[Translation]
A great many major cultural and sports events take place in Quebec, and the government, through its bill, which places very serious limitations on sponsorships, is going to deal a fatal blow to the sports, cultural and economic life of Quebec.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister realize that, if his government goes ahead with its bill, there will be no television coverage next weekend of the Australian Grand Prix,
or of any other grand prix later this season, and that the health minister's bill will mean the end of the Montreal Grand Prix, something Quebecers can never accept?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we introduced a bill that was supported by the official opposition party.
I could point out a number of the members' concerns. I could say that the whole purpose of this bill is to protect the health of young people. I believe that the age at which people take up smoking is lower in Quebec than elsewhere.
We are not banning all forms of advertising. We are proposing regulations making it possible to operate under stricter rules, so as to mitigate the effects. The minister's bill is being considered by the House of Commons. We have made a few concessions to accommodate people. The government's concern, however, is to ensure that the health of Canadians and of Quebecers is properly protected.
In this connection, I quote Quebec's health minister, Mr. Rochon, who said: ``It is a step in the right direction''. He told the press: ``Sponsorship is subliminal advertising. It is a very powerful way of encouraging consumption of the product, particularly by young people''.
With this in mind, we must focus on people's health, and try to work out an arrangement in so far as possible. There were restrictions with respect to sports events throughout the world.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can leave Jean Rochon in Quebec City. We are speaking to the federal government, to the federal health minister, to the Prime Minister himself, because he is the one jeopardizing the very existence of most of the major cultural and sports events, which are held primarily in Quebec. That is what we are talking about.
Yes, it is true that the opposition supports the principle of limiting tobacco consumption, but the advertising measures are going to jeopardize culture and sports. And that is what we are against.
Can the Prime Minister turn a deaf ear to the militant members in his own Liberal Party who met in Quebec over the weekend and expressed their concern about the fate reserved for cultural and sports events, and who spoke critically of the health minister's bill to the responsible ministers in the Quebec government? Can the Prime Minister turn a deaf ear even to the federal Liberals from Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we spoke with those involved, they asked us for more time. The legislation was to take effect immediately in December, and we decided to grant an extension until October 1998, in order to give the organizations in question time to adjust.
Mr. Crête: They are not happy.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Listen, Mr. Speaker, I am being asked to accommodate people, to help. We are saying that the deadline will be October 1, 1998 in order to help those affected make the adjustment. The legislation was to take effect on the date it was passed by Parliament. It is a bill that opposition members supported. They voted in favour of it. But they are behaving like political opportunists and no longer care right now about the health of Quebec's young people.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is showing his ignorance of the Standing Orders.
Some hon members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would simply like to ask you not to use too many words that could be construed-
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. Ignorance means that one does not know. I will put it another way. It is scandalous that, after 30 years in Parliament, the Prime Minister does not understand that it is possible to vote in favour of a principle at second reading, because that is what is being voted on at second reading, and against a bill at third reading, because we do not like the means being proposed. That is what I meant.
The fact is that the same minister who wanted to ban raw milk cheese because it was a risk to people is now presenting us with a bill that makes no sense.
I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a minister or a Liberal member from Quebec who will rise on that side of the House to defend Quebec and Quebec's interests? Let him rise so we can see him.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the very reason we agreed to give two years to the group in question so it could adjust to the situation.
When the bill was introduced, it was to take effect this year. Because of the representations made, we allowed a one year extension. We have not completely banned sponsorships by the tobacco companies. We have compromised in this connection. They can still advertise. There will be regulations allowing them to advertise in certain locations.
But one thing is important, and that is that we must look after the health of young people. It is not acceptable to have an attitude-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Either we do something, or we do not. The fact is that the opposition party does not have the courage to say that it puts the health of young Quebecers, of young Canadians, first.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are ways of discouraging smoking and improving the health of our young people, without at the same time jeopardiz-
ing the future of cultural and sporting events. It is like chewing gum and walking at the same time, some people just cannot do it.
A number of cultural and sporting events are in danger. The Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, the jazz festival, the Benson and Hedges fireworks, the Just for Laughs festival, the Quebec summer festival, the Montreal international tennis championships.
Does the Prime Minister realize that all of these events are now in jeopardy because of this bill, which the Montreal Chamber of Commerce labels as fundamentalist legislation by the ayatollahs of tobacco?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can well understand my colleague's concern for support of the arts and cultural groups in this country.
As the hon. member and as his colleague fully know, there is no banning of sponsorship promotion. There is a restriction of sponsorship promotion.
It would be nice in this House if members of the official opposition could stand in their places and voice their concerns, as they have on this issue, when it comes to the health and care of young children in this country. I wish they would stand with children on this issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if there were a Grand Prix on the Cabot Trail, the Ayatollah from Nova Scotia would sing a different tune.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1425)
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would ask you to take great care with your choice of words. Would my hon. colleague please ask his question?
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which one you were referring to, but I will go on.
Thousands of jobs are at stake, in Montreal alone. This means hundreds of millions of dollars in economic spinoffs jeopardized by a bad decision by this government.
Outside of all the verbiage by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health, what does the Prime Minister have to say today to the thousands of people who will end up unemployed because of this bill, which goes beyond what its objectives ought to be, of reducing tobacco use, rather than doing away with Montreal's sports and cultural events, as this government is doing its darndest to do?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing what a leadership campaign is all about.
The hon. member opposite forgets to put a few facts on the table: 40,000 lives each and every year from tobacco consumption; over 14,000 in the province of Quebec. I ask the hon. member opposite and the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois to stand up for once and support the young people and the children of this country.
They want to know why, though, when it comes to the Canada pension plan they have to pay more for less, 73 per cent more. They want to know why 10 per cent of their salary is only going to get them $9,000 a year through CPP when the same amount invested in the safest RRSP would get them $26,000 a year. That is nearly three times more than with the Canada pension plan.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he rip off young Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that young and middle aged Canadians will have some support when the time comes for them to retire. They have contributed for years to this plan and the Reform Party wants to get rid of it. All those who have paid into the plan for years will lose money if we do not intervene at this time.
However, the Reform Party is always happy to ensure that the rich will be better off and the poor will pay.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would say somebody who opted out of the MP pension plan hardly has a guarantee of being rich down the road. Therefore I have a vested interest in making sure that the Canada pension plan or something like it is going to work for Canadians when they get old.
He says that he wants to make sure that young Canadians will have some support. I agree with that but I think they should have more than some support. Let us get them into private RRSPs so they can get a lot more than just some support. Older Canadians will also feel the pinch.
Under the Liberal plan a self-employed couple aged 60 will pay an additional $4,436 in CPP premiums and get $1,000 less for it when we factor in the Liberal clawback of the new seniors benefit.
I again ask the Prime Minister how can he rip off older Canadians by asking them to pay more for less?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a program that was organized by the federal government with all the provincial governments. This is an agreement that was signed with the provincial governments, the government of Mr. Klein in Alberta and the government of the premier of Ontario.
All the governments are telling the Canadian people that the Canadian pension plan is needed for the future. There is unanimous consent in the land. There is only the Reform Party that has some very funny goals about preserving the future for the younger generation.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister talks about unanimity in the land I have heard that phrase somewhere before in this Chamber and it just blew up in their face in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
This government has a real double standard when it comes to pensions. The Prime Minister is asking Canadians to pay more for less but he certainly is not making the same demand on his MPs. Canadians are being asked to pay 10 per cent of their pay cheques for a measly $9,000 in Canada pension plan pensions.
(1430)
The Liberal members opposite, and of course those others who have put into the MP pension plan, are paying 10 per cent of their pay cheques but they are going to get $40,000 plus in MP pensions.
Let me ask the Prime Minister this. How can he rationalize asking Canadians to pay more for less when Liberals pay less for more and continue to enjoy their lavish gold plated pension plan?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to believe what the Reform Party has proposed on that score it would cost workers 15 per cent of their income to meet the goals it has in mind.
We are making sure, because we are acting now, that it will not be 12, 13 and 14 per cent but it will be 10 per cent, and that will guarantee to the Canadian people that by the year 2020 we will have a Canada pension plan. This is what the Canadian people want. It is what the provincial governments want. It is what the Canadian people will get.
Faced with Liberal militants who were worried about the survival of cultural and sports events, the Minister of Labour, who is also responsible for the Liberals' election campaign in Quebec, said on the weekend that after tobacco, his government might consider alcohol, to the horror of the President of the Treasury Board who took his arm and motioned him to stop talking. It is unbelievable how far removed this government is from reality.
Does the Prime Minister realize that by letting his Minister of Health, his Minister for Nova Scotia, a man who does not know anything about the economic situation in Quebec, go on like this, his government is turning on a sector that is in good shape in Quebec at the present time? Why is the minister attacking what works in Quebec? Is it because, in the final instance, the Prime Minister is upset when Quebec is doing well?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to repeat that we are not taking away the possibility of advertising. We are making regulations to ensure it has the least possible impact on young people in Quebec, those who are most at risk.
It is reported that the average age at which people start to smoke regularly in Quebec is 14. In Quebec, people start to smoke at an earlier age than anywhere else in the country. That is why we are taking steps to try to protect young people against the dangers of starting to smoke at too early an age.
Events can still be held. Advertising will be regulated as it is in France. As the U.S. President said in his State of the Union message a few weeks ago, he intends to do the same. Above all, we must protect the health of our young people. In Canada some advertising will be allowed, although some countries are going to prohibit advertising altogether.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is so keen on going ahead with this bill because he wants to save his party and the minister who urged people to vote against the Liberals if the legislation was not passed before the next election. That is the real problem.
Will the Prime Minister agree that his minister's stubbornness is not about health and very much about political concerns?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau said that by voting in favour of this bill at second reading, the official opposition agreed with its objectives, and more specifically with protecting the health of young people under 18.
On December 5, 1996, the hon. member for Lévis said: ``Since we agree with most of the government's objectives regarding a reduction in health costs associated with tobacco use, we will support the bill''. And so on and so forth.
The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies said that on the other hand, it was obvious that sponsored cultural and sports events as such were safe pursuits that might even encourage young people who wanted to smoke to engage in sports activities.
It was the members opposite who told the Minister of Health in December to go ahead. Today, for purely electoral reasons, without any consideration for protecting the health of young Quebecers, they have changed their minds. Quebecers know that the health of young people is important.
[English]
My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Last Friday the President of the Treasury Board inferred that increasing annual Canada pension plan premiums $1,300 per employee will prevent the program from going broke.
Will the minister now promise Canadians that there will be no further increase in Canada pension plan premiums and that there will be no further decreases in Canada pension plan benefits?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party's numbers are usually wrong and they are again in this question. Reformers have not stated how they are going to pay the millions of current seniors or the people over the age of 50 who are dependent on the Canada pension plan for future benefits. How are they going to pay them with their plan?
Their plan will not provide disability or children's benefits. Their plan will not provide a drop-out provision. It will not provide indexation. They will put all the risks in the hands of the workers.
Their pension plan is not the pension plan we have in the Liberal Party. We will support the Canada pension plan and the provinces will support the Canada pension plan.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not fooled by this. When the Liberals are asked a reasonable question and stand up and respond with rubbish and prevarication we can see right through it.
A tax by any other name is still a tax. The Minister of Industry referred to Canada pension plan premiums as a payroll tax. The Minister of Finance has said payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation.
My question to the Prime Minister is how many jobs will be killed by the $10 billion job killing Liberal payroll tax grab?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is their plan will require people to put money into an RRSP.
How many jobs will that kill? It will kill a lot more jobs than the 15 per Canada pension plan. It is a pension plan, an investment plan. They do not understand the difference between a tax and an investment in a pension plan.
Last Friday, the federal government revealed its argument in its reference to the Supreme Court. As always, the language is irresponsible and provocative. All it is capable of doing, in fact, is subscribing to the opinion of an expert, who holds that, and I quote: ``The only way for an entity to secede unilaterally is by traditional means, which involves winning a war of independence, as did Bangladesh-''.
Will the minister acknowledge that his government is acting irresponsibly in taking an extremist position and raising the spectre of civil war?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to point out once again why the Government of Canada sought the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would remind the hon. member that the stance taken by the PQ government of Quebec has made this necessary.
The attorney general of Quebec has denied the role of the courts and the Constitution in this debate. As the attorney general of Canada, I have the responsibility of maintaining and protecting the role of the courts and the Constitution. So, the reference to the court has brought out fundamental issues in order to resolve these disputes.
(1440)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the minister failed to answer this question, which, nevertheless, is in his brief. That is quite distressing.
In its arguments, the federal court also contends that a constitutional amendment would be required for Quebec to declare independence. I would like to understand, for it is vitally important.
Is the Minister of Justice telling us that, if a majority of Quebecers vote in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, a province like Prince Edward Island, which has at best 93,000 voters, could block the democratic will of over five million Quebec voters?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the brief we presented Friday afternoon, including the experts' opinion, sets out the federal government's position on the three questions before the courts.
The experts' opinions support our position, which is that, under both national and international law, a government does not, as the PQ government of Quebec claims, have the right to unilaterally declare the separation of a province from a democratic and independent state.
In a letter written by General Boyle on March 21, 1996, prior to his testimony at the Somalia inquiry, he declared that the inquiry should not investigate the issue of high level cover-up. Boyle said don't investigate and, surprise, the minister shut down the inquiry before the commissioners could investigate the issue of cover-up.
Out of all people, why did the minister accept and implement Boyle's advice? How can the minister explain that?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to a letter allegedly written by Jean Boyle in which he said: Do not investigate the cover-up. If the hon. member would send me a copy of the letter I would be happy to respond to the question, and specifically to the quote to which he has just referred.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government should have disqualified Boyle's advice because he was a witness before the inquiry. Boyle wanted the inquiry shut down. The government accepted and implemented Boyle's advice. This defence minister shut down the Somalia inquiry.
Canadians want to know what the government is hiding.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to be very honest with the hon. gentlemen, as I say, I will look at the letter when he sends it to me in which Jean Boyle said ``do not'' or ``do'' shut down the inquiry, whatever the quote was.
However, in the time I have been Minister of National Defence, General Boyle did not have much time to give me much advice.
The merging of two major pulp and paper companies, Abitibi Price and Stone Consolidated, resulted in the creation of that industry's largest company in the world, with sales in excess of $4 billion. However, despite the fact that the majority of plants and workers of this new conglomerate are in Quebec, there is still no guarantee that the corporation's head office will be in Montreal.
Can the minister tell us if his government made representations to convince the new company's senior management to maintain its Canadian head office in Montreal?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a strange question, given that the Treasury Board does not have a say as to where companies set up their head offices.
I should tell the hon. member that, in our system, this decision is up to the companies themselves. They are the ones that decide where they will set up their head offices. This is what will happen in this case.
(1445)
Mr. Bellehumeur: How reassuring.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we understand that the President of the Treasury Board is also the minister responsible for Quebec, and we are concerned as to whether he is protecting Quebec's interests.
On October 22, the Prime Minister made the following comment before the Montreal Chamber of Commerce: ``Through work, and 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, when the time comes to provide concrete support to Montreal's economy, the government will not do anything but resort to empty rhetoric?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are protecting Quebec's interests by creating jobs, as we do when
we invest in Bombardier or Pratt & Whitney. We are helping Quebec by providing good government at the federal level, thus lowering interest rates and increasing investments in that province.
We are providing good government, precisely to help Quebecers overcome the uncertainty generated by the opposition's stand on the issue of separation. What creates problems in Quebec is the fact that the opposition spends all its time promoting sovereignty, thus increasing economic uncertainty in Quebec and reducing the number of jobs. Quebec's real interests lie in good government.
Presently representatives from 150 countries are meeting in Bonn to draft an accord aimed at reducing global emissions of carbon dioxide. Apparently Canada has said that it will not meet the target of stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000.
Can the minister say what she plans to do to meet both the carbon dioxide reduction commitment made by Canada under the climate change convention and the further reductions promised in the red book in view of the fact that voluntary efforts are proving to be insufficient?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is timely, considering that starting tomorrow in Bonn, the world's nations will begin another series of negotiations in relation to the challenge of global warming.
Let me assure the hon. member that my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and I announced 45 new or enhanced measures when we met with our provincial colleagues in Toronto in December. Those measures include things like green power procurement in federal buildings, enhanced energy efficiency regulations for appliances and small engines.
However, the hon. member is right that is will be very hard for us as a nation to achieve the stabilization goals. But by working with other stakeholders like the provinces, industry and environmental groups, ours is a record of which we can be proud. Ours is a record that reflects momentum and we will continue to work on this difficult global problem.
Why does the Minister of Health not just put up a sign on every closed hospital that says: ``This closure courtesy of the Liberal Party of Canada?''
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the thesis promoted by members of the third party is totally inaccurate.
If one were to read the comprehensive report of the national forum, a body which was appointed by the Prime Minister, it clearly said that Canada has the second most expensive health care system in the world, that our health care system is not underfunded, and that the problems with our health care system have more to do with management than anything else.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister missed one little fact from the health care forum. The Liberals are going down to $11.1 billion, but the forum said to keep the funding at $12.5 billion, which is quite a difference.
The hospital closures are a direct result of the 40 per cent in cuts. The Liberals promised to save medicare. What did they deliver? Hospitals closing.
Why does every hospital not put up a great big brass plaque which states: ``This closure courtesy of the Liberal Party of Canada?''
(1450 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member from the Reform Party is somewhat negligent with the facts.
As a result of the economic policies of the government, we have saved provincial treasuries in excess of $1.6 billion on interest rates alone. In addition, for this fiscal year we have provided the provinces $8.6 billion in revenues for equalization.
Because of the Minister of Finance's budget of not this year, but last year, the government has provided not only a cash floor but a minimum of $25.1 billion to the provinces for the purposes of social programs.
These last few weeks, the media have reported several cases of cloning using adult animal cells. Everyone has been able to see the results of a cloning experiment carried out by Scottish researchers
on a sheep called Dolly. Many experts have serious concerns about the possibility of human cloning.
Does the minister recognize that this is a matter of great urgency, given the tremendous progress made in research, and that he must amend the Criminal Code as soon as possible to prohibit human cloning?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question because it is a serious and a substantive one.
Members will recall that we introduced legislation to deal with the very subject matter to which the hon. member referred. It is in committee at the present time. The legislation has two phases, phase one and phase two. If we could get the co-operation of the various political parties I am certain we could move in a very expeditious way to have that legislation pass through the House of Commons as well as the upper house.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice undertake to act before the next election and amend the Criminal Code in order to prohibit human cloning, in which case he will have the full support of the official opposition to quickly pass such an amendment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the substance and the purpose of the bill to which I referred is to address the kinds of concerns that he has raised.
I only hope that members can focus on this subject matter in a non-partisan way and have it passed expeditiously in the House so that the kinds of fears that he has raised will not continue in this country at least.
Is the government unwilling to defend the country's unity and sovereignty and demand that the French government stop supporting Quebec separatists?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are aware that some consideration is being given to a stamp of President de Gaulle but no decision has been taken. The hon. member should tone down his rhetoric and his inflammatory remarks until we get a full explanation.
We have been in touch with officials of the French government to ask for information and an explanation. As soon as we receive that we would be very glad to inform the hon. member.
Once again the Reform Party is jumping the gate too quickly. It should not draw conclusions until the proper information is received. I know the Reform Party does not like to be confused by the facts but in this case we prefer to know exactly what is going on.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this sounds very much like what was said during the referendum: be happy, keep quiet, do not say anything.
The Prime Minister just completed a visit to France and he said that relations have never been better. Is this stamp an example of the relationship getting better? Will the Prime Minister stand up for Canada? Will he stop catering to the separatists and will he call the French ambassador in and tell him to butt out or get out?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have been accused of being on the side of the separatists.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1455 )
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I can see the leader of the separatist party smiling. He has never been my biggest problem.
We will wait for the facts. What the Minister of Foreign Affairs said is reasonable. There are rumours about it. There are a lot of rumours about the Reform Party too but we do not believe them all the time.
[English]
I am concerned because the province of British Columbia has announced that it will withdraw from the agreement concerning the free flow of goods and services between Canadian provinces. This is at a time when all of Canada, especially the economy of B.C., is benefiting from freer trade.
Would the minister comment on how he thinks B.C. businesses will be affected by this decision when trying to enter into contracts in other provinces?
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 issue to which the member refers is the announcement by the province of British Columbia that it will not proceed with
negotiations to extend the application of the internal trade agreement to municipal governments as well as schools, hospitals and administrative agencies of its government.
As was agreed in 1994 when the federal government and the provinces signed the internal trade agreement, it was foreseen that we would complete negotiations to extend that chapter within a year. The third anniversary is now approaching.
This decision is regrettable from the point of view of the benefits that could be enjoyed by British Columbia taxpayers if procurement were opened to firms from other parts of Canada. It is also regrettable because other provinces may choose not to extend the benefits of the agreement to firms based in British Columbia.
It is my hope that the Government of British Columbia, which entered into this agreement in good faith and negotiated by the current premier of the province, will reconsider its position.
Can the minister tell the House if the government intends to continue supporting the research and prevention activities undertaken as part of the national AIDS strategy after March 31, 1998?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes. we have embarked on a consultation process with various stakeholders, including the advisory group to the minister, on the issue of AIDS and the difficulties that it provides our citizens.
We were hoping to raise the matter in a larger forum with provincial governments as well. As the hon. member knows, funding for the second phase is not due to terminate until March 1998. We have some time in which to line things up in the proper way.
We are giving careful and due consideration to the suggestions that a variety of groups are making, including the hon. member opposite.
Liberal proposals continue to do nothing to prevent children from being commandeered by adults for sex. It is no accident that the average age of recruitment for prostitution is 14. What will the justice minister do to protect our most vulnerable citizens? When will he raise the age of consent from 14 to 16?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have done a wide variety of things with respect to children being exploited through prostitution. One of the issues, but only one of them, is the issue of age.
For example, we put before the House legislation which would impose mandatory minimum penitentiary terms on those who serve as pimps for children in prostitution. It is legislation that will make a difference.
We have worked in concert with provincial attorneys general and authorities throughout the country in a co-ordinated effort to crack down on child prostitution.
(1500)
On those occasions when I visited cities throughout Canada I have driven with the police in their cars. I have seen the tragic sight of children working the streets as prostitutes. I have conferred with those in the provinces who are working with the social services because this is more than just a matter of criminal law.
I use this occasion to say to the hon. member that I fully share her objectives. We have taken concrete legislative and policy action against children in prostitution and I urge her to join us in those continued-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Mackenzie.
During the government's move to deregulate the branchlines in our railway system it assured Canadians who lived on those branchlines that the loss of protection to the year 2000 would not matter because they could set up short lines to provide their own service.
We are now finding out that the railways and the elevator companies seem to have an alliance whereby the lines will not be sold without the condition that no grain will move on them.
What does the government plan to do to offset this, now that it has set this program in motion? How will these communities be able to use their short lines if no elevators can be situated on their rights of way?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new Canada Transportation Act is at least in part to shift the emphasis away from what used to be a policy of branchline abandonment as the only game in town toward a new policy where at least there is the alternative of considering seriously a short line operation where it makes economic sense to do so.
In my province, which is also the hon. gentleman's province, it would be a big help to the short line industry if the provincial NDP government would change the law with respect to successor rights so short lines could exist in Saskatchewan.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.