My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The mandate of Option Canada, this phantom organization to promote Canadian unity, is the promotion of national unity by all means, legal, political and other.
I have no trouble understanding what the words ``political'' and ``legal'' mean, but I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to me what means other than legal and political ones are at our disposal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are speaking today about the means available to people. We know that on September 12 Quebec Treasury Board President, Pauline Maurois, announced that Quebec's unionized workers were going to be receiving an additional $1 million from the government by 1998.
Going into the referendum campaign, the chief negotiator for the yes side promised unions a $1 million increase, but today he hits them with special legislation forcing them to accept a 6 per cent cut.
So, if the topic is morality and legality, we have to ask ourselves: Who is telling the truth about the unionized workers in Quebec?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):Mr. Speaker, it is quite discouraging to see how the Deputy Prime Minister performs in the House.
What goes on within the Government of Quebec is the Government of Quebec's business. If, today, the Government of Quebec is unable to respect its agreement to increase salaries by 1 per cent, it is because of her government, which slashed provincial transfer payments. Let us not confuse matters.
I return to my topic, which she finds very upsetting. Peter White, the president of the Council for Canadian Unity, told The Gazette that Option Canada had been set up specifically to collect funds for provincial and federal Liberals for the referendum campaign.
In response to this statement, the Labour Minister could think of nothing better to say than that Peter White had already said so many idiotic things in his life that one more would not make any difference.
(1120)
So who can we believe, the chief organizer of the Liberal Party of Canada, who should know what the money paid to Option Canada was used for, or the president of the Council for Canadian Unity, to whom Option Canada reported?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about expenditures. I have with me the Government of Quebec's order in council.
Mr. Dumas: That is not the question.
Ms. Copps: We have read in Le Soleil that the Government of Quebec, not the Liberal Party, spent $83 million on referendum activities. With $83 million, the government could have hired 1,769 more police officers. It could have hired 2,098 additional nurses or another 2,621 teachers.
The PQ government made its choice. It wanted to spend money on the referendum rather than on keeping its promises to Quebec's unionized workers.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister: that she quit running in Hamilton East, resign one more time, run for the Liberal Party in Quebec and tackle Mr. Bouchard in the National Assembly. We have heard enough from her about Quebec. This is Canada here.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I will ask her a third question regarding the topic that concerns us and which is seriously worrying Canadians. I ask her to listen attentively. This time, I am giving her a chance to reply on topic. I would like her to consult the right pages among those prepared for her by her assistants.
We learned this morning that Quebec's chief electoral officer wanted to hold an inquiry into this matter, which is of great concern to him. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who boasts that her government is completely honest and transparent, whether she is prepared to tell us in the House this morning that she will co-operate with Quebec's chief electoral officer to get to the bottom of this diversion of close to $5 million of taxpayers' money?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course I will co-operate with the elections commission in any kind of investigation. But I would also have to underline that if Mr. Coté is really interested in getting to the facts surrounding the referendum, when he begins his investigation I would also ask him to investigate the secret plan of Jacques Parizeau which was revealed in Le Soleil of November 4, 1995: ``Parizeau admitted that he had a special slush fund of billions of dollars that he was going to use to defend the Canadian dollar against a plunge''.
I would also ask Mr. Coté to investigate the fake promise given by the the chief negotiator of the yes side to the unions. On the eve of the referendum he promised them a million dollars and today we saw what the promise meant. It meant zero.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize that, by declaring that the objective of the official languages program is to promote Canada, she is attacking the political independence of all official language minority groups in Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, those of us on this side do not need any lectures from someone born in Ontario, who learned his French in Penetanguishene, and who now claims that francophones outside Quebec are nothing more than paraplegics in wheelchairs.
(1125)
His policy is to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada, and to dump the million francophones in the rest of the country. We are never going to just dump one million francophones, who are counting on us and who can count on a Canadian government that believes in two peoples and two official languages.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when Heritage Canada chopped subsidies to official language minority groups, the government claimed it had no choice but to do so. Today, we learn that the government has used that money for propaganda purposes.
Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage make a commitment to reimburse the official language minority groups for the losses they have incurred?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat this in English so the member for Quebec East, who learned to speak French in Penetanguishene-
[Translation]
-who was so fond of the city of his birth that he even ran for mayor of Penetanguishene.
Having been born in Penetanguishene, having learned his english in Ontario, he now is calling the Franco-Ontarians paraplegics in wheelchairs, which we are not. If we are to have two official languages, if we believe in two official languages, we need to have a country that does not believe in separatism.
The hon. member across the way is not interested in official languages, is not interested in minorities. He wants to create a country in which there is but one official language. He wants to dump all of the minorities throughout Canada.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Since the government now believes that the minister was wrong, why will it
not simply let the inquiry fulfil its mandate instead of trying to cover up the cover-up in the Senate?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian forces look forward to an unequivocal statement from the Reform Party that Reformers believe the Somalia commission of inquiry should continue indefinitely. I hope at some point Reformers will come clean with the Canadian people and say without equivocation that they want the ticker to keep running.
Over $3 million has now been spent on lawyer fees and $15 million to $25 million, depending on how we calculate it, has been spent on the commission of inquiry.
With all due respect to the hon. member, the government has decided that after three extensions the Somalia commission of inquiry should report by the end of June.
The hon. member should respect the fact that this is a parliamentary system and the Senate is allowed to conduct its business as it thinks appropriate, as is the House of Commons.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be better if the minister would come clean.
When it comes to covering up its nasty messes this government is as hapless as a cat on a concrete driveway.
One member of the cabinet, the defence minister, thinks that there was no political cover-up. Another member of cabinet, Senator Fairbairn, thinks there was a political cover-up and wants it investigated.
Who is speaking for the government? Do the Liberals think there was a political cover-up or do they think there was not a political cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the obvious differences, and the member has recognized it, is that Liberals are able to think, unlike the hon. member and members of his party.
The fact remains that if Reformers believe the Somalia commission of inquiry should continue indefinitely, in other words, never mind the cover-up or the whitewash, but a carte blanche, then that is what they should say.
With respect to the inquiry being terminated at the end of June, everyone knows it has gone on now for over two years. It has heard hundreds of witnesses. It has reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. I think Canadians look forward to the report, the conclusions and the recommendations of the Somalia commission of inquiry.
(1130)
With respect to what happens in the Senate, the hon. member should respect that the question of looking into incidents surrounding the affair in Somalia was raised by a Conservative member of the Senate several weeks ago. Subsequent to a number of discussions it was determined unanimously in the Senate, as I understand it, that it should look into the Somalia situation. It has a right to do that. Constitutionally we are operating as two separate House, the Senate and the House of Commons. It has every right to look into whatever it wishes.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since the hon. minister has just implied that he has such a magnificent intellect I want to draw him a little picture.
The government shut down an independent inquiry that was to investigate its political friends and buddies. Then it replaced it with partisan Liberal and Tory senators who will try to whitewash a political cover-up that occurred under Liberal and Tory governments. I hope the hon. minister got that.
Instead of trying to throw up a political smoke screen, why does the government not simply let the independent inquiry get to the bottom of a murder and a cover-up and stop these political shenanigans?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party over the last few months have demonstrated exactly what they think of the Canadian forces. They have not told us what they believe should be done for the Canadian forces. They have made absolutely no attempt to provide any input into the very thorough review we have made of the Canadian forces, the military justice system, the military police, all the questions dealing with the selection and promotion of people in the Canadian military organization.
All Reformers have been able to do so far to help the Canadian forces is insist that the Somalia commission of inquiry continue for as long as they feel is appropriate; it could be a year, two years or three years. Reformers might be interested in history but we are interested in getting things done. If they have the interest of the Canadian forces at heart, they should be here next Tuesday when I will report to the Canadian people and to the Prime Minister on what the Liberal government believes should be done for the Canadian forces.
criterion is applied to Quebec's tax structure before harmonization and after total harmonization, Quebec's loss of revenue amounts in fact to nearly 20 per cent''. If there is one person in a position to know the cost of harmonizing the GST and the QST in Quebec it is the Quebec minister of finance.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the Minister of Finance claim that Quebec officials are unable to establish the true cost of harmonizing and why does he continue to insinuate that minister Landry is lying to the people of Quebec?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I may cite the figures for Quebec sales tax revenues, which in fact come from the Government of Quebec, they reveal that, compared to the year preceding harmonization, Quebec's revenues in 1990-91 increased by $240 million. The next year, they increased by $1 billion; the year after that, by $888 million; the next year, by $465 million; the following year, $319 million and, finally by $504 million.
Since Quebec's decision to harmonize, its revenues have increased by $3.4 billion, that is, Quebec has not lost money, it has made money.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the minister is not saying is that, in the calculations to establish Quebec's entitlement to compensation, the Minister of Finance overestimates Quebec's revenues from the harmonized GST and QST by $575 million a year.
Second, he is not saying that to harmonize the QST with the GST Quebec had to cut revenues from other taxes-on tobacco and gasoline, for example-by $355 million. Finally, he is not saying that, to harmonize the GST and the QST, the Government of Quebec had to increase the rate of taxation on corporate profits by 67 per cent.
(1135)
In other words, if Quebec had been offered the same conditions as the maritimes, Mr. McKenna would not be on the roam so detestably giving Quebec businesses unfair competition.
Will the Minister of Finance finally recognize that Quebec's assessment are the right ones and that he must pay the Government of Quebec compensation of $2 billion, under the same harmonization and compensation criteria used for the maritimes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is an economist, an economist of the right in his field, he should know that the figures I have just given are those of the Government of Quebec.
The hon. member is quoting ministers of finance, so perhaps I could quote the former minister of finance, André Bourbeau-
Mr. Loubier: An incompetent. He put Quebec in the hole.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): -and I quote: ``Nevertheless, on the very face of them, the figures published by the Government of Quebec totally contradict what the current minister of finance in Quebec is saying. He cannot prove that the Government of Quebec lost revenues with this tax. He cannot claim reimbursement from the federal government of money he claims to have lost, since the Government of Quebec's own figures prove that it has not lost anything''.
Somehow he missed the fact that in 1995 he said in his budget speech that he was going to cut departmental spending by 19 per cent. He said these are not going to be phoney cuts, they are going to be real cuts. That is in the budget speech. Today departmental spending has fallen only 8.3 per cent. That is a $5 billion difference.
Why is the minister failing to meet his spending reduction targets in departmental spending just like Michael Wilson?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are on target. Each and every year we have met our targets. As a matter of fact, the opposition keeps complaining because the minister has bettered his targets.
We have not reached the end of the fiscal year and this government has met its targets each year. The Reform Party is comparing apples and oranges. Our statistics show 18 per cent with program review saving targets that were identified in the 1995-96 budgets. Each one met its target. The required reductions were made in departments and the agency budgets in the time that they were announced. Planned program spending is on track in all years.
In the 1996 budget we forecasted $106 billion and this year it is down to $105.8 billion.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that we do not have the finance minister on his feet. This is an issue that goes right to the credibility of the government's numbers.
In the 1995 budget speech the Liberals said departmental spending will fall 19 per cent. They did not say anything about program review. They said departmental spending will fall by19 per cent. Their own numbers show it has only fallen by 8.3 per cent, a $5 billion difference.
My question to the finance minister is why the $5 billion difference. Why are they fudging their numbers just like Michael Wilson?
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a document before me with the program spending and it has each department. Our statistics show 18.8 per cent.
The hon. member for Québec-Est made an analogy and said that comparing the situation of anglophones in Quebec to that of francophone minorities in Canada was like comparing a Cadillac to a wheelchair. This analogy is not meant to be derogatory to paraplegics. There comes a point where we must leave grandstanding aside and deal with the real issues.
The President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Jacques Michaud, said he did not want their organizations to be used to promote Canadian unity. On the other hand, the federation is quite prepared to protect francophone and Acadian community groups.
(1140)
In light of this, could the minister tell us whether her statement means that, in the future, these groups will have to pursue the government's political objectives on national unity, instead of promoting the rights of official language minorities in Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to know what the member from Témiscouata thinks of the comments made by the member for Québec-Est. How would you like to be called a paraplegic in a wheelchair?
An hon. member: It is an insult to all Franco-Ontarians.
Ms. Copps: These are the words of the member for Québec-Est, who himself learned to speak French fairly well in Penetanguishene, Ontario.
That being said, it is obvious that if Canada did not exist, there would be no official languages policy.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister can understand the analogy made by the hon. member for Québec-Est, because I am sure Canadians and Quebecers can.
Can the minister assure us that the $4.5 million given to the Council for Canadian Unity and the $4.8 million given to Option Canada, which were diverted from the budget earmarked for official language minority communities in Canada, will be returned to these minorities? This amounts to 22 per cent of the money set aside for minorities. Will the minister give back to official language minorities what she fraudulently took from them?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the lack of logic in the member's question. He claims the Government of Canada has no interest in having a country. How can he claim there will be two official languages if this country ceases to exist? The Government of Canada obviously cares about this issue, considering that, yesterday, it gave an $8 million subsidy to Collège Boréal, in Sudbury.
Similarly, if we support the efforts of those who are fighting to save the Montfort hospital, it is because we believe in the million francophones living outside Quebec, right across Canada.
What is so pitiful is that the same member of Parliament who compared francophones to paraplegics in wheelchairs now claims to be defending their rights, which is absolutely untrue. The only thing he is defending is the separatist cause, which would deprive francophones outside Quebec of their right to live in a truly bilingual country.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is there no limit to the tax he will place on Canadian jobs in order for him to make his deficit numbers look good?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we took office unemployment insurance premiums were scheduled to rise to $3.30. We stopped that.
Every year since then we have reduced the unemployment insurance rate. In the last budget we announced that at the end of this year it would be at $2.80. In the last three years of the Tory regime they raised the unemployment insurance premiums every year. In the first three years we have been in office, we have dropped the premiums every year.
This year there is going to be a saving to Canadian workers and companies of $1.7 billion as a result of the actions taken by the government. That demonstrates tax reductions.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this minister has built up a surplus in the EI fund like we have never seen before. The surplus this year amounts to a $500 tax on every job in the country. The minister has the gall to stand up in the House and say that he has not raised taxes. That is a disgrace.
The minister said that payroll taxes are a cancer on jobs. Will he announce a cut in employment insurance premiums to give the unemployed some hope that there will be a job created for them?
(1145 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly has a strange way of looking at what is a premium increase or a premium decrease.
When we took office premiums were roughly $3.07 going to $3.30. We stopped that. The next year we brought premiums down to $3.00, then down to $2.90 and then down to $2.80. Those are not increases, those are decreases.
We have stated as a government that it is our intention to continue to bring those premiums down. We will do this responsibly, not in the way the leader of the Reform Party stated the other day, that there would be a massive cut.
Virtually every commentator has said that if there was a recession, the first thing a Tory government would have to do would be to hike those premiums, which was exactly what it did in 1989 and 1990. This is how the Tories put us into a terrible recession.
If members wonder why I talk about the Tories, it is because they are the kissing cousins of Reformers, on the extreme right.
The federal government's financial participation in the agricultural day haul transportation assistance program officially ends on March 31 in Quebec. This program gives labourers living in the city access to farm jobs they could not get if it were not for organised transit between urban areas and rural areas.
Does the minister agree that, by refusing to provide the $350,000 required to maintain this program, he is directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs for seasonal agricultural workers and that the resulting social costs will be much higher than the savings?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern for this program, which was indeed very useful to many seasonal workers. As you know, in any program review, hard choices have to be made sometimes. Some of the decisions we have made are not the ones we wish we could have made.
Now, of course, we must look at what other programs and active employment measures are available to the workers to make their access to the labour market easier. I think that, on the whole, government policy and programs are quite satisfactory.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): That is right, Mr. Speaker. The minister is replacing measures that worked well by ones he is unsure of.
Will the minister recognize that, by refusing to continue funding this program in the future, he will promote the hiring of foreign labour at the expense of thousands of workers in Quebec and Canada who will be denied the seasonal jobs available?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding how transportation could be easier from Mexico to Quebec farms than from one Quebec region to another. The logic in what the hon. member is saying eludes me.
The American tobacco company, Liggett Corporation, has publicly admitted that smoking is addictive, that it causes cancer and that the industry deliberately targets its marketing at young people between the ages of 14 and 18.
Can the parliamentary secretary tell Canadians the significance of this announcement and how it affects our efforts to curb tobacco consumption among young people?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand that this confirms what the Government of Canada has been saying all along.
We presented a comprehensive strategy on combating tobacco use and its very serious and negative health impacts. It is a bad admission to make, but we are relieved that there is an indication, at least by the industry if not by the other parties, that we have been right all along. Tobacco is a cause of cancer and of heart disease and the companies have especially targeted young people.
Our bill, C-71, has attempted to address those issues and we are happy that at least the public is beginning to turn in that direction at last.
[Translation]
Recently, a laundry in my riding bid for a contract to service hospitals in Granby and Brome-Missisquoi. They lost to CORCAN, which is connected to the Laval correctional centre and employs people being reintegrated into the work force. The private company, Buanderie Shefford, therefore lost a contract because it was competing with a company funded in large part by the taxpayers, and therefore able to offer a better price.
Does the minister not admit that this is a blatant example of unfair competition on the part of the federal administration, taking major contracts away from companies which are at least as competitive as Corrections Canada?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept my hon. colleague's hypothesis, but I would be most pleased to look into these allegations and to report to my hon. friend as promptly as possible.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have risen in the House today because I have twice written to the minister, to the minister's office, without any satisfactory response.
The jobs of 15 people in my riding are at stake. The Liberals like to boast of creating jobs, but not in this case.
What guarantees can the minister offer us that CORCAN includes all of its costs in the bids it submits, and respects the same ground rules as its private sector competitors?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CORCAN operates in compliance with the criteria, according to my information. I am sorry he has not accepted the information I have provided him with. I am, however, prepared to look further into the case, and to provide him with an answer shortly.
Could the minister confirm that the court's decision in Gladstone led to the creation of these licences?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, the Supreme Court clearly established that the nation in question had the right to commercial fishing and it was based on historical facts.
DFO, after several long weeks of discussion have come to some understanding, to an agreement with the nation in question whereby DFO and the Heiltsuk tribal council have agreed to harvest 100 tonnes of unallocated herring available in area eight for 1997, in three open pond licences. The 100 tonnes of unallocated herring now being allocated have a roe content of lesser quality which means, therefore, it is of lesser interest to the commercial fishermen.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is no unallocated herring in B.C.
After hearing petitions from all parties, the Supreme Court recommended a judicial process to establish the limits of the Heiltsuk right. Why has the minister sought to subvert the judicially established process to develop constitutional law on the issue of native fishing rights, given that the fishing industry has spent millions of dollars on litigation to defend their rights and to establish sound, legal principles on which to allocate the fisheries resource.
Why has the minister replaced the law book with the red book?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government and the department of fisheries feel quite confident that they are abiding by the laws of the nation when they establish such a fishery for that nation.
However, we sincerely deplore the tone of the hon. member and all members of the Reform Party whenever it comes to discussing aboriginal rights to fisheries. This is really deplorable. But fortunately for those nations the Government of Canada will continue on its present course.
[Translation]
positions. This ruling imposes quotas that Health Canada must respect from now on in order to correct this state of affairs.
Will the minister, or his representative, admit that if his government is being told today to promote employees who are members of cultural minorities to senior positions, it is primarily because of its failure or inability to keep its red book promises?
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that report refers to situations in 1992. The minister and the department have taken steps since then.
I remind the member exactly what has happened since then. The report already acknowledges that the minister has taken steps. First, he has taken a look at new guidelines for promotions, acting positions and training for supervisors and managers.
What has happened as a result? The member ought to acknowledge that the percentage of people who have come from those minorities, which he rightly defends in this instance, has risen to 5.9 per cent.
A true reflection of the matter is that we are, in the department, moving well beyond expectations that even the member might set.
Today, it was announced that while Quebec receives 39 per cent of all the money that immigrant investors bring to Canada, only15 per cent of these immigrants choose to reside in Quebec.
Is the minister prepared to instruct immigration officers in the other provinces to refuse entry to immigrant investors accepted by the Quebec government because they choose to invest in Quebec but decide to reside in and use the services of other provinces?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Reform Party member has problems understanding Canadians' mobility rights, which extend across the country. It is very clear that, when investors come to our country, they may choose to go to another Canadian province, like any Canadian.
We are proud of this right, which forms part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is no question of changing this basic principle.
[English]
The government has announced that it will be making it easier for immigrants with high tech experience to enter Canada. The reason given is that there are too few Canadians qualified to fill these jobs.
Canadian university graduates are sitting idle. The government has a youth employment strategy. Should the education process not begin right here at home?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question. It is a very important one.
The government is totally committed to jobs being available to Canadians first. That makes a lot of sense. There is a great shortage of Canadian workers in the software industry. We lack, some people tell me, about 15,000 to 20,000 according to the industry.
We have had to conduct a pilot project as a short term solution. As a government, we are committed to making sure that the youth employment strategy will provide, in the future, young people with work experience and the right training in that industry.
In the meantime-
Radar Hill was named for its prominence during World War II and has historical significance to British Columbians. It has now been renamed Kap'Yong Hill, a Korean name, and my constituents are furious.
The Prime Minister overstepped his authority. He failed to consult local residents. He ignored the recommendations of Parks Canada and, to my knowledge, has failed to receive the required agreement of the province of B.C.
Will the Prime Minister agree to a compromise put forward by Parks Canada, and reinstate the name of our local historical landmark, and establish a small memorial to Kap'Yong on the hill instead?
(1200 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify, first of all, whether the member is speaking for the entire Reform Party when he announces the renaming of a Canadian monument in
respect of the Korean war service which was carried out by, among others, the Korean War Veterans Association of Canada, of which I happen to be an honorary member.
I know that Canadian Korean war veterans very much appreciate the attention of the Prime Minister to this issue. I am sure the Prime Minister and Parks Canada will do everything possible to ensure that everyone feels included.
I find it rather tragic that the member would decry respect for Korean war veterans, which was the intention of this monument.
Northern Cross Ltd. is proposing to do resource development in northern Yukon. I would like to ask the government what consultation there has been regarding this application with the Old Crow Resource Council and what work has been done in the United States to clarify that in this area under discussion it does not constitute part of the area of the calving ground for the Porcupine caribou herd.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has a bilateral treaty with respect to the calving ground. I am sure that any activity we would want to follow very closely.
We will take the request of the hon. member and pursue it to ensure that the calving ground area is not endangered.