Yesterday, before the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, Canada refused to co-sponsor a Danish resolution condemning human rights violations in China. Yet, since the massacre in Tiananmen Square, Canada had never failed to co-sponsor
similar resolutions. Canada has apparently given up defending human rights internationally.
In light of the fact that China is systematically, blatantly and continually violating human rights throughout its territory, and particularly in Tibet, can the minister tell us why the Canadian government did not support Denmark's action, which condemns the failure to respect human rights in China?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have not refused. The hon. member is totally wrong in his statement.
A resolution was tabled by Denmark with a number of co-sponsors. We are still looking at the question of whether we would be a co-sponsor but we have not refused in any way. It is a matter under consideration.
The Prime Minister already said a few days ago, if the hon. member had paid attention, that they would be examined by a meeting of cabinet ministers probably at the beginning of next week.
In the meantime we have also indicated our intention to vote for the resolution. The Prime Minister said that in Washington in his speech Wednesday. The hon. member should check his facts.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past seven years, China has succeeded in blocking any vote concerning its human rights violations. But the real vote, the one he is talking about, is when a country sponsors a resolution.
Is the minister telling us that, with all these changes, these things he will be deciding about in the future, and so on, Canada has caved in to the blackmail and threats of political and trade reprisals from this country?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said. We were faced, as was everybody else, with a decision by the French to break the consensus established by the European Union, the major sponsor of the resolution.
That certainly changed the circumstances in which one would want to look at the resolution. Because of the trip to Washington and other activities, we did not have the opportunity to have a cabinet meeting on the matter. The Prime Minister indicated that there would be a meeting at the beginning of this week at which time we would make a decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it has only been going on for seven years, so I can understand that the minister has not had the time to hold a meeting of his officials.
I find the responses of the government and of the minister this morning most puzzling. If I understand the minister correctly, Canada seems to have abdicated its traditional role as defender of human rights. Otherwise it would have cast its real vote by now, and we would know where it stands. As things are now, we do not know where it stands and are still waiting, despite the importance of the issue.
By refusing to stand up to intimidation by China and by putting the defence of international human rights on the back burner, does the minister agree that Canada is a party to the imprisonment of Chinese political prisoners, and to the detention of the 11th Panchen Lama, the chief spiritual adviser of Tibet?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is trying to inflame and to exaggerate his position. Unfortunately the hon. member is basing his premise on sheer ignorance.
If he had paid attention rather than to a headline but to the facts, he would know that last week I was in China. I met with Chinese officials. I raised the issue of human rights. I raised the issue of political prisoners. We put them on the table.
Canada maintained a continual constant opinion that we would raise those kinds of issues directly with the Chinese and we did. It is too bad the hon. member does not have the fortitude and the resolve to make the same kind of commitments we are prepared to make.
[Translation]
We know that Canada played an important role in the world movement of sanctions against apartheid in South Africa. At the beginning of this month, the UN Human Rights Commission published a report in which it urged the international community to take steps to combat violence against women, such as rape and trafficking.
Can the minister tell us the measures he intends to take in response to the publication of this report, which reminds us that violence against women is still considered a form of entertainment or a normal practice in a number of countries?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly share very much both the spirit and the intent of the resolution in Geneva. There are several ways of follow it through. Certainly one would be to ensure that in our domestic situation we take all steps possible. The Minister of Justice has already indicated in the House several times this week that we have a number of initiatives to combat violence against women, in fact violence against all people.
I think the commitment made by the minister is a clear example of the way we want to act domestically.
A second initiative we can take is to work internationally to ensure that there are covenants and that through the work of CIDA and other groups we work within those countries to provide assistance and programs that will assist women and combat violence against women.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we know that many countries with which the Canadian government has dealings are directly implicated in this serious problem of violence against women.
Does the minister intend to denounce these countries during his upcoming international dealings and in his trade relations with these same countries, and thus maintain the leadership role that Canada has always played with respect to human rights?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can answer that by way of example. Canada was very instrumental in working with Indonesia for the establishment of an independent human rights commission which is taking on those individual cases by the support we give.
In the discussions we held recently with Cuba on human rights issues, we have agreed to co-sponsor a major meeting in Havana to deal with the questions of rights of women and rights of children.
I have made it very clear and very explicit in the statement on Canada's human rights approach that we believe the most effective way of promoting democracy, human rights and the protection of basic civil liberties is to promote and support those working within the countries to provide the changes within those countries. That is the central trust of our policy.
By doing so, is the justice minister saying to the House and the victims of this country that Mrs. de Villiers and her organization support a law that allows a convicted rapist to walk free?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the response spoke for itself.
I was asked yesterday about the position of the government in relation to victims. The allegation has been made all week by the hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party that the government either does not understand or has not acted in the interests of victims in the criminal justice system.
My purpose in referring to the letter from Priscilla de Villiers, the president of CAVEAT, was to demonstrate that one of the most respected spokespersons for victim rights, who has suffered her own personal tragedy and has turned from that tragedy to make something constructive come out of all that, has looked at the record of the government and has said we have made significant change, that we have demonstrated a willingness to listen and a willingness to act.
I said yesterday, as I say today, that when the people of Canada come to make their choice between the Reform Party and the Liberal government as to who to believe on the issue of victim rights, I believe they will turn to respected and credible third parties such as CAVEAT.
The people of this country will have no difficulty deciding that this is a government which has acted and the Reform Party is absolutely wrong.
(1125)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice minister's reading of Mrs. de Villiers' letter in the House yesterday indicates clearly that the minister remains committed to a law that allows rapists and child sex molestors to walk free and has attempted to defend his position by leaving the impression that the victims of crime support this law as well.
If this impression is wrong and the minister does not really support rapists and violent offenders walking free, will the minister move immediately to amend the Criminal Code to restrict conditional sentencing to non-violent offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points.
First, no one would suggest for a moment that anyone, whether it is this government, CAVEAT, I or any other responsible person, favours anything but prison for those who commit serious violent crimes.
My reference to the CAVEAT letter was and is in relation to its commentary on the performance of this government in relation to victims and their rights under the law.
On the subject of conditional sentences, the Criminal Code already contains serious penalties, including life in prison, for those who commit serious violent crimes such as sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and the like. It is already in the criminal law.
If a court somewhere makes a decision about a sentence in a specific case, if the prosecutor believes that sentence is inappropriate an appeal can be brought and argued and that result may well be changed. It depends on the judgment of the court.
The reference this week has been to a specific case in British Columbia which is before the court of appeal. I ask the hon. member to let the court do its job. The penalties are already in the code. If the penalty in this case was inappropriate the appeal court has all the power to correct that result.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, conditional sentencing has been used in a host of violent cases across this country where the offenders are walking free. It is not simply the case of Mr. Ursel. There are a host of child molestors and violent offenders walking free because of the loophole this justice minister has left in the law through Bill C-41.
Since the justice minister likes to hear and read what victims have to say, I would like to read the words of Jana Rosenfeldt, the sister of one of Clifford Olson's victims:
Actually we met with the justice minister last year. He had a chance to stop this. He basically spit on all the graves of all these kids.That is how a victim really feels about this justice minister and his great concern about victims of crime.
I ask the justice minister one more time will he do the right thing and amend Bill C-41 to plug the loophole that allows the courts to let rapists and violent offenders to walk free? Will he bring that in? We will support it.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are already penalties in the criminal law to provide for lengthy imprisonment, if necessary life imprisonment, for those who commit serious violent crimes.
Monday of last week I proposed and all parties agreed, including my hon. friend, an amendment to the conditional sentence provision that will require the courts to look at sentencing factors in general, including denunciation, when deciding whether conditional sentences are appropriate.
In terms of the hon. member's reference to graves, the party opposite makes it very difficult to engage in rational debate. If its members have succeeded in anything this week it has been to fortify their position as a party of the narrow edge, a party of the extreme, a party that prefers slogans over substance, a party that prefers rhetoric over results. They have made themselves the spectacle this week.
Tension continues to mount in the Middle East where, yesterday, the Israeli defence minister warned that, if friction between Palestinians and the Israeli army continued, Israel would have no trouble taking back Hebron or any other Palestinian city.
Since this statement could inflame the situation and irreversibly topple the peace process arising from the Oslo accords, can the minister tell us what actions Canada intends to take to maintain peace in the Middle East?
(1130)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned about the increasing tensions in the Middle East. We continue to call on all parties to find ways of following the peace process established by Oslo of reconciling differences, of living up to their commitments.
Canada is the chair of the working group on refugees. It is the one working group that came out of the larger peace process that is still functioning. We will be leading a mission into the Middle East shortly to see if we can bring the parties together to work specifically on the refugee issue.
That area is perhaps the most burning source of tension and instability. If we can bring progress about by bringing the parties together on the refugee issue it may contribute in its own way to providing a sense that solutions are possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend, in light of the new context, to renew Canadian opposition to the Israeli plan to build new Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have always said that any attempt to bring those settlements about runs contrary to the resolutions of the United Nations. We have constantly stated that and our position has not changed.
Reformers supported the Canadian Police Association in calling for the rejection of this ill conceived piece of legislation. We feared judges would use conditional sentencing inappropriately in cases of violence. Our worst fears have become victims' worst nightmares.
The Bill C-17 amendment the justice minister just referred to only cautions judges to use this so-called tool appropriately. It does not prevent them from using it in cases of violence.
Will the justice minister now admit his mistake and take corrective action to ensure conditional sentencing is never used again in cases of violence?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conditional sentence provision provides on its face that the court must take into account the safety of the community, the danger to the community, before deciding whether a conditional sentence is appropriate.
By virtue of the amendment that all parties agreed to this past Monday we will add words that require the judge before considering a conditional sentence to take into account the usual factors, including deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community.
The Criminal Code has over 800 sections. Many provide expressly for terms as long as life imprisonment for those who commit crimes of serious violence, including sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. The tools are there. This government does not sit in the courtrooms to decide cases or pass sentences. It provides the law. The law provides well to deal with violent crime.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on November 4 last year I drew this minister's attention to the misuse of Bill C-41 in three cases involving violence against women. He chose to ignore the facts. One week later, on November 12, Judge Harry Boyle turned Darren Ursel free into the community.
Had the minister acted then rather than mock the question, this travesty of justice need not have occurred.
I will ask the minister the very same question I asked him almost six months ago. Does he believe conditional sentencing, no jail time, is appropriate for rape?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member looks at the cases he referred to last November, he should look at the appeal court decisions from those results. If the hon. member is suggesting that any time a judge somewhere in Canada makes a sentencing decision that he does not agree with we should pass another law, then he does not understand the criminal justice system.
Judges are to apply the criminal law which includes penalties up to life in prison for serious violence, including sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. The tools are there. They are spelled out in the code for the courts to apply.
I urge the hon. member to reconsider what the purpose and nature of the criminal justice system is.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois welcomes the fact that Canada and the United States have reached an agreement on amendments to the tax treaty between our two countries. However, retroactive payments will not be made until the agreement is ratified by the Senate.
Is the minister prepared to pay an advance to people on low incomes who will otherwise have to spend nearly two more years deprived of 25 per cent of their U.S. pension income?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I previously said that we need to set up a system because of the rather complex administration involved. We have already taken the requisite steps to ensure that, if an agreement is not reached in time for the U.S. Senate to be able to act, we are prepared, once the system is set up, to make payments on an interim basis.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the minister's reply that he thinks it would be normal for a person whose sole income amounts to $10,000 annually to receive some compensation so that he will not have to live on $8,000 a year for two years, while waiting for retroactive payments because of an unfair tax treaty?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): No Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member did not understand the answer.
I said we needed to set up a system in order to have the data required to make these payments. Now if there were some delay in the U.S. Senate and the system is ready to go and we have the data, then we will make these payments. So the delay is not due to a matter of principle on our side but is purely administrative.
[English]
Why did the Minister of National Defence mislead the House?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is in the grip of this monumental question that was resolved last fall. The fact is an agreement has been achieved with respect to the clean-up of a number of bases, including distant early warning systems at Argentia, Goose Bay and a couple of others. However, it is a contingent agreement because it still remains to be dealt with by the American government.
What we are looking at is, hopefully, that there will be a resolution on the basis of this tentative deal, but we are still making sure that there is progress toward a final resolution which will include the decision of the Government of the United States through the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers are being stuck with a $500 million tab to clean up American garbage. I cannot believe the subject did not come up when the Prime Minister was smiling for the cameras and sipping white wine with his close friend Bill Clinton.
We would appreciate the straight goods this time. Will the government force the Americans to clean up their own mess or will Canadian taxpayers be stuck with toxic waste and a $500 million tab?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the only thing toxic is whatever the hon. member is sniffing.
What we are trying to achieve here is an arrangement whereby the American government takes some responsibility for a situation that has developed over the last 40 or 50 years.
The hon. member may have a slight capacity of recall that there was a second world war. Subsequent to that there was a cold war, during which time American military establishments were set up in various parts of the country.
We have come a long way in trying to negotiate a deal with the American authorities to assist us in the clean-up of a number of these sites.
The number he referred to, specifically the $500 million figure, was not a number put forward by the Canadian government. It was a number that may have been put forward by someone else. The $100 million U.S. that has been agreed to, contingent on approval by the American Congress is, we feel, a significant improvement over what anybody else has been able to negotiate with the Americans subsequent to their deployment to various parts of the world.
(1140)
I know if the hon. gentleman took on this cause and went to Washington to meet with his friend Newt Gingrich and others, he would scare the hell out of the Americans and would get whatever he wants.
Before the Easter recess, in answer to my question about employment insurance benefits for members of the reserve, the Minister of National Defence said he would let us know as soon as possible why members of the reserve did not pay premiums for service in class A or for contract jobs with a duration of less than 30 days.
Could the minister finally explain why members of the reserve are excluded from the Employment Insurance Act, while all other workers are not?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question he asked a few weeks ago.
I would like to point out, however, that all employees are not necessarily covered by the act because if I am not mistaken, the Sûreté du Québec is not covered, since the Quebec government decided it would be better for employees of the Sûreté not to be covered.
However, since the hon. member raised a matter I thought was very important, we looked to the whole picture. Since it is a fundamental principle to ensure that all Canadians who have a job have access to the employment insurance program, we are now changing the regulations at the Department of National Defence to give members of the reserve access to the employment insurance program, even for a period of less than 30 days.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again the Bloc Quebecois has made major gains. We are often in the House to push this government to do things, and we do that on a regular basis.
Since the minister agrees that the government should change the regulations for members of the reserve, will he promise that he will take action as soon as possible, in other words, by the end of this month?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to act as quickly as possible.
My only regret is that the hon. member is surrounded by people who once sat on this side of the House as members of the Conservative government, including the leader at headquarters in Quebec City, and all these people let this situation go on for many years. However, we will act a lot quicker than the hon. member may think, and I want to thank him for recognizing the fact that we reacted appropriately to a problem that had to be dealt with.
Could the minister tell the House how negotiations are going with Quebec?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the Government of Canada has reached an agreement with the Government of Quebec on continuing and expanding the infrastructure programs.
Under this agreement, $185 million dollars from the Government of Canada will be spent on municipal infrastructures over the next twelve months, and we hope to create over 5,000 jobs with this expanded program. It will enable municipalities to put in place the infrastructures that are vital to all Quebecers.
[English]
In the red book the Liberals promised accountability and integrity in government. What do we see? Millions of taxpayers' dollars being squandered by the government. It is not following its own Treasury Board policies and guidelines regarding the awarding of contracts.
My question is for the minister responsible for Treasury Board. Will the minister guarantee that Treasury Board will follow its own rules with respect to the awarding of contracts and, in particular, drastically reduce the number of contracts awarded without going through the competitive bidding process?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this committee of the House has been doing what we believe is very good work for about two years. The members submitted a preliminary report in the fall of 1995. We agreed with quite a number of their recommendations.
In fact, already we have put in place a number of measures to implement these recommendations. For instance, in order to increase the number of contracts that went to competitive bidding the threshold was lowered from $30,000 to $25,000. The new bidding procedures have been tightened. The monitoring is much stronger. We are waiting to see the other recommendations in the final report in order to act on them as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is tinkering around the edges. He has not dealt with the meat of the issue. We are talking about $9 billion in contracts. That is nearly 10 per cent of total government spending and yet the government has not addressed the key issues.
The committee report recommends that Treasury Board address four areas of abuse by the government: sole source contracting, contract splitting, contract tailoring and contract amendments. These abuses fly in the face of government policy and are contrary to the standards of fairness and transparency that Canadians expect from their government. The committee report calls for strong sanctions to be imposed to prevent such abuses from continuing in the future.
Will the minister guarantee to Canadians that his department will follow the committee recommendations and put an end to contract splitting, contract tailoring and excessive contract amendments?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, more than 60 per cent of the contracts that are concluded are concluded according to rules that involve competitive bidding. The great majority of these contracts are clearly recognized as being efficient, fair and under proper procedures.
In the circumstances that were mentioned by the committee we have recognized that in certain cases the recommendations make a lot of sense. As I mentioned, we have already implemented a number of these measures. We will now study the other recommendations. We have, I believe, 90 days to respond. We will
respond to all these recommendations. When they make sense we will implement them.
In the report to the Prime Minister entitled ``Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces'', there is a common thread to the reforms proposed by the Minister of National Defence. They do not touch anything that sets the army apart, well out of public view, and that affords it government complacency.
Why did the minister refuse to act on the recommendation by Professor Albert Legault that civilian and military companies be integrated and the ombudsman accountable to Parliament?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we tried to take into account a number of recommendations that came from a lot of people, not just Professor Legault.
I would point out to my colleague that, as regards the system of military justice and the operation of the military police, we will be establishing a tribunal to oversee the activities of the military justice system and to look into complaints about the system. This is completely outside the chain of command of the Canadian forces and outside the bureaucracy of the Department of National Defence. It will report directly to the Minister of National Defence.
However, as is generally the case, because he has no regulatory power but rather the power to verify and encourage so that the appropriate changes are made in cases where the system has treated individuals unfairly, the ombudsman is to report, as is often the case, to those persons in a position to make the necessary changes.
(1150)
In the case of National Defence, the ombudsman's reports will be made public as will those of the tribunal I have just mentioned. This will, I think, ensure a transparency heretofore unknown in the organization of the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the military police and the ombudsman, who will both remain under the authority of the chief of staff, and the minister's refusal to review the army's traditional role, including its readiness for combat, lead us to conclude that the minister's reform is nothing more than window dressing.
Does the minister not agree that, in fact, his reform accords full and unconditional amnesty to the chief of staff of the Canadian armed forces and treats all those guilty of murder and of covering up all the events in Somalia as innocent, without any formal decision? Does the minister realize that he is proposing not only amnesty, but total amnesty?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, but when I come face to face with incomprehension, I certainly realize it.
There is no doubt that some of the 65 recommendations we made in fact concern a number of the points the hon. member has raised. However, I would point out to him that the recommendations on the military justice system and the operation of the military police were prepared and submitted to the Prime Minister and the government without a single letter being changed. The recommendations are the result of work presided over by a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I think the hon. member should make sure his facts are right and that he understands what he is saying when he refers to the recommendations on the military justice system and the military police. Because when the time comes to judge the content, I believe the opinions of the hon. member will be measured against the ability of the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Would the Minister of Health get his priorities straight and allow people to use these substances without restriction?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member is so exercised. Health Canada is discharging a responsibility that he would impose on it and which he would want all Canadians to ensure it fulfilled, specifically to ensure that all products that come on the market claiming a medicinal function be both safe and effective.
Second, he is well aware that Health Canada already has a committee in place to study all such herbal products. Over 100 of them are approved on an annual basis. Surely the member would not want Health Canada or any other body to release products on to the market before they have been tested for efficacy and safety.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, no party is more committed to the health of Canadians that the Reform Party, and that is a fact.
The hon. member needs to be corrected. I am talking about substances that people have been using for decades, substances which are found in our own bodies, like tryptothan.
The health minister first wants to ban cheese and now he wants to ban vitamins. I suggest that he get his priorities straight. While Canadians a dying on waiting lists, this is what the government is doing.
Will the minister get his priorities straight and allow people the choice in health care that they deserve?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all choices are, in effect, good choices if they result in a consequence that is healthy and productive.
The member opposite would surely not ask us to allow a product like Ephedra into Canada. It was widely allowed into the United States.
(1155 )
For example, in Texas over 500 reports of adverse reactions have already been reported. Or comfrey, which has been identified as a causing agent of liver diseases and deaths.
We could go on on this list but it is important-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.
Mike Harris and his Conservative government are slashing Ontario's hospital services. They are trying to lay the blame on the federal government, citing cuts to the province's transfer payments.
Of the large hospitals slated for closure, three are in the national capital, including the Montfort hospital, the only French language teaching hospital in Ontario.
[English]
Would the minister inform the House who is really to blame and responsible for shutting down hospitals, especially the only francophone teaching hospital in Ontario?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is to be seen in the actions of this government in comparison with the government in question.
First, in 1996 the budget delivered on what the provinces had asked for specifically: stable, predictable and secure cash transfers. In the 1997 budget, an additional $150 million in investment for the future of health care was added in the health transition fund to take Canada into the 21st century. That is in addition to funds that had been already put in place for other health related measures including prenatal nutrition, community action programs for children.
I caution all members in the House to put that in the context of what is going on in Ontario where the government had the opportunity to impose tax cuts or to close-
Last March 8, 23 days before the end of the fiscal year, my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, reminded the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec that his government had not yet kept its promise to turn over a quarter of a million dollars in funding to the Parc technologique du Québec métropolitain. Last March 26, the Minister of Industry told the Sainte-Foy chamber of commerce that the amount would be only $150,000.
How can a minister who says that the jobs of the future will be built on savoir faire and knowledge break the government's promises like this, by depriving the Parc technologique du Québec métropolitain of financial resources, the very purpose of which is to create jobs in the high tech sector?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will confirm what my colleague, the Minister of Industry said: this government has focused on job creation based on businesses in the new economy.
As for the Parc technologique du Québec, it was created and exists in large measure because the Canadian government supported it from the very beginning. We recently stepped in with an additional $150,000, which seems to have satisfied the people of the Parc technologique.
However, I would just like to mention that the Parc technologique du Québec is a paragovernmental corporation belonging to the Province of Quebec, and I think that members of the official opposition are knocking on the wrong door. I think the Canadian government has more than done its part for the Parc technologique and we are happy to have done so. They can try knocking at the door of head office now.
[English]
When is the report going to be made public? Why is the government sitting on it and losing valuable time?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right that the report is finished. I have had a look at it. We are studying it and when we are ready to act, we will.
Can the minister tell me, regarding the government's jobs strategy, what benefits are planned to be available for those Canadians living in rural Canada?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last budget provided about $275 million in tax benefits to help all students and parents to defray the costs of post-secondary education.
(1200 )
Second, my department is developing a national agricultural scholarships program and is committing about $1 million over the next two years to provide 30 masters and doctoral awards per year in agricultural related fields.
Third, within the national system of internships, which is being supported by the government, there is a science horizons program to assist young Canadians interested in finding first jobs related to the agricultural sciences. That is a part of the internship strategy.
Finally, we have a summer fair program by which we will be providing Canada kiosks at some 164 rural locations across the country. They will be managed on a local level by 4-H members across the country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.