Debates of Sept. 29th, 1995

Government Subsidies

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think what we should be focusing on from his question is what the government is doing for the young people of the country.

I had the pleasure during the summer months to introduce the summer job action plan, which created over 44,500 new jobs for young people.

The hon. member should be a bit more consistent with what he is saying. On the one hand, when we introduced the program he said that we were intervening into provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, in a letter written to the minister he asked us to support a project that deals with Youth Service Canada, a project that he said was intervening in provincial jurisdiction. It is clear that we have a confused bunch on the other side.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the parliamentary secretary is the one who is confused because I put my question to the Prime Minister but he did not reply.

By refusing to denounce the Minister of Human Resources Development who linked funding with my political opinions, does the Prime Minister not realize that once again he is demonstrating his lack of respect for democracy?

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he is saying that Youth Service Canada is intervening in provincial jurisdiction. On the other hand, for young people in his riding he wants this program. He should make up his mind.

I have an idea for him. Support federalism, support a united Canada, and those kids can prosper just like every other young Canadian.

Yugoslavia

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt asked the Prime Minister to explain glaring inconsistencies in the government's pronouncements about Canada's mandate in the former Yugoslavia. The Prime Minister's response was flippant and I would like to ask for clarification.

In March the Prime Minister expressly declared that following a debate in the House the government was renewing our mandate for another six months. That time expires this weekend, but officials of both the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs claim that the mandate does not expire for another month or even two months.

I seek clarification from the Prime Minister. When does Canada's formal commitment to the mission in the former Yugoslavia expire? Has the government undertaken to extend the mandate that was debated in the House?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to a debate in the House, and I remember the position of the Reform Party. It was actively encouraging the government not to keep our troops in ex-Yugoslavia for the reason that progress was not being made.

I think the hon. member, with his experience, would very much appreciate that in Croatia our troops were withdrawn when the job was done, with no further ado.

Right now I think the House is entirely aware of the progress that has been made in Bosnia and how close we are to the peace process. To suggest that progress has not been made I think was wrong in the spring and it is wrong now.

Specifically, the United Nations mandate will expire on November 30. The Canadian rotation for the troops is due in mid-November. In view of the progress that has been made, the government will decide by the end of October on the future of Canadian participation.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue here is not progress in the former Yugoslavia. The issue here is the mandate of our troops and the discussion in the House.

Last September and again last March the government pretended that Parliament and the people of Canada had a voice in determining our peacekeeping commitments. We remember that in March the debate was held only two days before our mandate expired. Now we find that the government is acting unilaterally, without any consultation.

Canada's peacekeepers have always been faithful in their duty and they are right now. Along with other Canadians, they deserve a clear indication of the mandate and deserve a better answer from the government than the Prime Minister gave yesterday or what I heard just now.

When does our mandate expire, and why has the government not consulted Parliament about its extension?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member his colleague, then the defence critic, as a member of the standing committee, agreed to a report that in essence said that with respect to the committal of peacekeeping troops in mandates such as the one under discussion, under normal circumstances the House would have a debate. He agreed, somewhat reluctantly, that there were occasions when a debate could not take place. This may be one of them.

Immigration

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In August we learned that the government had decided to increase the rate with which it was issuing citizenship certificates in Quebec so as to allow the greatest possible number of new citizens to exercise their right to vote in the coming referendum, close to 10 000 people.

The Prime Minister says he would never use new Canadians for political purposes. Would he indicate to us whether this is standard practice when an election or referendum is in the offing?

[English]

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member relates to the voting process in the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec obviously handles these matters on their own. The Canada-Quebec accord is such that it is an example of federalism at its most flexible and at its best. If the hon. member does not understand that, she does not understand the accord.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the hon. member has not understood my question, because speeding up this process does not depend on Quebec but on the federal government.

How can the Prime Minister explain, for instance, that the processing of citizenship applications is being accelerated in Quebec at this time, but that was not the case when elections were held recently in New Brunswick and Ontario?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member looks at the citizenship process through jaundiced eyes. The citizenship process in Canada goes on the same for those who wish to become citizens, whether they are from Quebec, New Brunswick, or British Columbia. We have one system. It works well and it will continue to work well.

Census

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, next year Canadians will be asked in the Statistics Canada census to identify themselves by race. Citizens will be required by law to answer this question. The question is there so that the government can calculate its racial targets for its employment equity program.

Will the Minister of Industry confirm that the government intends to prosecute Canadians who refuse to participate in the exercise of racial identification?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the purpose of conducting a periodic census is to determine the composition of Canadian society. This is useful for a wide range of purposes.

On the issue of race, in the past people have made calculations based on language rather than a specific question on racial origin. This time we think the provision of fuller information will give us a much better understanding of the make-up of Canadian society. That should be beneficial for a wide range of purposes.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians answering this question will have the option of stating whether they are Chinese, Japanese, Korean, South Asian, West Asian, or Southeast Asian. However, those who want to identify themselves as Canadians will have to select the category "other". In our own country we will have to be considered "other".

Can the minister explain why the government is so adverse to having respondents identify themselves as Canadians?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Reform Party has repeatedly both in the House and elsewhere failed to recognize that the face of Canada is one of many colours and many languages. In looking at Canada it sees it only through its own eyes and is not able to understand how varied and diverse a mosaic we have created here. This is one of the strengths of Canada. It is unfortunate it has taken this approach to what is a very simple gathering of information for very useful purposes.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

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

Recently, the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recognized the existence of two separate networks within the corporation, the English network and the French network. Predictably, Mr. Beatty refused to admit there were inequities in the financing of the two networks.

Does the minister agree that these inequities exist and does he intend to make up for this flagrant injustice to the French network by exempting it from the cuts announced last February?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is examining and is, in fact, engaged in a thorough analysis of its budgetary requirements. On behalf of the government we have initiated a process to examine the mandate of the CBC. We will also consider the finances of the CBC in the next budget, and that is our position at this time.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage knows perfectly well that the inequities in financing between the English and French networks are obvious proof that francophones are discriminated against within the CBC, especially since the French network is far more successful than the English network in reaching its target audience and does so at a lesser cost. Would the minister at least have the courage to admit this?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I most certainly agree that the CBC's French network plays a magnificent role in developing the "francophonie" in Canada and throughout the world. I certainly agree with that, and I will do everything in my power to ensure it continues to do so.

Aquaculture Industry

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Over the past few years the New Brunswick Bay of Fundy aquaculture industry has grown to be a $100 million industry in the Carleton-Charlotte constituency. An infestation of sea lice is threatening the industry.

What is the minister doing to fast track the approval of new drugs to control the sea lice problem in this region and save this important industry in Carleton-Charlotte?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada has received an application for registration of a pest control product called salmosan.

This application is being given priority attention. Every effort is being made to assess the product as quickly as possible. Health Canada remains in contact with officials in the New Brunswick government.

Over and above that, the pest management regulatory agency recognizes the aquaculture industry's needs and has already responded to requests by giving emergency registrations for two other products which have not proved as successful as we would have liked them to be, namely hydrogen peroxide and pyrethrum.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, because the Somalia commission is of pressing national concern, I address the Prime Minister regarding Mark Boland.

The commission admits that its refusal to grant standing to Private Boland violates strict logic. Further, doing so undermines the commission's terms of reference which stress that attitudes, discipline and decisions at all rank levels of the chain of command are to be investigated.

Boland's rejection sends a signal throughout the non-commissioned member community that this inquiry is by officers, for officers and discourages them from coming forward.

Will the Prime Minister uphold the perception of justice by ensuring that Mark Boland is given standing?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe he is aware that the commission has taken this decision not to grant standing before the inquiry for Private Mark Boland. He is also aware that the authority to grant standing rests with the commission of inquiry which is constituted under the rules of Canada and their ruling on this is publicly available for all to know.

He is also aware that because the commission is an independent, properly constituted inquiry, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on it and for the minister to interfere.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I went to the Prime Minister was that the inquiry, as I understand it, comes under the Privy Council which answers to the Prime Minister. My question was to him.

The Reform Party compelled a reluctant government to undertake this inquiry. I am now gravely concerned that the commission is being unduly influenced.

Numerous generals and senior officials with only a tangential relationship to the main point of the inquiry are given standing or called to testify immediately. A lieutenant-general has been quietly appointed to head DND's liaison office to the inquiry while another is doing research for the inquiry. Yet soldiers like Mark Boland are being squeezed out.

Can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Department of National Defence is in no way attempting to suppress this inquiry behind the scenes?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we want to have a completely independent inquiry. We have appointed a board that is very competent and it will make sure that it has all the facts.

The Department of National Defence is obligated under the instruction of the government to give all the facts to the commission that are needed to get to the bottom of the problem.