On one hand, the spokesperson for Health Canada says that the bill does not prohibit broadcasting of the Australian Grand Prix and other Grand Prix racing events of the season. On the other hand, according to Normand Legault, who has the TV broadcasting rights for the Formula I race, and I quote: ``If the bill is passed, Grand Prix events will not be broadcast because cigarette brands sold in Canada appear on the cars and the drivers''.
Can the minister tell us whether under the provisions of the bill, it will be possible to televise the Australian Grand Prix on the weekend and whether broadcasts of other Grand Prix events will be allowed, even if the cars carry a logo or brand of a tobacco product?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fully understand the position of the hon. member opposite.
Perhaps he might reflect on the fact that the bill presently before the House has not been passed. How can the member opposite make a conclusion when the legislation has not been passed?
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for someone who in a newspaper referred to legislation as though it had already been passed to say today that since the bill has not been passed, he cannot answer, verges on the frivolous.
Today we will vote on the bill at third reading. Under this bill, will it be possible to broadcast the Australian Grand Prix and other Grand Prix events, yes or no-the question is clear-since his bill happens to deal with these matters? I would ask the minister to be responsible enough to answer my question now.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has attempted over the last number of months to be extremely candid with the hon. member opposite. I hope he and members of his party will start to be responsible in terms of the information contained in the bill.
Just so that the hon. member fully understands-and this is about the fifth time people have had to clarify it-I ask him to listen very attentively. Before and after October 1, 1998 the legislation-and I want to be careful here-will not prohibit the broadcasting of sporting events originating in Canada and in other countries including Grand Prix racing.
Even representatives of the firms he stands to support and tries to speak on behalf of knew that information a long time ago.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the time frame referred to by the minister does not apply to one clause, and if I could say it is clause 31, I would, but I will not, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Please put your question now.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, if it is true that this clause is protected by this time frame, to put it in writing and say so-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Lévis.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1420)
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would rather the bill not be mentioned at all, but, after questions were raised a few days ago, I reviewed all the questions. Since none dealt directly with the bill, I allowed them.
I would also ask that, in their answers, the ministers not refer to the bill or any of its parts. If answers could remain general in nature, it would be best, much better than referring directly to clauses after saying they would not be mentioned and then mentioning them again.
That is my decision. The hon. member for Lévis.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
I find it ironic that, on the one hand, the minister claims to want to protect the health of young people in Quebec and Canada, while, on the other hand, the primary effect of his anti-tobacco policy will be to jeopardize the future of events such as the film festival, which gives young creators a chance to make themselves known, show what they can do and get their career off the ground.
Does the minister recognize that his policies banning the sponsorship of cultural events may well result in denying young artists important opportunities to launch their career?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble of the hon. member's question is absolute nonsense. The hon. member knows that the full intent and purpose of that legislation are health related.
The hon. member also knows, as do all the groups in his province and elsewhere to which he has referred, that sponsorship is not being banned, that sponsorship promotion is not being banned and that after the implementation period there will be no banning of promotion and no banning of sponsorship promotion.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us approach the issue from a different angle. The government is attacking sporting and cultural events in Quebec, while continuing to support tobacco research in Ontario.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dubé: How can the minister claim his sole focus is health, when his government is still subsidizing, through Agriculture Canada, experimental research on tobacco growing?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know that in 1996-97 the funding for research was down some 90 per cent compared with the level it was at in the mid-1980s. That research, which involves about one and a half person-years, is focused on agronomic matters which have absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of tobacco production. Our emphasis is on diversification and assisting farmers in finding ways to get out of tobacco production.
The effects of these Liberal cuts are being felt today in Toronto with the announced closings of 10 hospitals, including the Wellesley and the Women's College hospitals. Ten hospitals are gone in Toronto, a dozen closed in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Pembroke, London and Ottawa, and behind it all, the Liberal Government of Canada.
(1425 )
How does the health minister propose to repair the damage that federal cuts to health care are doing in Ontario?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when a government is faced with a deficit the size of ours it has to cut. It cannot ignore 20 to 25 per cent of its spending which is transfers to the provinces.
The leader of the Reform Party referred to the $1.2 billion reduction in those transfers to Ontario. What he did not mention was the $500 million reduction in interest cost to that province as a result of the actions that the government has taken. Nor did he make a reference to the $4.5 billion tax cut that will reduce Ontario's revenues, three and a half times larger than the reduction in transfers.
In other words, he should understand that if hospitals are being closed in Ontario it is as a result of a political choice. Tax cuts are being made. I will not dispute them, but they are not the result of a reduction in transfers from the government.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, where was the health minister in all of this? This health minister clawed and scratched to get a couple of million dollars transferred from another riding to his riding but where was he when there was a $4 billion cut in health care?
There was a budget discussion in cabinet before the budget came down and a choice was made to subsidize businesses and corporations to the tune of $7 billion while cutting health care by almost $4 billion.
Why did the government choose to cut health care by almost $4 billion but continued to fund crown corporations and subsidize businesses to the tune of $7 billion? Where are the priorities of the Liberal Party?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, provinces across the country are cutting in a number of social areas. The fact that it is happening in Ontario is not the result of the reductions in transfers. It is the result of a political decision taken by that government.
At the same time the province of Alberta is declaring surpluses and cutting taxes. He cannot say that it is reductions in federal transfers when Alberta is cutting taxes and declaring surpluses.
The province of Saskatchewan began cutting and closing hospitals before this government took office. The statements of the Reform Party are nonsense and they do not bear any kind of examination.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government cannot avoid the fact that it had a choice and it chose not to cut subsidies to crown corporations and businesses and it chose to cut health care.
Thanks to the Liberal government, hospitals across the country are closing. Thanks to the Liberal government, waiting lists are longer. Over 170,000 Canadians are on waiting lists, and 45 per cent of them say they are waiting in pain. That is what the government's choice to cut health care and to continue to subsidize corporations and businesses through handouts has meant to Canadians.
When the government had a choice between corporate handouts and hospital closures, why did the government choose hospital closures?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party has not read two documents. The first document is the series of budgets brought down by this government. Subsidies to businesses have been cut by 70 per cent. Crown corporations have been privatized. The Canadian National Railway has been privatized. Air navigation has been privatized. The funding to crown corporations has been cut.
The Reform Party does not seem to understand that when we chose the priorities we put the money back into health care in this budget. We put the money into research and development. We put the money into education.
As well, there is a second document which Reform has obviously not had a chance to take a look at. It happens to be its own fresh start.
(1430)
Where does the leader of the Reform Party get the nerve to stand up in this House, having recommended over the last three years that old age pensions be cut further, that health care be cut further, that the basic social fabric of the country be cut further and then say that the first thing Reformers would do on taking office is cut the Canadian health and social transfer by a further $3.5 billion. That is what they said. Now stand up and justify it.
Yesterday, we learned that Serge L'Archer, a Quebec volunteer with the Canadian Centre for International Studies and Co-operation, was captured on Friday, in Niger, by Toubou rebels. When the incident occurred, Mr. L'Archer was with four local people at an oasis in the Sahara located 1,200 kilometres from Niamey, the capital of Niger.
Can the minister reassure this House and tell us, without any doubt, that Mr. L'Archer is safe?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, officials from my department and from the Canadian International Development Agency had a telephone conversation with
Mr. L'Archer. I personally had an opportunity yesterday to talk to Mr. L'Archer's sister. I telephoned her, at her house, to inform her of the communication between her brother and departmental officials.
It goes without saying that the Canadian government is demanding that those who are detaining this Canadian volunteer release him immediately, so that he can continue the good deeds and the humanitarian work that he is doing, as are all those who do this kind of work for the good of humanity.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that we did not get any information about whether Mr. L'Archer is safe.
Therefore, as a supplementary, I ask the minister whether he can tell us why Toubou rebels are holding Mr. L'Archer hostage and what demands have been made for his release.
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at this point we do not know why Mr. L'Archer is being held hostage.
Of course, there has been some speculation in the media. For example, some newspapers wrote that the rebels seized Mr. L'Archer to use him as a bargaining tool in their negotiations with the country's authorities. These are merely allegations reported by the media. The hon. member probably read these reports but, at this point, the Canadian government still has not met personally with Mr. L'Archer, who is being detained as an hostage. We managed to talk to him once and we are doing our best to reach him again.
Again, the Canadian government is demanding that those who are holding Mr. L'Archer hostage release him as soon as possible, so that he can continue his humanitarian work.
The new hospital closings in Ontario are being announced today. Yet the Liberal government continues to give, for example, $323,000 to the Canadian wine development program and $300,000 to friends at the Shawinigan Industrial Centre. It is straightforward. That money should be going back into hospitals.
Why does the Liberal government continue to waste health care dollars by subsidizing business and its corporate buddies instead of putting money into hospitals?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September 1993 the leader of the third party said that his party supported user fees or deductibles and would eliminate universality when it comes to health care.
On March 5, 1996 the leader of the third party was asked point blank his position on transfer payments. He said: ``There's going to have to be continued reductions in social transfers''.
We have just seen the fresh start that has been referred to by the Minister of Finance. In it another $3.5 billion cut is being advocated by the members of the third party. I wish they would stop the hypocrisy.
(1435 )
The Speaker: I would much prefer that we stay away from words like hypocrisy because it triggers reactions that we might not want to have. I would ask members to refrain from using that word and being very judicious in their comments.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the health minister voted for the Liberal cuts he voted for the closure of the hospital in Sudbury. He voted for the closure of the Wellesley. He also voted for a closure of the hospital in Thunder Bay.
Why does the health minister not stand up in the House of Commons and publicly admit that the cuts he voted for are closing hospitals across the land and they are in fact a Liberal legacy?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the unholy alliance continues with the Harris government in the province of Ontario. The hard core reality is that Canada has the second most expensive health care system in the OECD countries. As report after report have said, the issue is not one of funding, it is one of management.
The gall of the hon. member, to stand in his place and to suggest that we on this side are responsible when it was he and his party just one year ago that, by way of amendment put forward by the leader of the third party, was asking for additional cuts to transfer payments.
Early this week, we learned that the Liberal government has finally listened to reason and announced a six month moratorium
on removals to Algeria; a moratorium that the Bloc Quebecois has long been calling for.
In recent weeks, the media have been reporting daily on the extremely serious situation in Zaire. Now that it has finally seen the light in the case of Algeria, what is the government waiting for to announce a moratorium on removals to Zaire?
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Advisory Committee on Country Conditions for Removals monitors countries and decides and recommends to the government what action to take on different countries.
It recommended that there be some assistance with Algeria. That is why we requested that all removals to Algeria be suspended for a six-month period until CIC officials are in a position to assess more accurately the dangers.
Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan are three other countries which are covered in addition to Algeria. At this time Zaire is not a part of this list but it is being monitored very closely and the government will make a decision at the appropriate time.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in many respects, the situation in Zaire is worse than that in Burundi, Rwanda and Afghanistan. The government seems to be unaware that there is a civil war in Zaire and that even mercenaries that plagued Bosnia are apparently there.
How can the parliamentary secretary justify her government's failure to act and the continuation of removals to Zaire?
[English]
Ms. Maria Minna (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained many times that the advisory committee is monitoring the situation. A decision will be made at the appropriate time if it is deemed to be necessary. At this time it is not but the situation is being monitored very closely.
(1440 )
The health minister seems utterly indifferent to that fact and seems unable to see any connection between that and a reduction of $1.2 billion in transfers from the federal government to Ontario.
Does the federal health minister accept any responsibility at all for the hospital closures that are occurring in Ontario today?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite cannot have it both ways. One day he stands up and says to the Government of Canada ``you do not have any role to play with regard to the delivery of health care in this country, it is a provincial responsibility''. Now he stands in his place and says to the Government of Canada ``now you have a role to play in terms of the management of hospitals within provincial jurisdiction''.
The hon. member has to realize, and perhaps an early course or a quick course in constitutional law would allow him to understand, that this a provincial jurisdiction, a management decision which the province of Ontario had to make and it made that decision.
The question is does the Reform Party support Michael Harris in his closures of hospitals in the province of Ontario.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all members in the House know that the federal government has a responsibility with respect to funding of health care and the broad framework. It is the funding aspect that we are talking about.
We are wondering where this minister was in the prebudget discussions when the government decided to subsidize crown corporations and businesses to the tune of $7 billion a year and decided at the same time to cut health care by almost $4 billion.
Where was the minister when that decision was made? Why did he not stick up for health care in that circumstance, as he obvious did not?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite just does not get it. Does he support the Conservative Government of Ontario? In view of the fact that he has not taken a position, I can only assume that he does support the closure of hospitals in the province of Ontario. That is a decision that the Conservative government in the province of Ontario had to make, and it made the decision. I charge that the leader of the third party supports the decisions of Michael Harris in the province of Ontario.
[Translation]
Bill C-82, which amends the Bank Act, does not address the issue of globalization of markets and financial institutions. The government has formed the Baillie committee to look at these particular issues, but the committee will not be tabling its report until September 1998. Yet next month, on April 10, the World Trade Organization begins negotiations on this vital issue in Geneva.
What position will the government take in these negotiations, which begin in a few days, because in principle it does not expect the conclusions of the Baillie committee until 1998?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have taken some measures recently by introducing the legislation. We announced in a press release that we will be allowing foreign branching in Canada. That is something we have been pressured to do by various countries, including Britain and the United States.
We have answered that question by issuing a press release that we would be bringing legislation before the public within this year.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I put my question to the Minister of Finance, a senior minister, so that I would get a real answer. Because when we ask the secretary of state questions, he skates around, is so forthcoming that the financial community quakes in its boots. It is dreadful.
So I direct my question to the Minister of Finance, because billions of dollars are involved. The deregulation of financial institutions is involved. Can he table in this House, as quickly as possible in order to reassure the financial sector, the position the Canadian government intends to take in Geneva next April 10?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the position that the Government of Canada is taking in Geneva is made public, we will be happy to table it in the House.
In 1994 Canada contributed to a $50 billion U.S. international bailout package for Mexico. My constituents in Guelph-Wellington were concerned about Mexico's ability to repay Canada.
As vice-chair of the Canada-Mexico Parliamentary Friendship Association, my question for the minister is this. Has Mexico repaid Canada and did the rescue package work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the hon. member who has taken a great interest in this in her capacity as vice-chair of the Canada-Mexico parliamentary association.
As she knows, Canada contributed a currency swap facility of up to $1.5 billion as part of the overall international assistance package for Mexico in which the United States and the IMF obviously took a major role.
I am delighted to say that Canada was able to help Mexico when it ran into trouble with the peso in 1994. Our help has paid off. Inflation is down and the Mexican economy is growing again.
I am also delighted to say that Mexico has been able to repay the United States three years ahead of schedule. It is ahead of its repayment schedule to the IMF. And quite some time ago Mexico repaid Canada in full.
This is good news for Mexico, good news for Canada and good news for the world.
Another finance study dated March 13, 1996 called CPP premiums a payroll tax and said that they will reduce jobs. That is the third finance study at least that we have uncovered that contradicts its own minister.
Will the minister admit that his CPP tax hikes in fact are killing jobs, not creating them as he has hinted, and how many?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the advice that I have from the department dated approximately the same date, within about a month of the date that the member said, is that if the federal and provincial governments move quickly, which we have done, and take the steps that we did to improve the
overall financing and management of the fund, very clearly this, which was not a tax, would not be seen as a tax but as what it really is, a contribution to people's pensions.
The basic question that Reform members have to answer is this. Is it their intention to abandon current seniors and those who are about to retire? Is it their intention to renege on the $500 billion liability in the Canada pension plan? If it is not, how do they justify the 13 per cent increase in Canada pension plan contributions that will result from their plan?
How do they think, in that weird little mind where they do their own arithmetic, 13 per cent is lower than 9.9 per cent?
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister said that if the government moved quickly on this thing it would not be seen as a tax. Any Canadian who gets their T-4 in the mail this week is going to have a really hard time saying they do not see this as a tax when they see CPP premiums go up by 70 per cent. It is just ridiculous.
The minister's non-answers in the House day after day on this topic point to a very serious problem with this government, the issue of trust. The minister continues to ignore his own department and denies again and again that these payroll taxes are killing jobs.
Again, how many jobs will be killed by the CPP premium hike? How could Canadians trust this government with anything, let alone their cash?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to trust. One should talk about the obligations that a political party has to lay all the facts on the table when engaged in an important debate.
(1450 )
In the world of the super RRSP that Reform recommends, who will protect Canadians who are seriously injured and disabled and no longer able to work? There is $2 billion in the Canada pension plan to provide that money, none of it to be found in the super RRSP.
In the world of the super RRSP who will protect the person who has all of their money invested in the RRSP when the market suffers a major downturn just when they are about to retire?
In the world of the super RRSP who will protect the single parent or the mother who has to take maternity leave or the mother who decides to take some time off?
We learned recently that last year, on at least three occasions, Canadian customs officer stopped individuals trying to bring into the country hundreds of syringes containing bovine somatotropin.
In view of the fact that a Health Canada inspector has acknowledged how easy it is for dairy farmers to get this hormone, what action is the government contemplating to prevent it from entering Canada in large quantities and eventually finding its way into the dairy supply system and onto our plates?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will know, the responsibility for conducting the necessary scientific reviews in terms of health and safety matters rests with the department of health. The department of health is conducting its work and has been since about 1990. No decision has been taken, meaning that no notice of compliance has been issued. Accordingly, the laws of Canada stand in terms of preventing the importation and sale of rBST in Canada.
The responsibility for watching the border in terms of illegal importations or potentially illegal importations of course rests with Canada customs. They duly exercise their responsibilities and carry out their duties at the border to make sure that products which are not legal in Canada are not allowed into Canada.
We will always do our very best to enforce the law and maintain the health and safety of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is very optimistic, but this is not what is happening in the field.
Will the Minister of Agriculture commit to holding a public debate on the use of bovine somatotropin before it is allowed, should the study conducted by his department result in the licensing of this hormone?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has suggested is an interesting idea. In fact, a variation of that idea was put forward a couple of years ago by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The type of investigation, the type of debate, that the hon. gentleman has suggested was conducted before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food at least two years ago. The results of all of that are a matter of public record.
[Translation]
Could the minister tell us what the objectives of his mission are and what its impact on Quebec farmers and the agri-food industry in this province will be?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 1997 is Canada's year for Asia-Pacific and my agri-food trade mission to Japan and Indonesia is part of our ongoing Team Canada effort to build on our export success in that region of the world. Asia-Pacific is the fastest growing economic zone on the face of the earth and we have to be there vigorously and persistently to get our share of the trade action. That is what this mission is all about. It probably involves the largest ever Canadian agri-food trade delegation from the private sector and the provinces.
(1455)
In 1996 we set an all time record of $18.8 billion worth of export sales in agri-food, and this mission will make that total higher.
Will the Minister of Finance promise this House that he will introduce legislation now to clawback the MP pension plan on the same basis as the CPP?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of MP compensation is one that has been debated in this House. There are several different ways to go at it. When the government brought in its legislation it substantially cut the MP pension plan which had existed prior to the legislation. It did this in a number of ways. The cut approximates some 25 per cent to 30 per cent for certain MPs.
The basic issue is that we decided to go at it that way. Reform suggested that MP salaries should be doubled. We said no.
Nova Scotians, in particular those who lost their jobs when Ultramar shut down its refinery in 1994 in breach of its commitments, are outraged that the EDC would even consider helping this foreign company to dismantle its Canadian assets.
Will the minister insist that the EDC respect its legislative mandate and will he ensure that not one cent of taxpayer money goes to support this fire sale of the Ultramar refinery?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have sympathy for the position that many people in Nova Scotia have expressed with respect to the closing of this refinery. But it was to be closed some three years ago. It is no longer producing jobs for the people of Nova Scotia.
The package that the Export Development Corporation is looking into is much broader than that one refinery. It is looking at a package that will involve some 700 person years of employment for Canadians and some 150 person years of employment for Nova Scotians.
Notwithstanding all that, the matter will be examined at the next board meeting of the Export Development Corporation.
On February 18, amidst great pomp and circumstance, the Minister of Finance announced the creation of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, with the election only months away. Yet, with less than a month to go until the end of the fiscal year, the federal government has still not turned over to the Parc technologique du Québec métropolitain the promised $250,000 in funding.
The Government of Quebec, as well as the cities of Sainte-Foy and Quebec, have made their contributions to this complex. What is the federal government waiting for, and will it commit to paying over this promised funding, in its entirety, that is $250,000, within the next few days?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec City is indeed in the process of making an absolutely remarkable economic turnaround, and the Parc de développement technologique is one of the tools of development in the forefront of that turnaround.
(1500)
Nevertheless, the Parc owes is existence today in large part to the Canadian government, which believed in it and provided funding right from the start.
Now, concerning the Parc, which belongs to the Government of Quebec, it is true that its representatives have applied to the Canadian government, more specifically FORDQ, for funding. We are analyzing this request at the present time, and a statement of our position will be forthcoming shortly.
Two years ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II and people from all around the world thanked our vets for the role they played.
Since then the government has cut the last post fund. It has taken our vets out of the war museum and put in young people. It has even taken the poppy making industry away from them and privatized it.
Can you justify, Mr. Minister, how you are going to close Ste. Anne-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to put her question through the Chair.
Mrs. Wayne: Would the minister advise the House how the government can justify the closure of the Ste. Anne Veterans Hospital, taking 600 vets out of that hospital and putting them out into the community for there are no other rooms in any other hospital? Is this part of a $61 million cut to veterans affairs?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member. It must be spring; she is back.
As far as the question she has just posed, all the decisions that are being taken with respect to veterans take into account the service the hon. member has made reference to. We will try to make sure veterans who require help, whether it is in hospital or in other facilities, get the support they need from the Canadian people.
It is one of the reasons we believe Canadians from coast to coast to coast still have great confidence in the Canadian forces today, regardless of all the difficult things we are going through just because of the service of the veterans. We will continue to take care of veterans in the future as we have in the past to the very best of our ability.
All Canadians, and certainly young people in Nepean, are worried about getting a good education and then facing the prospect of not getting a good job.
Could the minister let the House know what is going on? What is he doing to create international opportunities for young Canadians?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that earlier today I announced my department's international youth internship program which is part of the government's youth employment strategy.
CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, will allow some 850 young Canadians the opportunity to work in developing countries in economic transition around the world, in partnership with the private, public and non-governmental organizations.
Young people are anxious to be involved. I am glad my department and our government will be giving them the opportunity to shape the future of Canada in the world.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I now want to provide the House with the weekly business statement.
This afternoon we will complete third reading of Bill C-71, the tobacco bill.
Friday, Monday and Wednesday shall be allotted days.
Next Tuesday we will consider Bill C-66, the labour code amendments, at third reading; Bill C-67, the competition bill, at second reading; Bill C-46, Criminal Code amendments, at second reading; and Bill C-49 regarding administrative tribunals at second reading.
(1505 )
A week from today it is my intention to call report stage of Bill C-32, the copyright bill.
My understanding is that it is incorrect for any member to refer to whether or not another member is in the House, and I ask that he withdraw.
The Speaker: In the response I could not discern anything about a member being or not being in the House, and because it was open to interpretation I did not intervene.
I indicate to all hon. members that statements like that are not welcome by members of the House. I hope we would refrain from making them in the future.