows that those particular dollars have been reallocated from other funds. If she is having trouble dealing with the numbers, she
can arrange to meet with us and we will give her the numbers. The programs are different now. She is still looking at the old numbers from the old programs which have changed.
His solution today is a distinct society clause. In 1989 he opposed Meech Lake. He said this about the distinct society clause: ``No matter how the supreme court interprets the distinct society clause, it would always make francophones or anglophones feel defrauded''.
(1145 )
Why would the Prime Minister take a position on distinct society today that he once fought so vigorously against and why would he tell a Quebecer that if things get rough he can always just leave?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the politics of the Reform Party, the Prime Minister is actually fighting to keep the country together.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have seen the trend. The Prime Minister has flip-flopped on the GST. He has created imaginary homeless friends. He has blamed things on acts of God. He also says that blind luck is the best job creator.
Let us have a reality check here. In 1989 the Prime Minister had the audacity to call Brian Mulroney a liar for promoting the distinct society clause. He said that Mulroney was telling the French Canadians in Quebec ``it is the best thing you ever had'' and after that, he turns around to English Canada and says ``don't worry about it, it means nothing''.
If the Prime Minister called Brian Mulroney a liar for promoting the distinct society clause, will he now admit that he is doing the same thing today?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is promoting, as he has all his life, a recognition that in this country we have two founding nations, two founding peoples, with languages, cultures and civil codes that were enshrined in the law.
What is unfortunate in the position of the Reform Party is instead of looking at where we came from, instead of understanding the reason we are where we are today is that we have a history of shared consciousness and a history of shared commitment, what the Reform Party is trying to do with its politics of division will drive this country apart.
All the parties involved have come to an agreement on the terms and conditions for the reopening of the Kenworth plant. PACCAR, the solidarity fund, the union and the Quebec government followed through on their commitments. However, at the very last minute, the federal government has come up with new requirements which could prevent the reopening to be announced before Christmas.
In order to preserve some 900 jobs, could the Minister of Industry tell the House if he intends to follow through on the commitments made by his officials concerning the Auto Pact and the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement to ensure that the Kenworth plant will reopen?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing quickly with this issue, but some things are still under discussion.
Since November 26, when the solidarity fund and PACCAR came to an agreement, we have acted rapidly. Right now, we are still waiting for the company to submit its business plan. We will see what has to be done as soon as we get it.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while they are thinking about it and splitting hairs, unemployed Canadians have run out of UI benefits. What we want is action.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, because the parties involved are also waiting for an agreement over the TJF.
I would like to know if the Minister of Human Resources Development intends to commit funds from his transition job program to ensure the reopening of the Kenworth plant.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the TJF in the province of Quebec is now in full force. If the member is asking if we are willing to look at a proposal to help a particular industry or to create long term jobs I suggest that he make the proposal to human resources development and we will be more than willing to look at it.
(1150)
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to the House how the new partnership agreement proposals in the bill will work? What is being done to ensure that all interested parties will be included as part of the consultation process?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, partnering is a new way of doing business in the fishing industry whereby the fishers will have a greater say and a greater share in the management of the fisheries itself.
This is a responsibility they have been looking for more and more in the past. It will build on the success of our recent co-management agreements that we have had, the best example of which is the zone 19 crab agreement in Cape Breton.
I see this provision, a major improvement in Bill C-62, the new fisheries act, as a tremendous opportunity for representative organizations and the industry to have a direct voice in fisheries management to develop ways to manage the fishery more effectively and efficiently and to provide a more stable climate for long term business planning.
Is it the customs minister's opinion that her department has applied these sanctions and seizures equally on all farmers who have allegedly violated the customs and wheat board acts?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, customs administration in this country takes very seriously its responsibility to uphold several acts that are its responsibility.
In this case we have been told and we are responsible to ensure that people who export barley and wheat across our borders have the appropriate permits. We consider that the job we have done is effective and precise in fulfilling our responsibilities.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a Saskatchewan farmer indicated he would go public with information that Canadian Wheat Board officials made a deal with him, providing $223,000 in selection bonuses.
Then Canada Customs filed $165,520 worth of forfeitures against this farmer for previous grain export violations. I would like to know why the customs minister has not prosecuted this farmer and seized his vehicles with the same lightening speed used to prosecute farmers like David Sawatzky, Andy McMechan and Bill Cairns. Is this the Liberal government's idea of justice for farmers?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the responsibility that Canadian Customs officers have at our border is tremendous.
We have, in fact, the responsibility to ensure active facilitation of trade and also to ensure the safety and protection of our country. We uphold several acts that have been passed by this Parliament and we do it in a very effective and precise manner.
I suggest to the hon. member that if there are individuals who have complaints, there is a full process of appeal that we are part of. I would encourage him to support his constituents but we will uphold the acts as they have been written. We will apply our responsible actions in a fair and productive way and we take very seriously the dual role we have in Canada Customs to facilitate trade and to ensure the safety and protection of Canadians within our country.
During a reception to honour the athletes who participated in the Atlanta Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is responsible for recreation and sports, learned that the Canadian Paralympic Committee did not pay all the costs associated with the participation of our athletes in the Atlanta games. So he made the commitment to give the athletes, or their sports associations, grants in the amount of $16,485 to cover half of the unpaid expenses.
Will the minister respond to the letter dated December 2 from her Quebec counterpart asking her to do her share and to reimburse the other half of the costs incurred by the athletes to participate in the Atlanta Paralympic Games?
(1155)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the fact that my department paid a large portion of the costs of the Paralympic Games for Canada, we, as the Government of Canada, will
certainly continue to do so, but I am inviting the Quebec minister, Guy Chevrette, to join us in subsidizing 50 per cent of all the costs associated with Quebec paralympic athletes.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the Quebec minister made a commitment to pay the first half of the costs, will the federal minister recognize that athletes who reach such a high level of performance and who represent us in the Olympic Games should not have been subjected to this kind of affront?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the offer I am making to the minister from Quebec. Given that it is the Canadian government, I in particular, that has worked very hard to assume a large portion of the cost of the Paralympics, I am inviting the minister, who obviously has a very sincere interest in this issue, to share with me all the costs associated with the Olympic and Paralympic athletes from the province of Quebec so that we can share this on a 50:50 basis.
I am certainly willing to look at that and I hope to hear from Minister Chevrette to see whether he is really committed to this or whether he would rather, unfortunately, play politics with this issue on the floor of the House of Commons.
Why did the minister break with proper protocol and table changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act while the existing act is being challenged in the court?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, grain marketing in western Canada is a topic of considerable debate among farmers and others.
Farmers have made strong recommendations for changes in legislation. Farmers are anxious for those changes to come forward for their consideration and ultimate enactment by Parliament as rapidly as possible. Indeed the Reform Party has also been urging the government to move in that very direction.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I did not say this is an urgent issue but perhaps the minister has acted irresponsibly and improperly. So I would ask the justice minister what steps he will take to redress the improper activities of the minister of agriculture, which may be seen as interference by the minister in this case.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada has responsibility for introducing, considering and ultimately passing legislation. Obviously at any moment in time there can be a whole variety of litigious matters before the courts in every field.
If we were to follow the admonition of the hon. gentleman, we would never consider any piece of legislation in this country if there were matters outstanding under previous legislation at any point in time. Obviously that is a formula for stalemate. Maybe that is what the Reform Party wishes to have but as far as this government is concerned, we want to move forward into the future.
Recently the European Union and Canada agreed in principle to an agreement which would eliminate a threatened EU ban on Canadian fur imports. However, now the European Union council of environment ministers has rejected this draft agreement, thereby throwing the whole process up in the air.
We have waited long enough for the Europeans to get their act together. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me if the government is prepared to take this issue to the World Trade Organization so as not to leave our Canadian fur industry out in the cold?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite correct. For one year the Canadian government has been negotiating in good faith with the European commission to conclude an agreement with respect to this industry.
On December 6 we initialled an agreement, and so we were very displeased and rather annoyed when some of the European Union environment ministers made their statements.
(1200 )
However, in the last few days the Minister for International Trade has met with Sir Leon Brittan who told us once again that he fully supports the interim agreement that was signed onDecember 6.
If the European commission does not ratify the agreement, the Canadian government will act very quickly to initiate an action at the WTO to protect access by the Canadian fur industry to European markets.
[Translation]
Yesterday, the minister introduced in the House Bill C-79, an act amending the Indian Act. However, this same minister, last September 11, stated and I quote: ``Changing the Indian Act requires very strong support''.
In light of that statement, how can the Minister go ahead with his amendments, whereas I have on my desk letters from 542 aboriginal nations out of 600 in Canada that are opposing his bill? Does he not agree that he should go back to do his homework in co-operation with the aboriginals, as requested in the Erasmus-Dussault report and by most of the stakeholders in Canada?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not addressed the Indian Act since 1951 and we cannot continue to look at a problem only every 45 years. It has taken is two years to get to this point and the package which is before the hon. member and the committee has three processes.
The first is substance. I am prepared to turn over substantial powers to the aboriginal people, where it should be, that I now exercise and do not want. I am prepared to take those sections that they want to discuss further or which may be controversial and put them before the committee. Its members can use their imagination and move into the future.
Finally, I am prepared to make it optional. I was prepared to go further than that so that no one can ever say that the government was not prepared to transfer these powers. Now it is up to the First Nations to decide whether it wants to exercise these powers.
Most important, a process is finally in place that over a period of years will deal with substantive issues of the Indian Act and get rid of that offensive act once and for all.
The Liberal red book promises that the government will promote fairness and opportunity and yet day after day we have more broken promises. Environment Canada is apparently unfairly bidding against small private sector firms for water quality and meteorological services.
Why is the minister's huge department bidding against private firms? How can the public believe that the government is using a level playing field and being ethical when doing this questionable practice?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the Reform Party wants to pretend that it cares about the environment. The last time Reform asked a question was on May 17.
If we look at fresh start the only thing that comes close to mentioning the environment is the green colour. Not one word on the environment is mentioned in their fresh start campaign. Reform members have the audacity to talk about us breaking red book commitments when we have introduced the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the endangered species legislation, MMT which that party is against. We have a harmonization accord in the works with the provinces.
The government is not only keep its commitments on the environment, but also pushing the file as well.
In answer to the specific question from the hon. member, like other departments we are working within Treasury Board guidelines. We have met with the business community. We have joint ventures with those companies. It is something that is sought after. The good name of Environment Canada is very much a viable commodity.