Can the Prime Minister tell us just what this money was used for?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly aware of the fact that the Government of Quebec-and I have in my hand a copy of the October 11 order in council-gave a total of $4.8 million to the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec headed by Yves Duhaime, the great friend of the new leader of the official opposition.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: And the Government of Quebec declared in this document: ``Whereas the government's objective and mission is to advance the cause of Quebec's sovereignty with the people of Quebec-'' This was how the government justified spending$4.8 million during the referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec hid nothing. If the member for Hamilton East would like to ask her friend Daniel Johnson to put these questions to the Government of Quebec in the National Assembly, let her do so.
She is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. She manages the public's money. If she could just answer a question from time to time.
Option Canada was incorporated on September 7, 1995. On September 24, 17 days later, the Department of Canadian Heritage gave it $1 million. The following October 2, the day after the writ was issued, with the referendum in full swing, Option Canada received another $2 million from Ottawa.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Duceppe: It is rare to see the federal bureaucracy act so quickly. Tell that to the artists who are still waiting to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Three million in four days is quite something. Does the Prime Minister not find it strange that his government gave millions of dollars in grants to an agency that had just been incorporated?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to stress the fact that, during the referendum, in an order in council dated October 11, 1995-and later we saw that there were other orders in council-the Government of Quebec handed over a total of $4.8 million to Yves Duhaime to promote the sovereignty of Quebec. This was by order of the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again, nothing was concealed in Quebec City. That does not seem to be the case here, however.
Mr. Loubier: It is hypocritical.
Mr. Duceppe: We ask the minister one question and she answers another; it is always the same. She is unable to carry out her responsibilities. Besides which, everything the Conseil de la souveraineté did, it did before the referendum period.
(1420)
But in this case, we do not know. And these grants in 1995-96 from the Department of Canadian Heritage to the Council for Canadian Unity, and its branch office Option Canada, represent22 per cent of the total envelope that was supposed to be set aside for organizations representing official language minority communities.
Does the Prime Minister not find it shocking that money set aside for assistance to official language minority communities in Canada was diverted like this to secretly fund the federalist forces in the no camp during the last referendum campaign, because these expenses were never declared? Even the president of the Council for Canadian Unity was unaware of the existence of Option Canada. It is hard to believe.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, its existence was so secret that it appeared in the public accounts under the name Option Canada. Big secret.
But if the member wants to focus on spending, when we see the difficulties of the Quebec economy right now, we would just like to point out what was spent by the Government of Quebec in connection with the referendum: secretary for restructuring, $9.4 million; regional commissions on the future of Quebec, $8.5 million; grants to the Conseil de la souveraineté, $4.8 million; mailings to all Quebecers during the referendum, $2 to $3 million; hiring firms of lobbyists, $0.5 million; money spent by the office of the chief electoral officer, $57.8 million. This comes to a total of $82.7 million, according to Le Soleil, which published this article when the referendum was over.
So, when a government has financial difficulties and spends a minimum of $82 million on a referendum, they could have put this towards improving the economy, something Quebec really needs.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
An official spokesperson for Heritage Canada said he had no idea what use was made of the funds the federal government gave to Option Canada. Claude Dauphin, one of the founding presidents of Option Canada and the Liberal candidate approached to run in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce indicates that these funds were not used to fund the no side of the referendum campaign.
What guarantees can the Prime Minister give us that the federal subsidy to the phantom Option Canada were not used in some way to subvert the Quebec referendum act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we followed the same route as the Conseil pour la souveraineté du Québec, which received $4.8 million from the Quebec government, but did not spend this money for referendum purposes.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, oddly enough, in addition to Claude Dauphin, the founding members of Option Canada also include three members of the Council on Canadian Unity: Michel Vennat, Jocelyn Beaudouin and René Lemaire.
Is this incest, to say the least-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Loubier: Yes, ladies and gentlemen.
Mrs. Venne: -the real reason Option Canada obtained millions of dollars barely a few days after its incorporation, without having to provide any accounting of the use it made of this money?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the extended family of the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois includes Yves Duhaime, who, obviously, with his sovereignist option received directly a total of $4.8 million before and during the referendum period for these purposes. It seems to me, that if we follow the same route as the Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec, we are acting according to the same rules as Mr. Duhaime.
(1425 )
Here are the facts: There are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, just like with Mulroney, and 800,000 people are moonlighting just to make ends meet. Our largest trading partner has an unemployment rate half of what ours is. Despite the $6 billion infrastructure program, employment in construction actually has dropped by 40,000 jobs. Canadians have had a $3,000 pay cut because of the 37 separate tax hikes by this government.
When is the light going to go on for the minister? When is he going to understand that taxes, taxes, taxes kill jobs, jobs, jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be interested in some of the economic indicators that came out this week.
Real merchandise exports increased 4.3 per cent in January. Manufacturing shipments rose 2.2 per cent in January. Retail sales increased 1.4 per cent in January. The help wanted index rose 1 per cent in February. Real gross domestic product and market prices grew 2.9 per cent annual rate in the fourth quarter. The fact is that Canada is on a roll.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is that many Canadians are on the dole.
Let us look at those job growth figures the government loves to boast about. There has been a 25 per cent increase in temporary jobs since 1989. For half of those entering the workforce since December 1995 the only job they could get was a part time job. Fifty-five per cent of the people who did find a job are self-employed and they are the ones the government is going to hit hardest with the massive CPP tax increase.
Can the minister explain how sucking $3,300 out of the pockets of the self-employed creates jobs? Why does he not admit that what he is really doing is killing jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. member complain about the 9.9 per cent CPP premium rate that was arrived at by the federal government and eight of the provinces which have joint stewardship over the plan when the plan put forth by the member's party called for a rate of 13 per cent to 14.2 per cent? How can the hon. member stand up here and complain about the Canada pension plan?
Will he say what his party's super RRSP will do for Canadians who have an automobile accident and are suddenly disabled? I will tell him. It will do nothing. It will put that person on the dole. What will Reform do for parents who need maternity leave? Our Canada pension plan protects them; Reform abandons them. What will the Reform do if there is a market crash? The Canada pension plan will protect them; Reform will abandon them. That is the problem: Reform abandons Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Reform's plan will give all Canadians better benefits at lower costs than the Liberal plan. The numbers the finance minister was quoting are probably from Liberia or Panama or somewhere else.
The government's jobless record for youth is absolutely pathetic: 16.9 per cent last month, up from 11.9 per cent in 1988, 12.7 per cent in 1990, a 40 per cent increase in joblessness for Canada's youth. As the last hired and the first fired they know the effects of job killing policies.
To quote the finance minister, payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation. Can the finance minister explain again how his $10 billion annual payroll tax hike is going to encourage jobs among our youngest Canadians? Can he explain how his job killing payroll tax is going to encourage businesses to hire more young people? We want an answer.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the Reform Party is so concerned about jobs, why did the leader of the Reform Party say in 1993 in Penticton that it would bring forth a financial plan that would cost the country jobs, not add jobs. That is what Reform members are prepared to run on. We have created 795,000 jobs in the private sector since we have taken office. That is 795,000 jobs more than Reform said it was capable of doing.
Look at the state of the country when we took office. Interest rates were going up, taxes were going up, the country was dispirited. As a result of the actions of this government and of Canadians, our interest rates are at an all time low. There is no longer a debate about rising taxes; the debate is about lowering taxes. The fact is there is hope in this land. Our exports are up, our inflation is down. Canadians know full well it is because we have confidence in them and Reform has confidence in nothing.
[Translation]
Yesterday, in response to my question on the compensation owed to Quebec for harmonizing the QST with the GST, the minister finally admitted that the compensation formula used is not designed to provide harmonization assistance but rather assistance to the Atlantic region. This clearly shows that his bad decision is politically untenable.
How can the Minister of Finance tell us today that he has found nothing better to do, to provide assistance to the Atlantic prov-
inces, than to dig into the pockets of Quebec taxpayers to subsidize the maritimes and help them better raid Quebec businesses?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stated unequivocally yesterday that mutual assistance between regions was an inherent part of the Canadian confederation. And, yes, helping a province or region through difficult times involves using taxpayers' money.
Let us not forget that Quebec's equalization payments come from the taxes paid by Canadians, as does the financial support to Quebec's aviation industry.
Looking at how Canada builds its strength, the hon. member should know that the regions are there to support one another. Therein lies Canada's strength, and it will continue to be a building block for Canada.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am always baffled when I listen to the Minister of Finance talk about what he has given to Quebec. We are paying $30 billion per year to the federal government. We are asking for what is ours. Nothing more.
Why does the Minister of Finance not take the advice of the three premiers who support Quebec on this? Why not, for once, be fair to Quebecers and give them the $2 billion he owes them?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained time and time again in this House that compensation was offered to those provinces whose loss in revenues resulting from tax harmonization exceeded 5 per cent.
I would like to quote some statistics now. In Quebec, in 1989-90, the sales tax brought in $5.1 billion in revenues. In 1990-91, the first year of the harmonized tax, $5.3 billion; in 1991-92, $6.1 billion; in 1992-93, $6 billion; in 1993-94, $5.5 billion; in 1994-95, $5.4 billion; in 1995-96, $5.6 billion.
Each year following harmonization, Quebec has brought in more money that before harmonizing. That is why, like some other provinces, Quebec is not getting any compensation.
What did the minister's parliamentary secretary say when the unemployment numbers were announced? He said: ``It is disappointing''. It is not disappointing, it is a tragedy. It is an absolute disgrace for people whose lives are being left in tatters because of the policies of this Liberal government. Will the Minister of Finance tell us when he is going to make a real commitment to job creation and family security by reducing taxes?
(1435)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that in our budget we dropped taxes by $2 billion over three years. We did it directly to help those Canadians who need the help.
We should understand that the debate between the Reform Party and ourselves is not over a desire to reduce taxes. Every single Canadian in this country, including every member of this caucus and this government, wants to reduce taxes. The issue is when and under what circumstances and at what cost.
Let us understand what Reform would do to reduce taxes. In order to reduce taxes and justify its tax cut, Reform will cut old age pensions by $5 billion. That is the difference between Reform's projections in its original budget and the projections it is making today. Reform members will cut equalization payments by $3 billion and will cut all kinds of people off in the seven receiving provinces. Reform has essentially said that it will cut the Canadian health and social transfer by $3.5 billion in order to justify its tax cuts.
In other words, the tax cut Reform is offering is a tax cut for the rich and it will eviscerate the programs that help the poor and the middle class in this country. We will not do that.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if you would give us the time, we could refute each and every one of those statements because they are not true.
The minister has no concern for the people who are worried about a missed mortgage payment and the desperation they feel when they go another month without a job. He has no concern for the pain of a taxpayer trying to explain to his children that the government can take his taxes but it cannot give him a job and that his little kids have to go without their soccer and hockey practices because they cannot afford it.
Canadians are feeling a lot of pain and the minister has nothing new to offer to them. In all good conscience, how can he preach about an improved economy and how his policies are going to deliver a better life when 1.5 million Canadians have no jobs and millions more are struggling to put food on the table and trying to make ends meet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this government, in fact there is no right thinking person in this country who is happy with the level of unemploy-
ment. The fact is that there is great pain and suffering out there. Young Canadians are looking for jobs.
We ought to understand the different approaches the respective parties are taking. We have created over 790,000 jobs in the private sector. At the same time it is important to understand that since we have taken office we have created 550,000 full time jobs.
I can tell this House exactly what Reform policies would lead to. Now that we have seen very clearly that the Conservatives are battling the Reform for bragging rights over the extreme right wing, let us look at what happened under its administration. Reform policies as practised by the Tory party: compared to the 550,000 jobs that we have created, in the last Tory mandate it lost 150,000 full time jobs. That is what these guys would do.
On February 6, I asked the minister about replacing the Magdalen Islands ferry, but he would only say that the ferry service between the islands and P.E.I. would be maintained, without specifying what he will do with the $30 million budget that he has had available for more than two years, but has yet to use.
Will the Minister of Transport confirm, without beating around the bush, that his government is about to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery with the old Princess of Acadia to provide ferry service for the Magdalen Islands, and that his government has therefore decided not to buy the Irish ferry Island of Inishmore?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's position is very clear. It is the position which I explained to the hon. member a few weeks ago. We will replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery as soon as we find another ferry that will not cost the taxpayers anything over and above the $30 million mentioned by the hon. member.
(1440)
The Lucy Maud Montgomery has undergone safety inspections, as well as maintenance and repair work. It will be ready to serve the people of the Magdalen Islands when service resumes, in April.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is currently assessing the condition of the Princess of Acadia and it is no secret that he is about to try to dump that ferry on the people of the Magdalen Islands, with a big red ribbon, on the eve of the election.
An hon. member: It is an old tub.
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): Is the minister waiting for the election campaign to finally find a safe and lasting solution, or is he waiting until after the election to give the bad news to the people of the Magdalen Islands?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just said to the hon. member, we want to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery with a boat that will cost less than the $30 million we set aside.
We are indeed looking at various options, but a decision has yet to be made. In the meantime, I can tell the hon. member that the Lucy Maud Montgomery is in good shape and that it has been properly maintained.
Why will the Minister of National Defence not treat our troops properly, fairly and with respect? Why will he not give them their long overdue pay raises? Why will he not do what is right?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member does not do his party any service in the preamble to that question. No doubt the fate of the Canadian forces and their appropriate requirements to be cared for in an adequate way are some things that we have under active consideration.
The hon. member will know that we have asked the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to look into the people needs of the Canadian forces. There will be an in depth study over the next few months to ensure that we respond to those needs.
In the interim I can tell the hon. member that I will be announcing some improvements in the situation for the Canadian forces next week. I only regret the Reform Party has not made any contribution to the process of reviewing the future of the Canadian forces.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, once again the minister is spewing forth typical Liberal rhetoric: strike up a committee, make a study, spend millions of taxpayers' dollars and wait for a report. That is the Liberal way.
Currently there are Canadian Armed Forces pay and benefit recommendations before Treasury Board. The defence minister is letting them collect dust while he drags his feet.
Why is the minister refusing to act on these recommendations? Why will he not give our military its long overdue pay increases? Why will the minister not just do what is right?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): This is pretty scary stuff, Mr. Speaker. I fear the hon. member speaketh with forked tongue.
Yesterday the hon. member and his party refused to co-operate in arranging for the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to travel across the country to meet with members of the Canadian forces to be able to see exactly what the people needs are in the Canadian forces. That is something I have done from coast, to coast, to coast. I have visited with the Canadian forces. They know there are needs they would like to have addressed.
Instead of spewing whatever it was that the hon. member has just got finished with, it is too bad he would not spew the truth some time and support the Canadian forces instead of yap about it.
The new human rights commissioner tabled her first annual report this morning. She criticizes the government's lack of constructive action in a number of areas, including the lack of follow up to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
(1445)
As regards foreign policy, does the Prime Minister, who still is refusing to raise the issue of human rights publicly on Team Canada trips, acknowledge that his government is much better at high-sounding rhetoric than practical action, as the Canadian Human Rights Commission argues?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the member has said is totally wrong. Each time I went to countries where there were human rights problems, I raised them-in China, in Indonesia and elsewhere. He cannot say we did not raise these issues abroad.
Today we received the commissioner's report, and we will note it carefully. We received a 4,000 page report from the commission on aboriginal peoples. The minister has already put a number of recommendations into effect. He was doing so in fact even before the commission report came out, because he was in contact with the heads of the commission.
The report has just come in. It is a very important report, and we have said it requires consideration and consultation, before a full policy may be proposed. We had already implemented several recommendations, before the publication of the report.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the least we can say is that when the Prime Minister raises human rights issues he makes few waves abroad.
We will come back home for my supplementary. The commission strongly criticizes the government's inaction in 1996 on the issue of people with disabilities. Perhaps the Minister of National Defence would care to pay attention.
It stressed the fact that, apart from a few isolated breakthroughs, 1996 was for many of them-persons with disabilities-a year of almost total stagnation, with certain hard won gains actually being lost.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the election goodies he offered people with disabilities do not make up for all the many cuts he has made, which are behind the deterioration in the situation of people with disabilities?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find that particularly deplorable, because the government made provision in its budget to help people with disabilities deal with their specific problems, as was recommended by a committee of the House of Commons. The hon. member probably does not want to recognize it, but we acted immediately in the latest budget on the recommendations of the committee.
In society, there are always problems to be solved. We solve a lot of them, but I know they are interested in only one thing-a form of destruction-while we are trying to build a society to everyone's benefit. That is why we did something in the latest budget for people with disabilities.
The Canadian Polar Commission held a conference on contaminants in the Arctic environment last fall. Because of the potential risk to human health the Department of Health was invited to participate.
Since the minister is concerned with the health of all Canadians including northerners, could he tell the House why not one official from his department participated in this important Arctic conference?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for recognizing that Health Canada is concerned about the health of all Canadians.
He will also recall that Health Canada is actively involved with aboriginal people and other sister agencies at the federal and territorial levels in matters that concern the environment through the Arctic environmental strategy and the international Arctic monitoring and assessment program.
The member will also recognize that the Canadian Polar Commission is actively in receipt of resources from the federal government. In fact the conference received supplementary benefits from the government.
In the spirit of co-operation, when the specific health officials who had been invited found that they could not meet the timetable required they contacted the lead health agency in the area, the Northwest Territories department of health, and arranged to have the health sector represented by health officials from the territories.
(1450 )
They did an admirable job. I thank the member for recognizing the health concerns of Canadians were well represented.
In Quebec the biker gangs are killing for control over the lucrative drug trade and prostitution. The same thing is happening in Toronto, Vancouver and Winnipeg. In fact it is happening in every major city in the country.
It is pretty strong evidence that the government's soft on crime approach to criminal justice is an unqualified failure. To make matters worse, the justice minister refuses to debate the benefits of anti-gang legislation.
If the minister will not allow Parliament to consider anti-gang legislation, what specific steps will he take to crush the criminal activities of the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine not only in Quebec but right across the country?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
As he is aware, the Minister of Justice is meeting in Quebec today with provincial counterparts, mayors and police agencies. He has indicated that as a result of meetings held last fall a number of changes were being considered to the Criminal Code of Canada. These changes would give the police the tools to crack down on this type of organized criminal activity.
You were in error to suggest that the door was closed on considering measures to deal with anti-gang legislation. It is possible, and the minister indicated that this request would be reviewed.
The Speaker: I remind members to always address their remarks through the Chair.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, all the Liberal government seems to do is review, review, review. In the meantime the lives of Canadians right across the country are in jeopardy. Canadians are living in fear.
The only way to deal with organized crime is to rip the heart out of its operation. It exists to make a profit. The government has had 3.5 years to do something about it and has failed to do so.
Canadians want safe streets and clean neighbourhoods. They will not tolerate having their lives held hostage by a few lawless people.
If the justice minister is serious about cleaning up biker gangs, will he enact legislation giving the RCMP and the prosecutors special powers to wipe out organized gangs like the Hell's Angels and the Rock Machine?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government introduces and deals with legislation through the Criminal Code. The administration of justice is the responsibility of provincial governments. It is the responsibility of municipal officials and their police departments to enforce the laws that are in effect.
Murder is a crime. Bombing is a crime. Drug trafficking is a crime. What is needed is strong enforcement at that level. The federal government, provincial governments and municipal officials need to work together to solve the problem.
This has been a problem for a considerable period of time. It is amazing that finally the Reform Party has figured out that it is a problem.
A rare occurrence: last Friday the Minister of Transport managed to gain unanimity, but it was against him. When he announced the federal withdrawal from police services in ports from Vancouver to Halifax, including Montreal and Quebec, there was a general hue and cry against his method of unilaterally announcing, without any impact study, that this withdrawal would take effect before next fall.
How could the minister have presented a so-called new model of port policing without reaching any agreement with the provinces concerned?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the ports police issue was examined in great detail by a Coopers & Lybrand study. It proposed a new model for the policing of our major ports.
(1455)
To make sure the study done by Inspector Mann was confirmed we had another study done by the former chief constable of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Stewart, and the former head of the RCMP detachment for North Vancouver, Mr. Gill Yard. They came to the same essential conclusion that more effective policing could be done. More effective means more security for the Canadian public.
As the hon. member mentioned Vancouver, I have to mention that British Columbia did not take part in that study although every other affected province did. We therefore waited until a study was done by Superintendent William Neill, the former Saskatchewan RCMP head. He did a study for the province of British Columbia which came to the same conclusions.
There have been three studies by senior police officials which say we can get more security for the Canadian public by a new model that uses municipal policing, customs services, immigration and security services. That deals with criminal problems much more effectively than the existing model we are using now.
Will the government admit that the Food and Drugs Act requires amendment to create a category for nutriceuticals so that these products will continue to be available for all Canadians?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being irresponsible by highlighting a couple of instances that hide the fact that Health Canada is being extremely responsible and diligent in the exercise of its obligation to ensure that all products that come on the market are both safe and effective for consumption, especially when there is a medicinal claim attached to them.
We cannot blame our officials for doing the job entrusted to them and demanded of them by Parliament.
When the Canada Post mandate review report was made public last October, the minister promised that Canada Post would not be privatized as long as it continued to fulfil a public policy role. The report strongly recommended that the corporation should not be privatized.
However, in a study that the minister commissioned by TD Securities she has asked the firm to evaluate whether withdrawing from competitive operations is consistent with the objective of possibly ``privatizing Canada Post''.
Does the minister agree that Canada Post should remain a crown corporation, which is what she said last fall? Or, is she seriously considering privatization which is suggested in the terms of reference in the present study?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said last fall. As long as Canada Post serves a public policy purpose then it should not be privatized.
Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration inform the House why this is an important initiative for Canada?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, visa free access for Hong Kong people is very good news for Canada and for Hong Kong.
More than 100,000 Canadian people live in Hong Kong. More than 500,000 Canadians living in Canada have come from Hong Kong. Every year Canada has more than 200,000 visitors from Hong Kong. They come here for business, to visit family or for tourism.
After the assurances we received from the Hong Kong authorities and the Chinese government, it was very important that we were able to maintain the visa free access. That is very good news for everyone.
(1500 )
This government has invested $2 million in increasing the nicotine content of tobacco to make it more addictive in its Delhi plants in Ontario. I ask the Prime Minister, for the sake of all Canadians and in particular for the health of our youth, will he stop using taxpayers' money to fund research into increasing the addictive potential of cigarettes?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is completely false. For many days in the wording of their questions Reform members have tried to suggest that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada was doing research to enhance nicotine content. We have denied that in the answers we have given in this House. Again today they are wrong. There is no such research being done by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to enhance nicotine levels.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time my hon. colleague has made the standard Thursday enquiry as House leader for the Bloc Quebecois, may I take this opportunity to congratulate her on her new duties.
Tomorrow will be the last day of debate on the budget.
[English]
When the House resumes after Easter, as soon as is procedurally possible it will be asked to deal with the three or four bills emanating from the budget.
In addition it would be helpful if I reiterate for the House the other items that will be given high priority: Bill C-82, the financial institutions legislation; Bill C-44, the courts; Bill C-32, the copyright amendment; Bill C-17, Bill C-27 and Bill C-46 which amend the Criminal Code; Bill C-5 representing bankruptcy; Bill C-65, the environment bill; Bill C-79; Bill C-55, the high risk offenders legislation; Bill C-66, the Canada Labour Code amendment; Bill C-38, the farm debt bill; Bills C-39 and C-40 which relate to flooding agreements; Bill C-49, the administrative tribunals bill; Bill C-67, the competition legislation; Bill C-72, the Canadian Wheat Board Act amendments; Bill C-81 respecting the Canada-Chile free trade agreement; Bill C-84 respecting citizenship; Bill C-86 respecting transportation acts; and Bill C-89 regarding powers of customs officers.
There is a lot of work to be done when we come back. I wish everybody a happy Easter so that we can come back in health to work hard.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, that was a very long list, and I did not hear C-17 mentioned. Was it forgotten, or was it on the list?
[English]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17 is at the top of the list.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. There has been very good co-operation among all of the parties. On behalf of the government I wish to thank my colleagues on all sides of the House for their co-operation.
I move:
That the motion to amend the motion for second reading of Bill C-82 be deemed to have been withdrawn and the motion for second reading and reference to committee of the said bill be deemed to have been put and a division demanded and deferred to 5 p.m. this day.
That all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-81 be deemed to have been put and adopted.
That all questions necessary for the disposal of the consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-70 be deemed to have been put, and a division thereon requested and deferred to 5 p.m. this day.
And that no later than 4.59 p.m. this day, any proceedings before the House be interrupted and all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-32 be put without further debate or amendment.(1505)
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to).
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of reports from committees.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.