[Translation]
Before the 1993 election, we read on page 88 of the English version of the red book, and I quote: ``Funding cuts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canada, Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, and other institutions illustrate the Tories' failure to appreciate the importance of cultural and industrial development''.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage. How can she say this morning, following a cabinet meeting, that, by promising stable funding to the CBC as of 1998, she is fulfilling the commitments of the red book, when for the past three years the Minister of Finance has relentlessly cut more than $500 million from the budgets of the CBC, Telefilm, the National Film Board and the Canada Council?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the figures quoted by the member opposite are incorrect.
We must not forget the remarks made by the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata on ``Midi Quinze'' regarding cuts to be made to the budget. She said: ``If we are going to cut, there are major cuts to be made at the CBC''. These were the remarks she made on March 16, 1995.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister thinks she has made a great discovery. I repeat: the CBC needed trimming at head office, and Mr. Beatty closed it. He understood.
For the third time, this government is promising the CBC stable funding. Today it is again making this promise after hitting the CBC with the hardest cuts it has ever faced in its history.
How can the minister think for one second that the people will believe her, when her government has already twice reneged on this promise? Does this new promise signal elections, which will the permit the cock to crow for the third time and the Liberals to deny?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly we had to make cuts in government. I would like to look for a moment at the cuts made to Radio-Québec. According to Le Soleil of August 20, 1995, half the employees at Radio-Québec were cut.
It is true cuts were made, but what we have said is that, as of next year, we will guarantee the CBC five years of stable funding up to a maximum of $900 million. We have made a firm commitment to the CBC, which none of the other parties has made, unfortunately.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is quite extraordinary, because the previous Minister of Canadian Heritage promised the same guarantee, and it prompted the resignation of Mr. Manera, who felt the government was not keeping its word.
As regards Radio-Québec, Quebec contributes $7.50 per capita to its television, whereas Ontario contributes only $5.50. The minister should compare apples with apples and not with carrots.
Even with four former CBC presidents saying that the Corporation can no longer fulfill its mandate, the minister in her cynicism is promising stable funding, but after additional cuts of $200 million and 4,000 jobs. This is a far cry from Radio-Québec.
What are the government's real intentions in promising stable, insufficient and long term funding to the CBC? Are they to shut down the regions, to run the French network into the ground or simply to shut down the now redundant English and French television networks of the CBC, as her colleague for national defence has suggested?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two facts have to be pointed out.
First, when we took over the government we were faced with a very difficult financial situation. Cuts were required which were absorbed in all departments of government and to a lesser extent in the cultural industries.
In fact, the CBC cut which caused a lot of pain and a lot of jobs represented 23 per cent of their budget as against 50 per cent of the Department of Natural Resources and 30 per cent of the Department of the Environment.
The second point that I hope the hon. member would reflect on is that this is the first time in the history of the fiscal framework that the CBC will be given a guarantee that it will receive a stable amount of funding for the next five years. That will permit planning a movement to an all Canadian network.
Contrast that commitment in the fiscal framework to the statement by the Reform Party that it would abolish CBC television, to the statement by the Conservative Party that it wants to get out of CBC television, and to the statement of the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata that there is too much fat in the CBC.
Let me ask him the same question today. If indeed this resolution is as important as he claims it is, could the Prime Minister give us one example, one clear case where the concept of distinct society has been used to give Quebec more power or to give legislation an interpretation favouring the interests of the people of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the whole program we set out in the throne speech in February of last year clearly shows this government's desire to find common ground in many areas so as to provide for the respect of jurisdictions, as requested by the people in Quebec.
Read the speech from the throne; you will see what we have accomplished since then and the hon. member will have all the examples he needs.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): No, Mr. Speaker, I only know one case where the concept of distinct society, as the Prime Minister understands it, has been applied and that is harmonization of the GST.
The maritimes have been paid $1 billion to harmonize it, but the federal government still will not compensate Quebec, which agreed three years ago to harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal GST. For the Prime Minister, Quebec is a distinct society when it does not make any difference.
Will the Prime Minister not recognize that breaking so many promises has made him an embarrassing ally for Quebec federalists and all those who once thought it possible to reform the Canadian federation?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity provided by the opposition to get to the crux of the debate?
In Quebec, polls show that 80 per cent of the population regard themselves as Canadians. Outside Quebec, more than 50 per cent of the population are prepared to recognize Quebec as an essential part of Canada. Our role is to help these populations come to terms, in spite of the official opposition's divisive philosophy.
This is the Liberal record that is etched on the minds of Canadians: 1.5 million people unemployed; two million to three million underemployed; 700,000 moonlighting to make ends meet;
one out of four Canadians afraid of losing his or her job. The Prime Minister can try to ignore it, to explain it, to inflate it and excuse it, but that is the Liberal's dismal record on jobs.
(1425)
With a record like that how does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to believe him when he promises jobs, jobs, jobs in the future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said our priority was to create jobs and to improve the economy of Canada and that is exactly what we have done.
As I said yesterday, the Canadian economy has created more than 700,000 new jobs since we formed the government and I gave examples. It is recognized by everybody that we have done better and we have created more jobs in Canada with 30 million people than Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain together. That is a fact. Of course we are never satisfied and we have to create a lot more.
We had to get to the bottom of the problem. We knew we had a big deficit, that the costs of interest were exceedingly high. We had to put the finances of the nation in good standing so that people could find jobs because we were able to compete.
That is why today in Canada we have the lowest interest rates we have had in 35 years. That is why we see today that housing, which had been in great difficulty for many years, is starting up again. More people are buying houses and new houses are being built every day.
That is why people have a higher level of confidence today than in the last number of years. We have done what has to be done to make sure the deficit is under control and that we are respecting the goals that we stated to Canadians. We have created more jobs and we have made sure that the deficit is under control. That is exactly what we have done.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to get to the bottom of the jobs problem he has to eventually get to the tax problem. High taxes kill jobs and the government's tax record is even worse than its jobs record.
Since 1993 the federal government has increased taxes 35 times. The average family take home pay has been reduced by $3,000 and the federal tax collector is taking in $24 billion more per year than in 1993. That is the dollar cost of the Liberal tax policies. The job cost is even worse.
Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for all the jobs killed by Liberal high taxes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been absolutely no tax increases since we have been here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I notice they are complaining. Yes, we have changed some taxes because we plugged some loopholes that were benefiting the rich. Yes, of course we have increased some taxes. Yes, we have increased the tax on the banks.
If it is the type of tax that he is complaining about I will plead guilty. We have plugged loopholes and we have made sure that the banks would pay a fair share of the profits they are making.
There was no tax increase on the income of individuals. We have reduced from $3.30 to $2.85 per $100 the employee contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. We have reduced by more than $500 million the level of taxes that were imposed at the border for imports to comply with international obligations. I could go on and on.
Some hon. members: More. More.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I want to keep the leader in good shape so I will wait for his third question.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government's tax increases only deal with tax loopholes?
Does the Prime Minister consider the tax on life insurance premiums that was imposed by the government closing a loophole? Does he consider the increase in the excise tax on gasoline as closing a loophole? Does the Prime Minister consider increasing the tax on tobacco products a loophole? Does he consider the reduction on RRSP contributions a loophole? Does he consider increasing the Canada pension plan premiums three times a loophole?
(1430)
The tax increases imposed by his government have resulted in the collection of over $24 billion more per year by the government. Does the Prime Minister consider all of those tax loopholes?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the third party does not recognize that there is a factor in the economy that we call economic growth. Since we formed the government we have had growth in Canada every year, and of course the revenues are better than before.
Now he is complaining that after we reduced the tax on tobacco and we reintroduced some of it because we had to plug a big loophole.
Members remember when a lot of contraband was coming into Canada. We wanted to make sure that the contraband was ended. We had to make some moves but the fundamental taxes have not been increased. They have been decreased. That is why the economy is in better shape.
The hon. member does not recognize the fact that there has been growth, that the economy is in better shape, that now interest rates are lower than they have ever been, that we have to pay billions of dollars less on interest because we have provided the people of Canada with a good, responsible government in Ottawa.
When asked for his opinion on the Government of Quebec's request to amend the Constitution so as to replace denominational school boards with linguistic school boards, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told Le Soleil on December 9, and I quote: ``If there is a consensus among Quebecers, then there is no problem''.
At a time when the Government of Quebec is asking to be exempted from the denominational guarantees contained in section 93 of the Constitution, how does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs react to the demands just made by the President of Alliance Quebec regarding linguistic guarantees?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two and a half years ago, when the Liberal Party of Quebec was kicked out of office, Quebec's anglophone and francophone communities trusted each other. Relations were good.
[English]
I want to say that in English. The legal framework regarding language laws was acceptable for both communities. They were not in love with it but they found that it was an acceptable compromise.
[Translation]
Since then, separatist ideology has created a division between the two communities. The Government of Quebec thought it wise to tell its anglophone minority that there was legislation that it was not to use or it would be taken away. That was what was done to a minority.
The compromises made regarding access to health care have since been questioned, or at least that is what people are being given to understand. That is the situation facing us. We are beginning a difficult debate with respect to education, language, religion and the Constitution. I call on everyone to approach this calmly and with trust. Both communities want a good linguistic system. They must get together and find a solution that is acceptable to both communities.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's remarks, which are confusing to say the least, that the consensus already reached in Quebec and expressed by MNAs is not enough and that the minister is also requiring that the demands of Alliance Quebec be taken into consideration, thus ignoring the legitimacy of the National Assembly?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had to give the hon. member a short course on the Constitution. I must say that the Government of Canada is not giving a right of veto to Alliance Quebec or to any other group in Quebec. That is not the issue.
(1435)
The hon. member must understand that the concessions also exist in order to protect minority rights, that not all democratic decisions are taken with 50 per cent plus one, and if she believes that Quebec's anglophone community is not part of Quebec, let her say so.
The latest example of the Prime Minister's disconnectedness with the Canadian people was last weekend when he gave an interview to the Toronto Star. He indicated that he was proud of his record on unemployment: 1.5 million unemployed Canadians; 20 per cent unemployment in Newfoundland-he is proud of that; 17 per cent youth unemployment. He is kind of like the captain of Exxon Valdez being proud of his driving record.
Why will the Prime Minister not admit that he has clearly lost touch with regular Canadians who now suffer from his record of broken promises?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have always said that I would not be satisfied until the people who want to work in Canada get jobs. That is the goal of this government, to make sure there is a situation where the people will have occasion to find jobs.
But we have to compare our situation with others. From December 1988 to 1993 the previous government created 126,500 jobs. In the same period, for the same number of months, from November 1993 to January 1997 this government-no, not us, the Canadian
economy, because we created the conditions for them to create the jobs-created 715,000 new jobs.
If we compare ourselves with the previous government we feel satisfied, but we will never be satisfied until the people in Canada get the work they want. That is why in all the budgets we have developed so far, and the one we will present to this House a week from today, job creation is a priority.
We have worked very hard on that. We have had some success but it will not be enough until everybody who really wants a job gets a job.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, someone should tell the Prime Minister that unemployment is a problem in Canada and that his words are cold comfort to all those unemployed people out there. It is pretty clear that the little guy from Shawinigan has become the bubble boy from 24 Sussex.
Back on planet earth we have had record taxes, record personal indebtedness, record bankruptcies and 9 per cent plus unemployment for 76 months in a row. Why should we trust the Prime Minister to fix the jobs issue when he clearly does not believe we even have problem?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we say all the time that we have a problem. I see the hon. member downgrading the country. What we are telling the Canadian people is that we have problems and we are working on them.
When we travel, the financial press from around the world recognize that this government has done a very good job. All the experts outside the government are predicting that in 1997 we will see more than 3 per cent growth in Canada. It is the same thing for next year. They are predicting that there will more than 300,000 new jobs created per year in the next two years for Canada, and Canada is the country in the best financial position of all G-7 countries. I hope the hon. member will look at these facts once in awhile.
On the eve of the seal hunting season in eastern Quebec and Canada, many questions are being raised regarding the cruel seal hunting practices shown yesterday on the Téléjournal. The video, which will be shown around the world, could undermine the work and credibility of the Quebec and Canadian fishing industry as a whole.
Last year, when the seal hunting season opened, did the minister have the necessary means to prevent such unacceptable behaviour?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it is a very important one. He makes reference to a video that was shown at a press conference yesterday. It is really the annual effort on the part of the IFAW to discredit the seal hunt.
I have to tell this House that my department is reviewing that video to see what charges, if any, have to be laid against those people in the video.
The hon. member knows Atlantic Canada and the Gaspé fishermen involved in the seal fishery. The majority of the seal hunt is conducted by responsible people in a responsible manner.
I find it passing strange that in its annual effort to discredit the seal hunt, the IFAW, with metronomic regularity, tries to do things to put the seal hunt down.
The hon. member and this House know that despite IFAW's effort, the seal hunt is increasing and this year will have a total allowable catch of 275 animals. This will help the people in Atlantic Canada and it will help the recovery of the cod stocks.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, since the credibility of the whole industry is at stake, will the minister pledge to order an investigation and to bring those responsible for such cruel and illegal acts before the courts? Fishermen and seal hunters from the Gaspé region also told me this morning that the guilty parties must be found.
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated that and in my enthusiasm to support the people who are involved in the seal fishery I said 275, but of course I meant 275,000 seal carcasses.
With respect to an inquiry, I think I have indicated that my department is reviewing the video and will do as we did last year. We will see what is involved and if charges are to be laid, we will lay them.
I have to tell this House that the seal fishery this year, because we are increasing the total allowable catch, and I know the hon. member knows this, will be monitored like it has never been monitored before.
regarded at disloyalty to her department and could hurt her leadership prospects.
All this Prime Minister continues to do is reward Mr. Fowler with one of the top diplomatic postings available. Why will the Prime Minister not hold Mr. Fowler accountable?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said many times in this House, the calling of witnesses is still open until March 31 and any witnesses the commission wishes to call can be called. It can also subpoena documents. It is open.
This government is not going to get involved or interfere with the commission's work.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people are getting sick and tired of this sort of cover-up.
We have a former prime minister of Canada accusing a former deputy minister of defence of covering up a murder. If this is not a shocking enough revelation to get the Prime Minister involved, what will it take, Mr. Prime Minister?
The Speaker: Remember, my colleagues, address all your questions to the Chair.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was the former defence minister who hired Mr. Fowler and kept him in that position.
That being said, we are not going to interfere, even with all the provocations and all the name calling that is being brought forward by this party, in the work of that commission.
Since the Liberal Government was elected, the refugee claim backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board has risen to over 30,000, a 75 per cent increase, and more than half of these are in Montreal.
(1445)
How can the minister explain these unacceptable delays, and what steps will she take to solve this problem as promptly as possible?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is worthwhile pointing out right at the start that the Immigration and Refugee Board is a quasijudiciary tribunal that is independent of the department and that the chairperson of the board has just taken a number of steps to step up productivity within the board.
That having been said, a bill is currently under study here in the House with a view to helping them work even more efficiently: Bill C-49. If the opposition gives us its support in moving this forward, it will be enabling us to help the board enhance its efficiency, in that only one board member will be required for cases to be heard in future.
With all these measures, I can assure you that everything is being done to try to improve turnaround time in the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister ought to put an end immediately to the patronage system currently used to appoint IRB members.
Does the minister acknowledge that delays in processing files are inhumane to claimants and their family members, and a heavy burden to the taxpayers who have to pay for its inaction and disorganization?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must admit to you that I am having trouble following the logic of the hon. member for Bourassa, since we now have a selection committee independent of the minister to evaluate the suitability of prospective board appointees. If the hon. member for Bourassa has in mind any cases of people who are not competent for their position, I trust that he will have the courage to say so here in the House of Commons, officially, before everyone.
That having been said, it is clear that we are working to ensure that all those applying for refugee status get a reply within a reasonable length of time. As you are well aware, however, we have a quasijudiciary process in Canada; we plan to maintain it and we intend to follow the rules.
What will the Minister of Canadian Heritage do to counteract budget cuts such as those made at Radio-Canada and more specifically those affecting the news program Ce soir. Could she expand on that?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, programming at Radio-Canada is the exclusive responsibility of Radio-Canada.
That being said, we are delighted to hear that following representations by the FCFAC and president Michaud, and also by the hon. member for St. Boniface and a number of other members, Radio-Canada has decided to reconsider its decision to terminate programming of Ce soir. In fact, programming in Saskatchewan and Alberta would be maintained, which would have a direct impact on francophones in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
There is a former prime minister of Canada accusing a former deputy minister of defence, the de facto commander of the Canadian Armed Forces at the time, with participation in the cover-up of a murder in Somalia.
The head of a commission that is supposed to be getting to the bottom of this says that he cannot because of interference by the government.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he simply sit there and ignore this matter or will he take some action to get to the bottom of this accusation?
(1450 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence said that we have appointed a commission and that it is the master of the situation. It can call any witnesses it wants. If it wants to call the former deputy minister of the time, if it wants to call the minister of the time, it can. It is up to the commission.
It is very well known that when we establish a royal commission we do not tell it who to interview and who not to interview. That would be a breach of the trust that we have invested in the commission.
This news is known to the commission. It is up to the three commissioners to decide, until the end of next month, who the witnesses will be. They have had the occasion to do that in the last two years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the head of the commission to which the Prime Minister referred said: ``It is not true that the inquiry has plenty of time to call all the witnesses such as Mr. Fowler and Mr. Anderson. Evidence on important matters presented without the possibility of real or substantial testing risks producing a whitewash of the alleged cover-up rather than an investigation of it''.
Just to be clear, is the Prime Minister saying that he chooses to ignore the charge by a former prime minister of Canada that the former deputy minister of defence was involved in the cover-up of a murder?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we established the commission, to look into what happened in Somalia at the time of the previous government.
We established a commission with three commissioners. It has been in operation for more than two years.
It was the leader of the third party who requested that we finish the inquiry in time for the next election. Now he does not want us to fulfil that request.
The Minister of National Defence said very clearly that the task of the government is to make sure the armed forces can resume their work and operate as they should.
If the commission wants to interview anybody, it has the right to do that. We have given the commission three extensions so far. The Minister of National Defence told it to prepare a report and said that it had three more months to interview people.
The commission has known since early January that it will have to finish its work by the end of March. It still has the time to see Madam Campbell, the former deputy minister or anybody else it wants to see.
According to the media, the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry do not share the same views on copyright has further delayed progress on this bill which would finally recognize neighbouring rights and a compensation system for private copying for copyright owners.
Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage still being held hostage by her colleague in Industry or will she, by the end of this week, be in a position to bring back to the House for report stage and third reading a bill that is crucial to creators in Quebec and Canada, so it can be passed before the next federal election? Briefly, can the Liberal ministers stop fighting so we can get the job done?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, cabinet is unanimous on the importance of proceeding with a bill as vital as the copyright bill. About 70 amendments have been proposed in committee, and we hope to be able to table all new amendments in the House very shortly.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my second question is directly related to the minister's answer. In committee proceedings, the Bloc Quebec proposed a number of amendments with which creators were very satisfied.
Is the minister prepared to protect the gains made in committee against pressure from users who like to see those gains diminished?
(1455)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the hon. member wants me to say in the House that I do not want to see the amendments proposed by his colleague. If that is the case, the hon. member's logic escapes me.
I think this is a good example of why we should take the time to ensure that all the amendments are satisfactory, because the bill is very important to creators. We want to proceed, and we also want the hon. member to speak to his former colleagues in the Senate to ensure that once the bill has been adopted by the House of Commons, it will not be held up by the Conservatives in the Senate.
West coast shipments are at their lowest level in a decade and at least 38 ships are in port collecting demurrage as they await their cargo. There is no accountability in the transportation system and farmers are being held ransom.
My question is to the minister of agriculture. What specifically does the minister plan to do besides just talk about the weather?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this situation is very serious. It is a situation that the government takes seriously, as I am sure do farmers and all the players in the grains industry.
I would advise the hon. gentleman that histrionics and cute lines do not solve the problem. The government is interested in solutions.
I have had the opportunity to discuss the situation with some of the players in the industry, both on the grain shipping side and on the railway side. In the course of the next few days those conversations will continue.
I want to impress upon all the players that this situation is critically important. It needs to be given priority. I am happy to see that the railways have already taken some steps to bring more locomotive power into the system. We all have to put our shoulders to the wheel to find solutions rather than play word games.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture is known in the industry as a master of word games and he is considered to be a third rate lawyer rather than a good minister who is interested-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Without further preamble, the question now, please.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I will appeal to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister hold his minister of agriculture accountable for forcing farmers to pay for his mistakes? He had a chance to pick the transportation system and he did not do it.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things that farmers across western Canada notice is that this hon. gentleman and his party seem unable to deal with any issue in a serious manner without personal invective. Solutions are not found through insults. That seems to be a fact that escapes the hon. gentleman. But perhaps it is understandable that it should escape him since now in the reshuffling of the Reform Party he did not make the A team and he is seated so far back I confuse him with the NDP.
In 1995 the federal government and the Government of Ontario agreed to joint funding to replace the ferry servicing these communities. The new government in Ontario is refusing to honour that commitment.
What is the federal government doing to ensure these communities are serviced by a safe and efficient ferry service which will promote economic development on the islands?
(1500 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member and the several members who have continually brought this to the attention of the government.
I will take just Christian Island, but Georgina Island is in the same situation. There are 400 aboriginal people and 2,200 non-ab-
original people living on that island. The ferry service is not safe, that is in Lake Simcoe, and people die. There are only elementary schools and the children going to high school have to come off the island in the fall and away from their homes.
We agreed with the former provincial government to pay one-quarter of the ferry cost of around $937,000, pay $1 million to the dock facilities and an annual maintenance of $665,000. The present Harris government without any notice pulled that deal away.
What we can do is stay at the table, stay committed, which we are with our money. The Tories in that area, and there are several, should talk to Mr. Harris and tell him to keep the commitment of the provincial government.
It has been more than three years since he promised to eliminate the most hated GST. Since he has not delivered on this promise to Canadians, will the do nothing Prime Minister formally apologize today in this House for his-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I am sure the Prime Minister heard the question. If he chooses to answer it, he may.
Colleagues, this will bring to a close our question period.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, there has been some consultation among the parties regarding a committee report that we would want to be presented at this time. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to revert to Routine Proceedings under presenting reports from committees.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the permission of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Orders of the day.