Debates of June 5th, 1996

Cuba

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade and perhaps others are studying possible reforms that might encourage or at least help the victims of any suits brought against Canadians.

As I understand it, the American administration has some leeway in applying certain parts of the law. We have made representations to the American Secretary of State and to the administration in general in the hopes that they would use the flexibility available to them to chield Canadians or at least leave them out of this matter.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is all very well, but time is of the essence. There are only two months left.

When will the Prime Minister implement a realistic strategy to prevent Canadian business from feeling the effects of this legislation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has very little sway over the United States Congress, which is empowered to pass legislation. What we did, and I am happy to have been the first government leader to raise the issue, was to stimulate interest in the international community.

As I just said, we contacted Mexico immediately. We also had a motion passed by all the Caribbean prime ministers, we are raising the matter at all public forums, and I think that the Americans are beginning to realize the legislation has little sense.

It is always rather difficult to discuss with Americans during an electoral period, it will perhaps be a little easier in November.

Agriculture

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has set a lofty goal for Canada of exporting $23 billion worth of agri-food products by the year 2000. The number would be up from $17.3 billion in the current year.

Meanwhile the minister continues to build and reinforce roadblocks that prevent Canadian farmers from developing new export markets to help reach his goals.

Let me give an example. The Canadian Wheat Board has stooped to biting and scratching in its attempt to protect its monopoly while bungling barley sales for the last two years and going on a witch hunt if farmers dare to challenge the board's right to be the sole marketing authority of their grain.

Will the minister make changes now, not some future vague time, that will allow farmers to develop new export opportunities for their wheat and barley outside the Canadian Wheat Board if they so choose?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party continues to make demands for pre-emptory changes in the Canadian grain marketing system.

The hon. gentleman will know opinions in western Canada about best methods of grain marketing are divided and those on both sides of the question hold their opinions very sincerely and strongly. There has been a debate on this issue in western Canada for many months. Much of that debate has generated over time far more heat than light.

For that reason we have attempted to bring some focus and some logic into the discussion by establishing the western grain marketing panel, within which all of the various points of view can be addressed in a thorough, logical and transparent manner.

The membership of that panel, including nine prominent Canadians, includes every range of opinion on grain marketing from one extreme to the other. The panel is working very hard and very well together.

We expect to receive the report from the panel by the end of this month. Once we have that report we will all be in a position to make logical, fair and decent decisions for the future. I think it would be highly inappropriate to pre-empt that process now.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that was a swing and miss. We will miss our target by at least $2 billion or $3 billion with that type of answer.

Let us try another tact. The minister of agriculture has failed to establish a whole farm NISA arrangement with all the provinces-another failure. The agriculture sector is becoming more vulnerable to the interprovincial trade barriers we have seen in the past. Ontario veal producers are being hurt by provincial companies in Quebec. Alberta's farm income stabilization plan has Saskatchewan cattle feeders worried. The list is getting longer and longer.

Will the Liberal government exercise its rightful role, a federal role, to prevent or remove interprovincial trade barriers on agriculture goods so the industry can flourish and actually meet the minister's targets for export rather than scrapping internally between the provinces?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the representations contained in the latter part of the hon. gentlemen's question I am sure will be music to the ears of the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for internal trade negotiations.

I hope the hon. gentleman would use his good offices in a constructive manner to encourage the provinces, which have the jurisdiction in a number of the areas to which he has referred, to co-operate constructively with the Government of Canada so we can make progress in a reasonable timeframe toward greater internal trade freedom.

It is an anomaly when there are more internal trade restrictions within Canada than there are between Canada and some foreign jurisdictions.

Specifically on the issue of our trade performance, I am happy to report the most recent statistics indicate our agri-food exports have now surpassed $17.4 billion worth. We are well on our way to the $20 billion target.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows he can attribute that to higher commodity prices and if the prices drop he will fall far below his targets. The minister is not a farmer and with the way he sucks and blows at the same time it is good he is not a veterinarian either.

Let us try another tact. The United States has launched a NAFTA challenge against Canadian tariffs on supply managed goods. Hopefully we will win this dispute, but in the long term and in the interest of reaching his goal the roadblock must be removed in order for dairy and poultry industries to gain access to the U.S. market. He can be certain the-

[The Speaker]

The question please.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Will the minister recognize the Americans will eventually gain access to our markets? For the benefit of the industry, knowing that freer trade will be forced upon them, will the minister have a plan to reach his export targets by allowing the supply managed industries to access U.S. markets?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, buried in this series of questions is an ongoing attack by the Reform Party against institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board and against marketing systems like supply management.

We are vigorously defending the Canadian supply management system because we believe our position is legally correct as a matter of trade law, because supply management over the last 25 years has served Canadians, both producers and consumers, very well, and because we undertook to Canadian agriculture that we

would defend supply management. We will not succumb to the blandishments of the Reform Party.

Information Highway

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In July 1995, Quebec's advisory committee on the information highway, composed of major stakeholders in this industry, said in its report that language constitutes a vital stake in a knowledge based economy. It was shown at the Cotonou Francophone Summit that Quebec has the expertise in developing francophone contents destined for the information highway.

Does the Prime Minister intend, at his meeting with his French counterpart scheduled for next week, to promote the key role of Quebec in this sector and to draw the attention of the French Prime Minister to this expertise?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is what we did in Cotonou in our presentation before all heads of government and heads of state of francophone countries.

There was a demonstration in which Canadians showed that we can use the Internet in both languages, English and French. This demonstration was put on by Canadian technicians using Canadian products, to my great pride. People could thus see that here in Canada we can work in English and in French, something that other francophone countries want to be able to do in the future.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the Cotonou Summit, Canadian expertise was indeed recognized: the technique came from New Brunswick, but the content came from Quebec.

Does the Prime Minister therefore undertake to see that, should multimedia development agreements be signed with France, Quebec's expertise with respect to content will be recognized and given a significant role to play?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just taken the words right out of my mouth. It was New Brunswick and Quebec together who succeeded in showing the Francophonie how to go about it.

In this sector, there is expertise in Quebec, and there is also expertise in New Brunswick and in Ontario; that is what Canada is all about. We have francophones in Canada who have to work in both languages and who can modify any American program in the field for use in French.

It was with great pride that I was able to demonstrate this to member countries of the Francophonie, all of whom have English speaking neighbours, such as in Africa, and who wanted to benefit from the expertise of Quebec, of New Brunswick and of Ontario. We will continue this promotion and show that Canada is a country that can run well.

Labrador Power

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Natural Resources was before the standing committee where she explained that one of the reasons we do not have a completed internal trade agreement on the energy side is that Quebec refuses to allow Labrador to wield power through its territories.

Now we hear the companies looking to process Labrador ore may be forced to buy power from Quebec Hydro rather than their own Labrador power companies because of the 1961 Churchill Falls agreement.

What can the minister assure Labrador power and Labradorians that Labrador will be allowed to process and provide power for its own Labrador ore bodies?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the hon. member on a number of occasions, the issue is one about which there is ongoing interprovincial discussion. This is not an issue on which the federal government can dictate an outcome.

As a government we choose to act in the spirit of co-operation and we continue to facilitate discussions between the provinces in relation to the energy chapter of the internal trade agreement, in particular as that chapter relates to electricity markets and the restructuring of those markets in Canada.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my questions before the standing committee last week, the minister promised she would ask the Prime Minister if we could place this issue on the agenda of the first ministers conference coming up in June to see if we could settle this internal trade agreement, this energy sector agreement, once and for all.

Could she update the House on her progress and whether the Prime Minister has put that on the agenda? I would be interested to know.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Industry. The internal trade agreement is his responsibility.

I have worked very closely with my hon. colleague. I am sure we will be discussing the matter with the Prime Minister in terms of what aspects of the internal trade agreement will be on the first ministers agenda later this month.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The credibility of the Chief of Staff, General Jean Boyle, is once again questioned by the Somalia inquiry commission.

Indeed, the general claimed he was informed of the falsification of documents last September 22, when in fact he may have known about it as early as September 15. The general is also said to have signed 68 falsified documents. Worse still, he is even said to have met with the department's former director of public relations to discuss an eventual testimony before the inquiry commission.

How does the minister explain that General Boyle signed the same falsified documents as Colonel Haswell but got away with it, while Colonel Haswell is facing several charges? Is there a double standard in military justice?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows from previous answers I have given in the House that it is inappropriate for me to comment on evidence given at the inquiry.

I ask the hon. member to wait and let everybody have their say before drawing any conclusions.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 25, following the tabling of documents arousing new suspicions on the involvement of the Chief of Staff in the cover-up, the military police had to reopen its investigation.

My question to the minister is as follows: What is happening with this investigation, and when does the minister intend to make it public?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not comment on ongoing investigations by the military police. I ask the hon. member to wait until the inquiry deals with these matters and then he will get all the answers.

Employment Insurance

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Many Canadians with disabilities are frightened and concerned that they have fallen through the cracks of government policy. Previously programs in support of disability employment measures were primarily the responsibility of and were co-ordinated by various federal government initiatives.

Under the new employment insurance regime persons with disabilities must have a previous attachment to the labour force to be eligible for training.

What is the government's responsibility to unemployed Canadians with disabilities and what does the minister envision his personal role to be?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know I am appearing before the committee this afternoon which is charged by the House of Commons with matters relating to Canadians with disabilities.

With respect to the question of funding, as the hon. member knows, the Government of Canada in the speech from the throne and on a number of occasions has indicated its intention to withdraw from the area of manpower training.

One thing we will have to determine in our conversations with representatives of the disabled community is how we can achieve the objective demanded of us by the provinces to withdraw from labour training but still ensure persons with disabilities are taken care of, as well they should be and as I believe they should be.

When the hon. member asks me how I envision the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources Development, it is our responsibility as a national government to make sure those individuals who need assistance, help and support receive it. In our negotiations with the provinces we will ensure that.