[Translation]
He told us that, if the federal government spends its time invading provincial areas of jurisdiction, it is for their own good. The Canadian government, he said, has always helped set up new initiatives. It helps the provinces prepare programs, and then it withdraws. The Prime Minister even added, and I quote: ``We negotiate with standards. Sometimes, we move ahead, then there are adjustments, but social progress must be achieved''. This is a fine example of paternalistic federalism.
I ask the Minister of Finance whether he realizes that the budget he has brought down reflects the policy denounced by the provinces that allows the federal government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government contributes a bit of money, it sets national standards, imposes its priorities, forces the provinces to comply and then withdraws, leaving the provinces with responsibility for coming up with the money to finance its big projects and the unpleasant task of making cuts.
Is this the Minister of Finance's new federalism?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I read with interest the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister, who was commenting on the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance.
What we saw, and I would like to confirm this today in the House, should there be any ambiguity whatsoever, is the government's commitment to the national child benefit, which is an ongoing benefit. It is an ongoing benefit from our government to assist children in low income families.
This is not a program one starts up and then pulls out of. It is a program we have developed in partnership with the provinces that is perfectly compatible with the Government of Quebec's family policy.
As far as the national child benefit is concerned, I can reassure you that this is an ongoing commitment on the part of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we feel better already with such a promise. We have never heard this in the past. It is quite new.
An hon. member: Is it the same as the GST?
Mr. Duceppe: The Minister of Finance claims that the federal government is the source of progress. He and the Prime Minister should admit that, last year and this year again, their government cut $4.5 billion in social, health, and post-secondary education programs, which represents $1.3 billion for Quebec alone.
How can the Minister of Finance boast about putting only $50 million this year into a program to fight child poverty, after such cuts? Is that progress, $1.3 billion in cuts and $50 million in its place?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Quebec's Minister of Finance, Mr. Landry, will put his 31 per cent of federal transfer payments to the provinces to good use in his next budget. Although we represent only 25 per cent of the population, 31 per cent of federal transfer payments, and 46 per cent of equalization payments, is not bad.
I think the Government of Quebec is not doing too badly.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about 31 per cent, he is including tax points, as well as the money they are borrowing with our credit card, in our name, that we are obliged to pay later on.
When he talks about equalization payments and the fact that we receive more in UI, he should be ashamed. If Quebec receives more in UI, it is perhaps because there is higher unemployment in Quebec. He seems to be proud of this. It is hard to believe.
Getting back to the Prime Minister, who has been saying some very interesting things lately. He was explaining to the French Prime Minister, Jacques Chirac, that it is much easier in Canada than in France to cut social and health services, because the decisions are made in Ottawa and the provinces are stuck with the actual dirty work. Federalism is so wonderful.
(1420)
Is the Minister of Finance aware that it is irresponsible of the federal government to place the provinces in an unstable position by forcing them to cut direct public services? Is he aware of that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has cut some of its own programs. We have carried out two program reviews and made cuts to federal government programs. We have also reduced the number of federal public servants by 50,000.
It is easy to whine all the time and pretend to be the victim, the worst off of all the victims of the Canadian federation. I would like
to draw the attention of the opposition and of the Government of Quebec to the fact that Quebec still receives the largest federal transfer payment of any Canadian province relative to its budget.
Quebec derives considerable benefit from being in the Canadian federation, and we have no problem with that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Human Resources Development were more familiar with his history, he would not ask the questions he just has, for poverty has its historical and political causes.
The Minister of Finance has decided that the children of Quebec and Canada would remain poor. Yet, he managed to squeeze out a tear during his budget speech. He has, however, forgotten that he and his government had done a good deal to impoverish families. He has added a mere $50 million to the pot.
How can the Minister of Finance boast of his compassion, which I would have been glad to see him show toward poor children, when his so-called $50 million effort means only another $33 per year per child living in poverty in Quebec and in Canada?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from-
Mr. Bellehumeur: The tables of the rich, a few crumbs.
Mr. Pettigrew: They can always be considered crumbs, but if you start by looking at the figures-
Mr. Bellehumeur: It is outrageous, 500,000 more poor children since you have been in power.
Mr. Pettigrew: -we have added $70 million to the $195 million we had already committed in this fiscal year. The amount we have committed, one that is permanent and will be repeated yearly for many years, the most important national social project for decades, a project in partnership with the provinces, which will add $850 million yearly for the benefit of children in low income families, is a magnificent commitment on the part of the government.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there was more money in 1984, in today's dollars, in assistance to children, for the number of children there were at that time, than there is in this budget.
Why does the Minister of Finance want to be at the top of the G-7 when it comes to deficit reduction, while he does not mind being at the bottom of the OECD countries when it comes to helping children living in poverty?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is like comparing apples and oranges. In 1984, there was a family allowance system which went to all households. It was a universal program, one which many governments before us had questioned.
If, however, we look at the situation and the way it has developed in recent years, I think that our government's commitment to children of low income families is one that is solid, significant, and aimed at low income families, unlike the family allowance, a universal program from another era, which we revised when we did a general tidying up of Canada's public finances to the benefit, incidentally, of all the administrations and all the companies in this country.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I pointed out that over the past five years the finance minister's tax revenues have gone up by 30 per cent, while the take home pay of Canadians has gone down by 10 per cent.
(1425 )
``Not to worry,'' he said, ``those increased tax revenues were a result of the incredible economic growth''. Could it be that all the great economic growth explains why Canadians are $3,000 poorer, why 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed and why one in four Canadians are worried about losing their jobs?
I ask the finance minister this. Can he explain why all this supposed economic growth has made the government 30 per cent richer and Canadian families 10 per cent poorer? How does it add up?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that at the time we took office, there was an enormous amount of insecurity in the country. Canada had come through the deepest and longest recession since the depression of the 1930s. Taxes were going up, interest rates were skyrocketing and there was an enormous loss of confidence among business and consumers.
Three years later, 798,000 more jobs were created in the private sector, consumer confidence is on the way up, business confidence is on the way up and every international organization in the world, the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank, are saying that this is where the economic miracle of the world is taking place.
Canadians are very proud of what is going on here. They really do not like to see people knock the country.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, right now the people who are upset are those who have existing bankruptcies, which are up 60 per cent. I am not sure they would be bragging about the budget.
In the finance minister's world, a $3,000 pay cut for families is defined as economic growth and a 70 per cent pay hike in payroll taxes is considered an investment.
In April 1995 the minister's department released a study-I will table it if he would like me to-which concluded that a 40 per cent increase in CPP premiums between 1986 and 1993 had killed 26,000 jobs.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has his department figured out the negative impact that this 70 per cent increase in CPP premiums will have on jobs? It was 40 per cent before, and now it will be a 70 per cent increase in these pay hikes. How many jobs will that lose, not create?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously it takes a great deal to explain to the Reform Party the difference between a tax and pension contribution.
Yesterday I pointed out that what the Reform Party was recommending in its changes to pension contributions was the Chilean model which was 13 per cent, some $500 more than the federal government and provinces have come together on.
I wanted to be fair to the Reform Party. Therefore I went back to see if I could find out whether they had made a lower recommendation. Remember that the provinces and the federal government have agreed to 9.9 per cent. The lowest recommendation I could find from Reform was 10 per cent.
Let me quote from Reform's minority report from Standing Committee on Human Resources Development social security review. It says that in Chile the local version of CPP has been phased out and replaced by mandatory RRSPs, financed by a payroll deduction of 10 per cent. That is the lowest that they have come up with-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by Canadians being able to put into their expanded RRSP program, they will get exactly double what the government offers in any pension scheme.
The same study that was done by Joe Italiano in the minister's department also examined the impact that payroll taxes had on wages. It is one thing for the minister to say that this is an investment. For the employers who are kicking out another 70 per cent of taxes on premiums for their workers, this is what his department came up with, not some Reformer, regarding wages.
``Employers, that is the people who hire and pay the employees, try to pass the increased cost of higher payroll taxes on to employees through lower wages''. Somehow that does not sound like a great investment.
(1430)
Since Canadians have already suffered a $3,000 pay cut under this Liberal government, how much more than $3,000 will they lose now that the finance minister has increased payroll taxes by 70 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to understand how members of the Reform Party can stand up day after day, swallow themselves whole and bring forward positions that are in total contradiction to what they have stated consistently in House of Commons committees or in this House.
I made a reference to the 10 per cent increase. That was the lowest number that I could see.
Let us look at what Reform has actually recommended. This is a quote from the Reform Party's social security review and the option which it recommends: ``The schedule of planned increases to the CPP payroll tax'', which they called it, ``could be maintained or somewhat accelerated with the excess funds being diverted into contributors' personal super RRSP funds''.
What Reform is recommending on paper is the acceleration of the contributions up to a level of 14.2 per cent.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In his budget, the minister announced the creation of the Canada Foundation for Innovation to invest in R & D infrastructures. However, as in the case of most of the measures announced in this budget, on the eve of an election the minister is putting money back into an area where he previously made massive cuts, as in the case of the Tokamak reactor in Varennes.
How can the minister create a federal foundation when he has already cut more than $3.3 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for health and post-secondary education and more than $100 million in funding for research councils? These are radical cuts that have already seriously undermined research in universities and hospitals.
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 position taken today by the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois is a rather interesting one.
I can quote some comments by Denis Gagnon, vice rector of Laval University. He said: ``I think it was very good news yesterday for universities and teaching hospitals that do research. Excellent news at last that we may be entitled to assistance in developing our research infrastructures''.
He also said: ``The federal government is involved, but it is looking for what it calls a partner in any commitment it will make, and it will be up to us to work with these partners''.
[English]
David Johnston, former head of McGill university said: ``We can establish-''
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the minister is willing, we could send him some quotes which are the exact opposite of the ones he happened to choose. These are ten times worse.
Does the minister, who has cut at least one half billion annually from research and development budgets, not realize that $180 million is peanuts compared with the promise in the red book which would add $1 billion annually for science and technology?
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, first of all, the hon. member is quite wrong. Apparently she cannot read. Perhaps she should go back to the red book. She would see that our commitment was to invest $1 billion in science and technology during our mandate. By creating the Foundation for Innovation we have already invested $800 million.
We also created Technology Partnerships Canada, whose budget, starting next year, will be $250 million annually, and this is stable funding.
(1435)
Today we announced the renewal of the national network of centres of excellence as a permanent program with $47 million in funding. We announced other investments in the budget.
How can the minister justify forcing young people to contribute to a plan that would have to rank as one of the worst investment schemes on the planet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the projections that have been made by the federal government and the provinces are quite prudent. Again I point out that all 10 provinces are joint stewards in the Canada pension plan.
If the Canada pension plan was to earn higher rates, and there is no reason why it should not given the fact that it will be subject exactly to the same investment criteria as any private sector pension plan, then clearly the returns will be higher.
Let us point out some of the fundamental differences the super RRSP will not have. CPP benefits are fully indexed. They are secure. They provide disability benefits. If somebody has an accident under the Canada pension plan they will be protected.
What Reform would do is throw those who have bad luck, who have accidents, on to the market with no help. Let us understand what it means. Under the Canada pension plan survivor benefits will be provided. As well, under the Canada pension plan women having children who have to retire from the workforce for a period of time are protected. Under the Reform plan there is no such protection.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is making lyin' Brian look good.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Withdraw.
The Speaker: I caution members again about using inflammatory words. I would like the hon. member to withdraw these words ``lyin' Brian'' and to put his question directly, please.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The Liberal record is a 17 per cent jobless rate for Canada's youth and now under the guise of CPP reform-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Put the question, please.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand why is the government breaking its jobs promise to Canada's youth and on the other hand if they ever do get a job forcing them to pay higher and higher taxes for ever diminishing benefits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us put the debate over the Canada pension plan in perspective.
We have already seen that the difference of opinion between ourselves and the Reform Party has nothing to do with the CPP premiums. We have already seen that on the three basic options put forward by the Reform Party, one of 10 per cent, one of 13 per cent and one of 14.2 per cent, in all cases Reform are recommending higher CPP premiums than the federal government and the provinces. We understand that.
(1440 )
Therefore what we must deal with is what is the fundamental difference of opinion between ourselves and the Reform. It has to do with the values of this country. It has to do with do you believe that Canadians feel a collective responsibility one for the other? Do you believe that Canadians do not think this is a country only for the rich? Do you believe that what this country is all about is providing for Canadians on disability, providing for single mothers, providing for survivors? We do.
[Translation]
Despite his attempts to exert pressure, the secretary of state responsible for regional development in Quebec has failed. The Minister of Health this week tabled a number of minor amendments to his tobacco bill, which simply put the problem off until after the election. All the organizers of sporting and cultural events are angry and disappointed at the work done by the secretary of state in the matter of sponsorships.
Will the Acting Prime Minister acknowledge that, despite the fine words of the secretary of state for Quebec, the government has found no other way to ensure the viability of sporting and cultural events in Quebec and Canada?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is completely off base.
The minister has responded to committee recommendations, a committee of which the hon. member was a participant. The minister has said: ``All right, I will consider what the recommendations of the committee are, first of all, that the legislation passed as it was and second, I will take into consideration some of the concerns with respect to a transitional period in order to accommodate the concerns of all of those who depended on advertising''. He has done that.
The minister has also taken into consideration the overwhelming opinion of the Canadian public that this is a health bill and that as a health bill it shall pass unchanged. The minister has also said: ``I will be reasonable. I will receive further representations''. He has received them and he has presented amendments that reflect weighing those recommendations in the balance.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the parliamentary secretary can say that, when the minister refused to meet representatives of the sponsors.
On October 22, the Prime Minister said before the Chamber of Commerce in Montreal, and I quote: ``By working in a spirit of co-operation, we can put Montreal back on its feet. We have no choice, we must succeed''.
Are we to understand that his work on behalf of Montreal is limited to adopting a bill that threatens more than 2,000 jobs and over $90 million in economic benefits there?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is very constructive to engage in these kinds of scare tactics. The legislation, and the hon. member has read it well, does not prohibit advertising. There are restrictions to the application of advertising, restrictions to which the advertising agencies around the world and especially in North America agree should be in place.
The member also knows there are even more severe restrictions in the United States. In fact, as of next year there will be an outright ban. No such thing is happening in Canada.
For the edification of the hon. member and for the information of this House I would like to draw to the member's attention what the Minister of Health in Quebec said about advertising which I will quote for the member's benefit. I will table it if the member would like. It says:
(1445)
[Translation]
The minister said this: ``Sponsorship is subliminal advertising. Cultural products are associated with a brand of cigarettes. This is a very strong way to encourage smoking, especially among young people''.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
Catherine Swift, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, wrote a letter to the Canada pension plan review committee. In it she wrote: ``Increases in CPP premiums to as high as 10 per cent would be massively disruptive to small business finances and employment levels''. The premium increase announced by the Minister of Finance to 9.9 per cent will cost a company with 100 employees $130,000.
Where will that money come from to pay this increase in taxes? Why will the government not link an increase in CPP premiums to a decrease in the UI premiums?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us simply contrast in terms of the CPP premiums with differing tracks between what the Liberals and the provinces have said together versus what the Reform plan is.
Instead of it going up to 14 per cent and then continuing, under the federal government and the provincial plan, the premiums are going to go up to 9.9 per cent and then they are going to level off. We will then have a fuller funded plan. What Reform is suggesting under what appears to be the most real of its options is that there would be an acceleration of those premiums up to 14.2 per cent.
How the hon. member can stand in this House and try to convince people that 14.2 per cent is less than 9.9 per cent can only be done in that weird little corner of the world where Reformers do their arithmetic.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians, what we are trying to do is to link the very real damage done to employment by payroll taxes and the fact that payroll taxes have to come down.
We all understand that the Canada pension plan is a basket case. Everybody knows that. The problem is that for new people coming into the plan it must be fair. For businesses that now have to try to maintain a payroll we have to keep them from going broke. For the vast majority of businesses there is only one place the money can come from. According to the same CFIB survey, 49 per cent of small businesses with five employees are operating at break even or loss positions which means that the last person hired will be the first person fired.
How many small businesses will be forced to close as a direct result of this payroll tax increase? That is the problem.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to the Canada pension plan as a basket case. One must understand what he is saying. The federal government along with eight of the provinces, provinces which reflect the vast range of the political spectrum in this country, provinces which reflect all of the regions of this country have come together with the federal government to protect the Canada pension plan so that it will be there for young Canadians.
To refer to the Canada pension plan as a basket case could only come if one adopts an extremist view. We understand that is exactly what we are dealing with. The basic difference here is not between Reform and the government. It is between a balanced view of what Canadian society is all about and about a band of extremists who would destroy the values of the country.
This week, Quebec's Liberal Party leader Daniel Johnson said he would not support the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution sought by the Quebec government, because, in his opinion, the fact that up to four other provinces could be involved increases the likelihood of failure.
(1450)
Just yesterday, however, the minister stated unequivocally that section 93 could be amended bilaterally on the basis of the proposal made by the Quebec government.
Who are we to believe, the minister across the way or the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat the three basic points made from the very beginning by the Government of Canada in this matter.
First, on the face of it, what the Government of Quebec is proposing appears to be feasible, bilaterally, under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 amending formula.
Second, the Government of Quebec must build a consensus around its proposal. Incidentally, my Quebec counterpart, Jacques Brassard, is now saying the exact same thing as I am, thereby contradicting the opposition in this respect.
Third, this is a matter that must be debated by the provincial legislature before being referred to the Parliament of Canada. That was what happened in each of the four previous bilateral amendments.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of the 180 degree turnabout and the glaring inconsistency of his friend and ally, Daniel Johnson, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs telling us that, until the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec sees the light and stops putting partisanship before the interests of Quebec as a whole, he will consider that there is no consensus in Quebec to proceed bilaterally?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition made another suggestion that may well reduce the likelihood of a court challenge. It is up to the Quebec government to determine whether this is the best solution and to discuss the matter with the leader of the official opposition.
I think that the official opposition in the House of Commons now realizes that a consensus is required. So far, it had always maintained that all we had to do was to accept a proposal put forward by the Government of Quebec.
[English]
My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health. Does Health Canada in fact publish statements as to why certain products are or are not allowed in and is there an appeal process when entry is denied?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the House will know that Health Canada's priority is to ensure that products which are put up for sale are both safe and effective.
Every year the department authorizes several hundred uses of traditional herbal remedies and vitamin and mineral supplements. We have also dealt with a series of other items that have been less than safe. I cite as an example remedies containing ephedrine which were responsible for a number of serious illnesses in Canada. As a result a ban was imposed on the use of Ephedra in certain products.
Health Canada does permit the importation of products that meet regulatory requirements. In the event that products are prohibited, all importers can appeal to the department for a review. The review process is an open one.
Under the minister's proposed new rules the old age security is gone. The guaranteed income supplement is going to be gone. The $3,500 seniors tax free allowance is gone and the $1,000 tax free pension income for seniors is gone.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us why he has killed these four pillars of financial security for seniors so that he can brag about his budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government by bringing in the new seniors benefit has brought in a benefit that is going to be fully indexed, a benefit that is going to be tax free and a benefit which will benefit 75 per cent of Canadian seniors, nine out of ten single women. It is a benefit that is going to target those who need it most, certainly people who will never vote for Reform.
(1455 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at the new seniors benefit that he is so proud of. If a senior only has a seniors benefit and the Canada pension plan, if that is all the senior has, the Minister of Finance would take back half the Canada pension plan. Let him tell us why that is fair.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true.
The main issue we should really address is why, with all of the problems and the opportunities this country has, the Reform Party has taken up all of question period with one goal in mind: to destroy the help that will be given to low income seniors and to destroy the Canada pension plan. What is it deep in the hearts of Reformers that would destroy the social security programs upon which Canadians rely? Why? It has been an hour of basic-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bellechasse.
On Tuesday, the Minister of National Defence finally admitted that he and his colleague in External Affairs had received a report concerning the allegations that a Quebec diplomat in Washington was spied upon by Canadian military attachés.
Out of a concern for transparency and in order to get to the bottom of this matter, is the minister prepared to make that report public?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would simply refer the hon. member to the reports that appeared this morning where the lawyer for Mr. Keener who had made that allegation said that the allegation was simply false. That should clear up the point which we made in the House, that this whole allegation was absurd. Now the lawyer of the person who said it in the first place has said that it simply is absurd.
Since the minister knows, perhaps he can tell us why no military police were sent to investigate the March 4 shooting, or why Major
Armstrong's medical report was ignored. Perhaps he can tell us whether Bob Fowler really did blackmail Kim Campbell and whether generals interfered with an investigation.
Since the minister knows the answers, will he tell Canadians what they are? If not, why is he so determined to avoid learning the truth?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course the elements that are raised by my hon. friend are important. That is why the Somalia commission of inquiry has been working now for nearly two years. By the end of June, after three extensions, it will have caused some $25 million to have been spent.
With respect to the specific incidents that occurred in Somalia which the hon. member refers to, I hope that after all of this work the conclusions and the recommendations of the Somalia commission of inquiry will be useful to all Canadians, including the hon. member and the government.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what is Canada's reaction to this latest outrage and to human rights abuses that continue in Iran?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of the government and all Canadians that these decisions are simply outrageous and we have to do everything we can to try to counter them.
I will be meeting this afternoon with representatives of the Baha'i community to talk about how we might work together with them to respond. I have written to the foreign minister of Iran to say that this should be stopped. I will be in contact with the president of the European Union to see if we can mount a common front against what is really an outrageous situation. I can promise the hon. member we will do everything we can to stop these actions.
Given that the minister says he wants to help the children of Canada's working poor, why is he actually taking money away from them?
(1500 )
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is absolutely wrong. No child in this country will receive less money this year than they received last year. That is absolutely clear.
Some people wished to be transferred from a per family to a per child situation. One child families will still receive more money, not as much as we had hoped and was promised in the earlier budget, but they will receive more money than they did last year. It is a matter of fairness to go to a per child situation instead of per family.
We are doing a good job for next year's national child benefit.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, starting tomorrow the government will call the report stage of Bill C-71, the tobacco bill; Bill C-66, the labour code amendments; and Bill C-67, the competition legislation.
We would also like, at an early date, to complete second reading of Bill C-46, the Criminal Code amendments, and Bill C-49, the administrative tribunals bill.