Debates of Feb. 6th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have undertaken to have this looked into. I think that is a reasonable response and I ask the hon. member to accept that I will make sure his suggestion is pursued.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Ninety-five per cent of the ceremony to present the Canadian athletes to the media, which was sponsored by the Canadian Olympic Association, was apparently conducted in English. The French that was used for only 5% of the time was of poor quality, if not mediocre.

How can the heritage minister explain this situation, if not by saying that it reflects the inability of her department and her government to ensure that francophones in Quebec and Canada are respected?

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that the COA's decision does not reflect the Canadian reality.

Like the hon. member, I fully disagree with the manner in which the event was conducted, and I certainly hope to have the opportunity to discuss it with Bill Warren and to ensure that Myriam Bédard, Gaétan Boucher, Jean-Luc Brassard and all Canadian gold medallists are treated with respect in both official languages.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her compassion toward the francophones of this country. However, I had several conversations with people in Nagano to check the facts, and my sources unanimously confirmed that, of all the Olympic events, this was the worst performance by the Canadian Olympic Association, which managed to project a “totally Canadian” image of our country.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage may take cover behind the COA, but will she admit that this incident is the direct consequence of her policy to use the Canadian flag as a symbol of Canadian unity, which has the effect of increasingly marginalizing the French language in this country?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Mr. Speaker, because Quebeckers are entitled not to lose Canada through confusion, trickery and unclear procedures. Nobody wants to force Quebeckers to stay in Canada against their will, should they ever clearly express their desire to leave, and Quebeckers are entitled to go on being Canadians as long as that is what they wish to do.

Mr. Speaker, those who listened to Oral Question Period yesterday would have heard me say twice that the Government of Canada feels it has acted within the principles of international law in the so-called turbot war.

Now, if the Bloc Quebecois wants to go on identifying its plans for secession with the only event in which the Canadian army was forced to fire on another vessel in peace time, that is its own decision, but it does not bode well for its plans.

Mr. Speaker, this is a specific case. I will take note of the hon. member's question and refer it to the President of the Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Chicoutimi is very familiar with the disaster that struck his region.

The Canadian government initially took action under the Canada-Quebec agreement dealing with disasters and their victims. This agreement worked very well, and the issue raised by the hon. member is indeed a very specific one.

In order to deal with damages not covered by the agreement, we implemented a temporary economic reconstruction program that was very successful. I should point out to the Conservative member that there are still funds in that program, which includes seven components.

It is a program which we would like to duplicate in the case of disasters such as the one created by the ice storm.

Mr. Speaker, there has been an important case on the west coast dealing with the enforcement of regulations in the fishery. There is a member of this House who has been convicted. I think it is appropriate that we wait until the sentencing is completed before we comment on the case.

Mr. Speaker, the department admits that there are 20 secret legal opinions on the race based fishery locked away in its vaults. The minister knows they exist and I assume you have read past the executive summary—

Will the minister release the documents and put a stop to this racially divisive aboriginal commercial fishery?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has omitted to mention a series of cases which are going to the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the issue of the aboriginal fishery and the right of aboriginal peoples with respect to other entitlements, be they land, game or other things.

It is important for him to remember the importance of restraining himself for a few more days, or even perhaps a day, as the case may be, until such time as the provincial court trial judge in the case of the Queen v Cummins renders sentencing.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that his shipping companies, being Canadian, could not take advantage of the tax savings offered under Bill C-28.

On the other hand, the Vice-President of Canada Steamship Lines stated that his companies could not take advantage of the tax changes because they are foreign-operated, and the ethics adviser stated that he had been assured that Canada Steamship Lines does not intend to take advantage of the terms of the act, thus implying that it was entitled to do so.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. If it is as clear as can be, as the minister said it was yesterday, how can he explain these three different and contradictory interpretations?