Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre)

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

This government was elected on a promise of jobs and infrastructure. Pearson airport is arguably the single most important piece of infrastructure in Canada and a huge creator of jobs.

All five regional chairpersons in the metro area agree that future growth and jobs are at risk. The review on Pearson by Mr. Robert Nixon recommended the same thing, that immediate construction begin.

Can the minister explain why he continues to ignore local leaders and the Nixon report by delaying action on this important project?

Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport)

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend that I am not disregarding the advice from important political leaders in the greater metropolitan Toronto area.

I have met with the chairman of metro Toronto, Alan Tonks, with the mayor of Toronto and with the minister of transport for Ontario. We are carefully considering the future of Pearson airport because, as my hon. friend says, it is an important economic development tool for all of Canada, not just southeastern Ontario.

Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre)

Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must realize that Pearson expansion is not a local issue. In an earlier question he indicated it was being held up by some Toronto MPs.

It is an issue of national importance. National development and jobs across Canada are at stake. Perhaps the real question here is why has the minister abrogated his national responsibilities regarding Pearson? Why has he passed the matter off to a select group of Toronto members who will clearly have local rather than national interests at heart?

Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport)

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I do not consider it the role of the minister to abrogate the responsibilities of members of Parliament from any region of the country to determine how they wish to analyse a matter of great interest to them.

I do want to assure my hon. friend that we are looking at the situation at Pearson very closely. We are working very hard at trying to resolve it, but we are respecting our national obligations in making sure that the solution proposed for Pearson International Airport is consistent with what we will be setting in place to operate other airports across the country in the national airport system.

Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre)

Mr. Speaker, this project benefits all of Canada for economic and safety reasons. Pearson has been studied to death. When will this government take action on Pearson's job creating potential? Thousands are waiting.

Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport)

Mr. Speaker, there is no question, as the hon. member puts it. Pearson International Airport is a very important airport for Toronto, for Ontario and for all of Canada.

As I have indicated many times both in this place and outside the House, we will be moving expeditiously to do the right thing at Pearson in consultation with a wide spectrum of interested parties. We will make that decision known very soon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu)

Mr. Speaker, we learned last week that the Hibernia project will run $1 billion over budget. This megaproject, the profitability of which is unsure, has become a real money pit into which Ottawa blindly continues to pump Canadian taxpayers' money by the millions.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How can the government continue to pump more and more public money into this project without knowing how large the cost overrun will be and how far this huge farce will go?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources)

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. friend for his question.

Let me say as was stated last week in the House that estimates of cost overruns are at a preliminary stage at this point. The owners, including the government, have requested a report which will outline the exact nature of expected cost overruns.

At that point the owners will be doing everything in their power to ensure that whatever cost effective measures can be taken will be taken.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu)

Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer. It was a skating exercise, and I must say the minister skates very poorly. Unlike Patrick Roy, she must be suffering from a very acute case of appendicitis.

How can her government justify wasting the hundreds of millions of dollars she just referred to-but she does not know exactly how much yet-when this government is about to make cuts across the board in our social programs?

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources)

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that with a project of this size cost overruns are to be expected.

We are doing that which any responsible owner would do in conjunction with other owners to get a handle on the exact amount of cost overruns. Once we know that we will take whatever steps we can to ensure cost efficiency.

Let me assure the House that the responsibility of the Government of Canada as equity owner-we own 8.5 per cent of the project-for cost overruns will be limited to that 8.5 per cent.

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns remarks made in the House by the Minister of the Environment on January 24.

At that time she said with regard to the selection of a site for the environmental secretariat of NAFTA:

The selection will be made based on the environmental performance of those cities.

She also said:

The selection would be made with no politics involved.

On Friday the same minister told the House that the reality was that politics was about making difficult decisions in the best interest of the country.

Since the independent consultant's report was submitted on one day and the decision to award the secretariat to Montreal was made the very next day, what actual criteria came into play? Was it environmental? Was it political? Or, was it federal pork barrelling?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister)

Mr. Speaker, if I recall, the report was not translated until the Monday but a copy in English had been available before. There was a minimum of five cities that qualified. Every one of the cities had some advantages or disadvantages and the minister recommended the city of Montreal.

We cannot go everywhere. I do not know why people make such a fuss about it. One factor that was not in the criteria but always impressed me a lot was that of the five cities Montreal was the one with the highest unemployment level. That was not one of the criteria. There were five cities that were basically equal. Eventually we had to decide. The minister made that recommendation and we accepted it.

We could have decided in November to name one city. We gave the opportunity to a lot of cities to make application but we could select only one. Montreal was selected based on the criteria of cities that were equal. For me, anyway, the fact that Montreal had the highest level of unemployment was an important factor.

Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)

Mr. Speaker, the reason many people are making such a fuss over this is that many Canadians feel they were led down the garden path in the selection criteria for this environmental secretariat. Had the decision been made to award it either to Montreal or Toronto and that had been done up front, it would not have been a problem.

In any event, the Deputy Prime Minister also told the House on January 24: "Montrealers like all Canadians want a process free of politics which is precisely what the federal government is providing".

This is why my question is so important. When will the government stop insulting Quebecers by offering such transparent bribes when what Montrealers, like all Canadians, really want and expect from the government is a government free of political expediency and a government that would put principle ahead of politics?

Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister)

Mr. Speaker, that is an accusation that has no grounds. If we had selected Edmonton it probably would have been unfair to Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal. However there was a problem with Edmonton in that air connections were not the best. It was negative. We had to decide the month before; we had to select. We had to decide if we were to cut Edmonton or Calgary.

It was decided that it was unfortunately better, probably because you never said thank you, not to cut in Edmonton and cut more in Calgary. It was not pleasant. Why did you not complain at that time and say that we should have cut in Edmonton-

Order, please. I would remind all hon. members to address the Chair.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Last Friday, the CBC reported rather disturbing conduct on the part of immigration officers. For example, some of them were said to have administered a sedative to a pregnant woman before deporting her to Zaire. Also, a two-year old child with pneumonia was apparently deported to Ghana. Such practices are unacceptable and unfitting of a civilized nation such as ours.

Is the minister of immigration aware of these allegations and does he condone practices which, insofar as the Zairian woman was treated, are inhuman as well as medically unethical?

Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising a very sensitive question. This gives me an opportunity to address it based on the facts.

First, it is general policy of this government, as it was in previous governments, that people on medication who are asked to be removed should continue to receive the prescription through a regular practitioner.

Second, under no circumstances is it policy for the purpose of removal to simply sedate individuals.

Third, last year there were approximately 9,000 removals. My department informed me this morning there were under 12 individuals who required medical attention.

In the case of the woman from Zaire I caution the member because no immigration officials are permitted to administer any kind of medicine whatsoever. In this case the woman had a medical condition which I am not permitted to get into because of privacy laws. There was medical attention recommended and administered by a practising physician under provincial jurisdiction.

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec)

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us if he has intervened to rectify this unacceptable situation and condemn the behaviour of immigration officers who inflict physical abuse to foreign nationals being deported or expelled?

Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly and as completely as I could under the guise of question period that no immigration official is permitted to administer any medicine, injection or sedation at all.

The 12 cases last year out of 9,000 were done on the orders of doctors usually practising in the provincial field for the benefit of the individual who was being asked to be removed because of his or her condition.

I will certainly make every effort to ensure that the policy be observed and respected from one coast of this country to the other.

Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster)

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

The government is planning to spend 4.5 million taxpayer dollars on a patronage theme park in the Prime Minister's home riding in spite of a report commissioned by the government warning that the project was doomed to fail.

According to the Deputy Prime Minister the government reduced its contribution to the park by more than half because of the concerns raised in the Legault report.

If the government was concerned enough to cut funding to this patronage park in half because it will fail, why did the government not do the logical thing and cut the funding altogether?