[Translation]
On a more serious note, yesterday, the auditor general had much to say about how the government fiddles its financial statements, but the Liberals turned a deaf ear. They preferred not to hear his comments. It is understandable that, with the elections approaching, the government would want to avoid hearing anything that might cast light on the way the Liberals have managed the public funds. As they say on the Hill, and how appropriate it is: ``When the going gets tough, the Liberals go into hiding''.
By skipping a meeting with the auditor general on the government's accounting practices, what are the Liberals trying to hide, to cover up? What are the Liberals trying to hide, when we see that the auditor general told them yesterday that their accounting practices were dubious?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has nothing to hide from the auditor general. The auditor general looked over our books and he gave us a clear statement that they were in good shape. The hon. member should be well aware that there was no reservation by the auditor general on the accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a statement like that is surprising, when we know that the Liberals did not want to hear it yesterday. It is a bit surprising when one knows that what the auditor general would have said, if he had the chance, is: ``I fear that the credibility of the government's financial statements and of the budget is questionable''. That is pretty clear.
The Liberals did the same thing last year. They are repeating the same dubious accounting practice of cooking the books, fiddling with the deficit, in order to look better on the eve of an election. That is what they are trying to do.
If they are repeating the same offence and continuing to thumb their collective noses at the recommendations of the auditor general, are we to conclude that the government has now acquired the habit of playing with the figures to its heart's content, ignoring the most elementary principles of accounting?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that he should read the auditor general's statements. Take a look at them.
The auditor general gave us a clean opinion on his audit statement of the government accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have read the French version, and I have read the English version; they both said the same thing. It could have been debated yesterday with our honourable colleague, if he had deigned to show up at the Public Accounts Committee, which he did not.
And the Liberals are going to seek another mandate by saying that they have managed our taxes well, while the auditor general says the opposite, that the Liberals have been manipulating the figures in order to make their financial statements look better, adding expenditures that will not even be made until after the election onto the deficit of previous years.
Let us take the example of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which is used to hide $800 million this year. What confidence and what credibility can we have in a government which treats comments made by the auditor general in a totally flippant and irresponsible manner?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the hon. member that this government is not spending today and paying for it tomorrow. It is setting up a reserve fund and that innovation fund is going to be paid out over the next little while. We have made that commitment and acknowledged that at the time we made it.
This government has not followed the example of the previous governments where we found out some years later that we had a deficit of $42 billion instead of $32 billion. We are not making commitments and then paying for them later. We are making commitments now and we are recognizing those commitments.
The auditor general has stated specifically that our books were in good order for last year.
(1425 )
I would ask the member about this building which he is sitting in. When was it expensed? It was expensed in the budgets of 1917 and 1918 when it was built and we have used it for the last 80 years. We are doing the same thing with the innovation fund. We are setting it up. We have made that commitment. It is there and it will be used over the next few years.
When he left the room where the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that was supposed to be sitting late in the afternoon yesterday, the auditor general described the GST harmonization formula which, as we know, gave $1 billion to the maritimes, as a political decision. This squares exactly with what we have been saying about that formula since it was announced. It we fully apply the McKenna formula to Quebec, Ottawa owes Quebec $2 billion, which the Quebec government has been asking for, as was demonstrated in black and white in the last provincial budget.
Why is the government persisting in not treating Quebec the same way as it is treating the maritimes?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are treating the Quebec government exactly the same way under those regulations as we are treating every other province. If the Quebec government had lost funds on the harmonization of the GST and the QST we would have compensated it. It did not lose funds.
As I said yesterday in the House, the Quebec government accounts show clearly that the numbers went from $5.1 billion to $5.4 billion to around $6 billion. That represents an increase every year since harmonization. It has not cost Quebec any funds at all. The Quebec accounts show that.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Mr. McKenna was at the Château Champlain, in Montreal, at 12.30 p.m. today, no doubt in order to praise the merits of his province in the taxation area and thus rob us of our businesses and our jobs.
Does the government find it normal that the premier of a province should use some of the money paid by Quebecers to come and draw Quebec's businesses away, businesses that Montreal needs so badly to counter poverty?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question should be addressed to the premier of the province he has indicated. It is not the policies of the Government of Canada he has complained about but the policies of the province of New Brunswick. If he has problems with the provincial politics I suggest he bring those up in provincial parliaments.
For example, on the cover of their pre-election brochure they feature six young children. I wonder if this means the government plans to reannounce its national day care program, the one it promised it would bring about last time but failed to deliver. Maybe these kids are some of the hundreds of thousands from families that have been driven from the middle to the low income bracket because of this government. Maybe they are supposed to represent the $20,000 per head of debt that men, women and children bear because of Liberal-Tory overspending.
Which one of these policies is the government planning to run on? Which policy will the Liberals bring before the Canadian people in the upcoming election?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we have found over the years, the selective reading habits of the Reform Party did not permit the hon. member to take a look at what is probably one of the most significant initiatives taken on behalf of children in the last decade, the announcement of a major investment in a child benefit that will ensure that every child in a low income family will receive a guaranteed benefit from the Government of Canada.
It provides a basic income flow for poor children in this country. It will put income into the hands of their parents so their parents can make the best choices about their education, their nutrition, and so on. That is the Liberal way of doing things, giving choice to people to help their children. That is the real issue.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by the government's own account, over a million children live in poverty in this country. There is no national day care program after the government promised it.
I am looking through the Liberal list of achievements page to see where it says that the Liberals fulfilled their promise on the GST, but it is strangely absent. I am looking for the section on national unity, but I cannot find it. Could that be because the government came within 50,000 votes of losing the country?
(1430)
What about health care? It speaks about $300 million in a new health care initiative, but it does not mention, for some reason, that it has cut $7.5 billion.
Is the government planning to hoodwink Canadians once again, just like it did in 1993, or is my brochure missing some pages?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it exceedingly bizarre that the hon. member, while he seems to be poring over the literature of the government with a microscope, totally ignores the literature of his own party.
The last so-called Reform budget was going to totally decimate the entire pension plan of Canadians. It was going to reduce payments to the disabled, children and low income families. It was going to totally and completely rewrite the social structure to give tax breaks to high income earners and higher taxes to the low income earners.
I would suggest the hon. member change his reading habits.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is the only party that has a plan to save the Canada pension plan.
The chairman of the committee on the government side who comes from Winnipeg said that in 15 years the Canada pension plan will be in trouble because of the government's initiative. Is it any wonder when Liberal MPs secured their own MP pension that they are not concerned about Canadians' pensions?
The government cannot run away from its record. Look at the GST promise, the day care promise, the NAFTA promise. There have been 37 tax increases. The country has the worst jobless record since the great depression. Look at Somalia, Airbus, the Krever and the Pearson scandals.
After that pathetic record of incompetence and duplicity why should Canadians trust the government for another four years?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of having served as a member of this government. First, it has been able to restore the confidence and trust of Canadians in government. That is something the Reform Party has never, in its wildest dreams, had the notion of doing.
Second, unemployment has been brought down from the high levels it was at in 1993. More than 750,000 jobs have been created.
Interest rates have been brought down to a 30 year low.
We have restructured government and restructured the finances of the country which has given us a platform from which to launch into the new century.
We approach these issues with pragmatism and reality, not with ideology and rhetoric, which seems to be the only stock in trade of the hon. member.
Canadian Airlines is still having problems despite the assistance provided by the federal government. If the company cannot sell Inter-Canadian, it will shut down operations in Quebec in less than five weeks, killing 500 jobs.
What is the federal government going to do about this potential closure, after agreeing in the last few months to postpone the last payment on the $120 million loan it extended to Canadian in 1992, and after granting Canadian last February a reduction in fuel taxes of $20 million a year over the next four years.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation with respect to the regional subsidiary of Canadian Airlines is fairly straightforward. The company has proposed selling the airline. This happened only a few days ago. There is, I believe, at least a 16-week period before there would be developments that would involve the government.
At the present time it is simply a private company offering to sell a company which has frequently been sold. It was once known as Quebec Air. It has frequently been purchased by other companies.
It appears to be a normal readjustment within the airline industry where one company might move from ownership of one group to ownership of another. At the present time there is no cause for the government to step in.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's comments that all Quebec taxpayers are good for is to pay tens of millions of dollars that the federal government then gives to Canadian, and that they do not
have the right to say anything when this company shuts down its operations in Quebec two months later?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, this is a private offer of a Canadian company to the market generally. It is not a question of taxpayers' money being involved.
The hon. member seems to be under the misapprehension that Canadian is owned by the Canadian government. It is not. Canadian Airlines is a private corporation.
It is a little bit like the corn flakes commercial. I think Liberals are going to run on ``try me again for the first time'' to see if maybe people will buy it. I do not think the people are going to buy $24 billion in tax increases since the government took power, another $110 billion added to the $500 and some billion national debt and 1.4 million unemployed. With a shameful economic record like that I wonder what the Liberals are going to run on.
The government should not be going cap in hand asking for the votes of the electorate. It should be going cap in hand apologizing to the electorate. What possible reason could the government use for going to the people at this time in a federal election?
An hon. member: We want to get rid of the Reform Party.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is trying to use the metaphor of a cereal box, which I am very glad he has the time to spend reading in comparison to his hon. colleague, I would suggest that the appropriate variation for the Reform Party would be crack, pop and fizzle.
Mr. Speaker, I said crack, pop not crackpot. I just want to make that clear.
The hon. member is the one who seems to be getting all agitated about an election. It was his party that rushed out to get its platform before the people. It is his leader who has been campaigning across the country. It is his members who are standing up in an apologetic fashion declaring their mea culpas to their constituents.
We are here governing. We want to make sure that the country is in good hands and continues to be in good hands. If and when and how the election is called, we fully expect to have the mandate to continue as the government.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe their idea of governing is that a goody a day will get the voter to play. I am not sure whether they will get away with it.
When the Liberals announce their platform I can see it now: The theme music from Mission Impossible coming on the screen as the son of red book gets trotted out and they try once again to make believe that this time they really, really mean it.
Are they going to try to defend the actions of some of their ministers, while if their outspoken backbenchers speak out they get kicked out of the party? Will they defend that? Will they talk about the huge MP pension plan? Will they talk about the Somalia inquiry? Will they talk about the Pearson airport deal? Maybe the Airbus pay-off, I wonder if that is what they will talk about. Maybe it will be free trade. I think it is going to be long term, stable funding for the CBC.
This is a comedy from Air Farce. Surely they cannot be running on this. In this literature the Liberals are saying that Canadians are in good hands. Well, good hands my foot. Why would Canadians vote for four more years of this kind of a government?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the observation he makes of members on the government side. If he took a look around him it would look like the retreat from Moscow. Never have we seen such a bedraggled group of people in total surrender and defeat, pulling themselves back with all the resignations and all the evictions.
We have declared a new party called independent members made up of the rejects from the Reform Party that their hon. leader has thrown out.
I would hope that at some point during this question period that the Reform Party might, in its last gasp here in the House, get down to some serious questions about the issues at stake, the great matters really affecting public policy and get off their platform.
[Translation]
On March 31, the federal government stopped its financial contribution to the Quebec agricultural day haul transportation assistance program. So, this year, the government of Quebec will have to finance all by itself the program, which will be cut by 40
per cent, or $330,000, because of the federal government's withdrawal.
Since this successful program provides vital transportation services for some 150,000 person-days a year in Quebec, why is the minister reluctant to renew the federal government's financial contribution?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to hear members opposite talk about jurisdiction.
This is very much a provincial jurisdiction. The Government of Quebec and members opposite have asked us to withdraw from areas of provincial jurisdiction and that is what we are doing.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, I would like to point out that it was a federal-provincial agreement and not a question of the federal government taking over from the province. An agreement is usually reached because we want to do business together.
The federal government had already reduced its financial contribution from 50 per cent to 40 per cent, and now it is down to nothing.
Does the minister realize that his refusal to maintain the federal contribution to this program will mostly affect small farmers trying to recruit help and thousands of low-income seasonal workers?
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we are aware of that. It is why we have made an offer to the provincial government and the farming community as a whole. Human Resources Development is very interested in looking at proposals for doing this in a different way than it has been done in the past.
Once the proposal is put to us, we will look at the issue and a way of delivering it in a different fashion than it was delivered in the past because that entered into provincial jurisdiction which is against the policy of the party opposite.
If all the Liberal hacks in patronage positions are so good, why are the Canadian taxpayers shelling out $50,000 for VIA Rail's president to take an eight-week course at Harvard?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail is a crown corporation for which I am responsible for reporting to the House. I do not have a day to day responsibility for vetting every decision taken by VIA Rail. The hon. member has made an assertion which may or may not be correct, I do not know. I am quite willing to look into it for him, find out and report back to him.
I would suggest that a party which constantly has supported the private sector and the concept of government getting out of active involvement in commercial operations should think twice before it encourages ministers to take day to day control of crown corporations or private companies.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what I encourage the minister to do is privatize VIA Rail.
Given that VIA Rail is subsidized in the amount of $600,000 a day, $50,000 might not seem like much money to the Prime Minister, his finance minister or the Minister of Transport. However it represents a four-year degree for a Canadian student who cannot afford an education because the Liberals cut education funding by 40 per cent.
Can the Prime Minister or anyone else explain why Liberal patronage hacks get $50,000 for an eight-week Ivy League course while thousands of Canadian students cannot afford an education because of Liberal cuts.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I answered this question the first time around by saying that I, as minister responsible for reporting to the House for VIA, do not take every decision of $50,000 or more for the railroad, nor in fact does the Prime Minister.
(1445)
We have a crown corporation operating at arm's length from the government whose annual plan is reported through me to the House. We do not follow every decision prior to it being made.
I will repeat what I have agreed to do, for the hon. member. I will ask VIA for the details surrounding the assertion of the hon. member to find out whether it is correct. Most assertions from his party are incorrect. If it is correct, I will bring information to him about it and whether there is justification for it.
I cannot expect to answer every $50,000 decision of a corporation, which he admits has at least a $600,000 daily support from the state.
[Translation]
Last Monday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs told us that he intended to contact his Egyptian counterpart within a day or two to take urgent action to have Mrs. Robitaille's eldest child, who is seriously ill, brought back to Canada.
Can the minister inform us of the outcome of the discussions with his Egyptian counterpart to bring back the Robitaille children who are still being held in Egypt?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, a conversation could not be arranged for now. I have signed a letter to the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs. I will continue to try to contact him directly, personally, to share with him the great concern of the Canadian government.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we conclude then that the discussion has not been held yet.
I remind the minister that Egypt is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and, as such, has obligations to meet.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if he will invoke the Convention on the Rights of the Child with his Egyptian counterpart to convince him to send back to Canada the eldest Robitaille child, who is seriously ill?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, certainly the responsibilities under the convention are setting a mandate but they do not have a legal, binding obligation. That is the difficulty.
Within a matter of a day or two we will be engaged in finishing our negotiations with the Egyptian government on a new consular agreement. This would substantially enhance our ability to make representations on behalf of the Robitaille children.
I understand the frustrations. I feel them as well, but we have to pursue it through the venues of the international forums we have. I will keep the hon. member fully informed of each step along the way.
For several weeks now, people in eastern Ontario have shown in different ways their total opposition to the closure of Montfort Hospital.
Since the federal government has assumed the mandate to speak for linguistic minority rights everywhere in Canada, could the minister tell the House what the position of the government is, regarding the closure of Montfort Hospital?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is that linguistic minorities all across Canada should not only be entitled to basic services in their own language but should also have the right to control as many institutions as possible which are essential to any community, such as schools, colleges, hospitals, co-operatives.
Like some of my colleagues, I informed the Government of Ontario of my position on the proposed closure of Montfort Hospital the very first day it was announced. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I will keep asking the Government of Ontario to take into consideration the serious consequences for the Franco-Ontarian community of the closure of the only French language hospital in Ottawa.
Premier Harris has proven to be a great Canadian by giving francophones of Ontario control over their schools. I do hope that he will be guided by the same principles in the case of Montfort, the only French language teaching hospital in Ontario.
[English]
Thanks to the justice minister and Bill C-41, this young offender can be paroled after serving a mere 10 years. That is the Liberal record of getting tough on crime.
My question is for the justice minister. Why send young killers into adult court for adult sentencing when adult penalties do not apply?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
As he is aware, a decision was recently rendered by the court of appeal. As an appeal could still be possible it would not be appropriate to comment on it.
The record of the government and the minister is very clear. There have been more effective changes to the Criminal Code to toughen it up, changes to toughen up the young offenders law, changes to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and changes to help victims, than have been made in the history of the nation by any single parliament. That is something we are very proud of.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how in the world could the parliamentary secretary claim they are getting tough on crime when they change the law so that it does not really make any difference if a young killer is transferred from young offenders into adult court? It simply does not make sense.
Nevertheless I have a supplementary question. This 17-year old killer was convicted in 1992, two years before Bill C-41 was passed. This offender was granted the benefit of a law passed retroactively. Yet the justice minister claimed Bill C-45 could not be applied to Clifford Olson because of the principle of retroactivity.
Why does retroactivity apply to killers only when it is in their favour?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the government has brought forward many effective measures to improve efficiency and effectiveness. It has taken many measures to improve the criminal law. It is far more effective, efficient and legal than that contained in the Reform platform, Operation Crime Spank or whatever it is called.
We have worked with the provinces, victims groups, police organizations, many other groups and individuals across the country to improve the criminal law. When it comes to the criminal law the Reform Party reminds me of proud parents watching 10,000 marching soldiers and noting with pride that their son is the only one in step.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has refused to grant a visitor's visa to Vedran Smailovic, the world renowned cellist from Sarajevo. Immigration officials rejected Mr. Smailovic's request for a visa because he does not have a valid reason to visit Canada, although he has been invited to come by a journalist to co-author a children's book.
Why is Immigration Canada refusing admission to this country to Vedran Smailovich, a man of peace?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member for Bourassa has not yet understood our immigration laws since 1993, we have a serious problem here. He is fully aware that the Privacy Act prohibits any public discussion of a particular case.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): The minister has discretionary powers in this matter, but this is not all. Canadians and Quebecers will judge this government harshly because of its discriminatory policy regarding visas.
Mr. Smailovic has visited several countries and has never sought asylum there. He has undertaken to not do so when he comes to Canada. Will the minister reconsider and grant a visa to Mr. Smailovic?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I will set the member for Bourassa straight. The minister has no discretionary powers to publicly reveal private information. Therefore, I shall not discuss this case in public.
[English]
What possible rationale can he give for announcing that the consumer subsidy phase out would start August 1 rather February 1, 1998?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the provision the hon. gentleman is referring to was contained in the 1996 budget. Since the budget has been in the public domain and subject to public discussion, dairy producers and dairy processors have made the argument, which has behind it some considerable force of logic, that it would be more convenient and more economically efficient in our dairy system to consider any appropriate price changes at the beginning of February, not on January 1 but on February 1 as opposed to August 1 which has been the tradition over a number of years.
The recommendation of both the processors and producers is under active consideration by the government. As soon as we are in a position to confirm the appropriate arrangements we will make them public.
Given the tenor and tone of the hon. gentlemen's question, I welcome his very strong endorsement of supply management.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister did not pick up on my tenor and tone very well.
As I am sure he already knows, producers have agreed to forgo a 2.1 per cent increase in the price of milk which amounts to a $40 million saving to Canadian consumers. I am not talking about an endorsement of supply management but about keeping up his end of the deal.
Will the minister agree to do that today? A lot of dairy producers would like to see him keep up his end of the deal.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the arrangements with respect to the phasing down of the dairy subsidy over a number of years is a matter that involves considerable technical consideration. It is not the sort of proposition that is just scribbled down on the back of an envelope.
Accordingly I have had lengthy discussions with the dairy industry. I am scheduled to meet with the dairy farmers of Canada again later this afternoon. There is a good spirit of positive co-operation in trying to find the appropriate mechanism that will accomplish the objective both dairy farmers and dairy processors have in mind.
May I say that I am sorry to hear the hon. member renege on his support for supply management.
I am pleased the government signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec to help in active employment measures and programs to help the unemployed re-enter the job market.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. I need a clarification with respect to the availability and acceptability of these programs for the English speaking community. Just how are they to be protected and access ensured under the provisions of the Quebec-Canada accord and the new management policy?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of honour and pride that I stand here today to report to the hon. member that this government and this party continue in their unwaivering support of the minority language rights of Canadians.
All five agreements we have culminated so far with the provinces in the labour market field have extended the language minority rights of individuals in those provinces.
In the case of Quebec we have the same agreement as we do with other provinces. Those rights will be protected. The English speaking minority in Quebec will be able to get the same services in English as those outside Quebec will get in French.
Given what I know of what the Minister of Health repeatedly said in previous Parliaments about the undesirability of the 20 year patent protection, I ask him what he is prepared to do about the situation. Is he not disappointed in the committee's report? Is he prepared to say at this time, if the government is not prepared to condemn the committee's conclusions, that the Liberals have finally, clearly, absolutely and truly broken their promise to the Canadian people with respect to Bill C-91?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not wanting to concur with the preamble of the hon. member's question, the government has just received a copy of the report on Bill C-91. Ministers will have an opportunity to examine it at a subsequent stage.
Notwithstanding the member's strong intervention, the Minister of Industry and I have given the view of the government as it relates to the 20 year patent and, in particular, our international obligations. I think that is clear to the country. I think it is clear to various health groups. It is certainly clear to provincial governments, notwithstanding whatever political mischief they may wish to engage in on this issue.
The Canadian Wildlife Service just announced, in Montmagny, that it will not issue scaring and hunting permits for snow geese in 1997, even though it did last year, to everyone's satisfaction.
Why does the minister persist in refusing to issue hunting permits, given that this measure considerably reduces damage to farm producers without endangering the species?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
A hunt under the migratory birds convention is simply illegal because the American Congress has not yet ratified the amendments to that convention. In terms of any hunt, we have to wait, hopefully sooner rather than later, for Congress to ratify the amendments to the convention.
A few days ago we announced that last year there was a limited kill but it was not a successful program. The birds were to be left on the ground to scare the other birds. What happened was the birds were not left on the ground and, therefore, none got scared.
This year we adjusted the arrangements. There are three fields which will hopefully attract those birds as they migrate from the south to the north in the hopes that the farmers' areas will not be afflicted as they have been in the past.
It has the support of the round table of interest. It is the overwhelming consensus. Clearly we should listen to local interests in trying this method because last year the system did not work as well as we would have hoped. Then we can, obviously, at the end of the migration period review the situation for next year.
At the end of last month, three and a half years after the Liberals took office, 173,000 Atlantic Canadians were unemployed according to Statistics Canada, an increase of 29,000 unemployed, or 20 per cent.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to these jobless Atlantic Canadians about this dismal record?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what we have to say is that there is still a very significant task ahead of this country in providing opportunities for people to work.
(1505 )
The most important way is to ensure the country is strong economically. That has been demonstrated by the way growth is now taking place at 3.5 per cent a year by our predictions, by the fact that we now have very low interest rates, by the fact that we have now restructured government so we can target where the most available growth prospects are.
The reality is we inherited a mess from the previous government. We inherited a substantial and huge problem. We have been working very hard to bring it down and I think Canadians are just now on the verge of getting the benefit of that restructuring and that modernization. We just need another four years to complete the task.
In case Aline Chrétien decided to ask her husband to do the spring cleaning at 24 Sussex Drive, instead of calling an election, I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House to tell us what is on the agenda for next week.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our program for April was generally laid out for us in the business statement of March 20, and we shall continue in the remaining days of April to work on this program in a manner determined by consultation through the usual channels.
It is fair to say that this process has worked very well. It is appropriate to thank the hon. members opposite as well as members on this side of the House for their high level of co-operation which has been forthcoming in managing an extremely busy agenda.
I wish to mention the constructive role that has been played by all members, in particular the members of the Reform and the Bloc and the hon. member for Lethbridge who has demonstrated to all of us that there is a difference between opposing and obstructing.
Perhaps more important, the hon. member for Lethbridge has shown us clearly that being an effective adversary does not make one a personal enemy. He has brought a dignity and a maturity to the proceedings of the House that all of us should take as an example.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a petition from the clerk of petitions. I know this may well be my last opportunity to table it. Unfortunately, this petition does not quite meet the requirements of this House.
I ask for unanimous consent to table this petition in this House, nonetheless.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Terrebonne have the consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.