By changing its strategy and joining forces with Guy Bertrand in taking a hard line against Quebec, the federal government is setting itself up for a confrontation not only with Quebec separatists, but also with federalists, because it is clearly aligning itself with the advocates of plan B, that is the plan to take a hard line with Quebec.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the federal government's decision to get involved in the Bertrand case to establish the supremacy of law over democracy is tantamount to requiring Quebec to get the permission of all the provinces of Canada in order to act on a majority vote in a referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government meets its obligations. On behalf of the government, the Minister of Justice is defending the constitutional rights of all Canadians.
The debate is currently before the courts and they will make the appropriate decisions. We will advise following these decisions.
As Mr. Bouchard said on Monday, there is no way a government could not be involved in a case like this one. When I offered him to ask the Attorney General of Canada to stay out it if Quebec did likewise, they decided to introduce a motion providing specifically that, at some point, the Constitution of Canada would not apply to the people of Canada. It is the duty of the government to protect Canada's Constitution.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, by associating with Guy Bertrand, whose intention it is to subordinate the democratic decision of Quebecers to the approval of all the provinces, he is recreating the climate of confrontation he so skilfully created in 1982?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said. It is the duty of the government to protect the Canadian Constitution and the vested rights of people of all parts of the country.
As regards the referendum, we have taken part in referendums. We are talking about Quebec's Referendum Act. I have always said, and I have said so in the House of Commons a number of times: some people believe the country can be broken up by a single vote in a referendum. The CSN's constitution requires a two thirds majority to change something in it. The same is true for the FTQ, and apparently the constitution of the Parti Quebecois as well.
We say that the laws of Canada must be respected, that there will be no unilateral declaration of independence and that international law, too, must be respected.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister, who was ultimately responsible for the constitutional mess of 1982, aware that his strategy of isolating Quebec from the rest of Canada is not leading anywhere but to a constitutional crisis even more serious than the one we have been in since the imposition, 15 years ago, of a Constitution that no one in Quebec has signed?
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois referred repeatedly to democracy. There have been two referendums where the people of Quebec have decided to remain in Canada. This is what we are asking for-respect of democracy.
They do not want Quebec to be isolated, and this is my greatest wish. I want the premier of Quebec to respect the opinion of Quebecers who voted no in the referendum and who, moreover, in survey after survey say they would like the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec to sit down together and find a solution. This is what we are trying to do.
At the first ministers' conference in June, the federal government will be prepared to make many of the changes sought for years. When I propose change, the Bloc Quebecois does not want change. They are not honest enough to say that their only concern is separation. Obviously, I will always be against separation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we follow the Prime Minister's logic, Quebec ought to ask all the provinces in Canada for permission to determine its own future. Just imagine. The refusal of a single province, Newfoundland for example, could block the will of the majority of Quebecers.
My question is as simple as can be. Is the Prime Minister aware that, with his new provocative constitutional strategy, he is seeking to encroach on Quebecers' right to decide their future for themselves, their fundamental right?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to hearing what Quebecers want. We have had two referendums. We have been involved in them, I personally in both. But there is one reality: both times the people of Quebec came out in favour of remaining in Canada.
But, like the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois refuses to acknowledge this expression of Quebecers' will. They do not want to accept the choice of the people. Saying they are not pleased with the outcome, they want to start all over.
This is not a hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or four out of seven. The will of the people must be respected and the will of the people is that they want us to have a renewed federalism, and this we are prepared to do. It is our hope that the Bloc Quebecois, like the Parti Quebecois, will be prepared to help us renew Canadian federation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec, federalists and sovereignists alike, is hit head on by the government's plan B, its hard line of confrontation with the Government of Quebec.
How can the Prime Minister claim that, for him, the 1982 Constitution-one that was never signed by Quebec, remember-can take priority over democracy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, if you want to talk about the supremacy of democracy, start by respecting democracy after two Quebec referendums.
Instead of using a straight question, there was a so-called winning question, yet even with that they lost. That is the democratic reality. What the people of Quebec want, like Canadians at this time, is for us to work together to renew the Canadian Constitution.
I have referred to this in my speech. We will be making considerable changes, and I trust the Bloc Quebecois will at least be objective enough to look at our proposals. Of course they will never be satisfied, since they want separation, but that is not what Quebecers want.
Special cabinet committees have been struck. There is a new minister. The Prime Minister has made vague pronouncements about the future, but still no substantive plan.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said he will be putting serious offers for constructive change in the federation on the table at the forthcoming first ministers' conference.
What exactly are those serious offers of constructive change that the Prime Minister will be putting before the premiers in June?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has only to read the speech from the throne where we said very clearly that we want to withdraw the federal government from manpower training. We have talked about other sectors where we should withdraw.
Also, we have said that we have to work to make sure that the economic union in Canada functions better. We have talked about a national securities commission to simplify the movement of capital within Canada and the entry of capital from abroad. We have proposed other initiatives, in food inspection for example.
We want to have a package that will make Canada function better; it is too bad that I will have to send a copy of the speech from the throne to the leader of the third party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if he thinks that food inspection is going to unite the country, the Prime Minister is living on another planet.
If one picks through the various announcements that come from the government, there are about five things in things in this supposed package. There are the proposals for administrative disentanglement. There are some token decentralization proposals. There is the veto proposal, the distinct society proposal and limited curtailment of federal spending powers.
If that is all there is, then the Prime Minister has misread the fundamental desire for substantial change in the rest of the country, just as he misread the desire for change within Quebec prior to the referendum.
Can the Prime Minister not offer Canadians and the provincial premiers something more substantive for revitalizing the federation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave a long list. I mentioned the spending powers of the federal government.
We have quite a project and a plan when I compare it with the plan of the Reform Party. Probably the desire of the Reform Party is to be left with no Canada. For me, I want a government in Ottawa that can operate for the benefit of all Canadians and give enough autonomy for the provinces to make sure that they serve their citizens in the way they should.
I have a long list. I have discussed it with the premiers. I hope that everybody will look at this list seriously. If everything is rejected before negotiations start, we will go nowhere. It is why the Reform Party is really going nowhere these days.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister says to the premiers in June what he has just said to this House, if that is all he has to say about revitalizing the federation, he should call off the conference because it will be counterproductive.
I ask the Prime Minister again: Can he produce a substantive national unity plan prior to the June meetings with the premiers and if he can, will he table it and present it in this House?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. The plan will be presented to the premiers in June. The plan is an extremely important one.
I remember all the people in the previous encounter. It makes me laugh when the leader of the third party gets up. He voted against the Charlottetown plan. Today he gets up and complains because senators are not elected. He rejected that. He could not understand that if you want to do everything at the same time you go nowhere.
For us, we will do what can be done today, tomorrow, or next year. Canada will be changed. Rather than having only speeches and conferences as we have had for the last 10 years, there is going to be action in June.
We learn today that apparently at least five soldiers from the Canadian Armed Forces not only witnessed the torture of a Somali youth who was beaten to death, but did not come to his assistance or even try to stop the massacre. Worse yet, we learn that after these events, these soldiers apparently even obtained promotions.
How can the defence minister justify the fact that these soldiers, who did not even have the decency to try to stop the torture and assassination of a Somali youth, received promotions in the Canadian Armed Forces?
(1430 )
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that under the National Defence Act that was passed by Parliament in 1952, all the power over promotions, up to and including the rank of colonel, was delegated by order in council to the chief of the defence staff, not the minister.
This minister, as other ministers, does not interfere in the promotion process in the armed forces.
I understand that a number of promotions were held in abeyance while various legal proceedings were taking place. Subsequently, some of these promotions have been allowed to proceed while others are still in abeyance, which is in accordance with normal procedure.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to tell me about the normal promotion procedure in the armed forces, nor am I asking him to hide behind normal procedures in an affair as out of the ordinary as Somalia. I ask the minister what sort of message he thinks he is sending to the public, with all the events surrounding this unfortunate inquiry?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not hiding behind any rules. I am obeying the law. The hon. member should
understand that. There is a law that governs the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is quite explicit. Any minister, any member of Parliament and any Canadian citizen must obey the law.
When the Prime Minister said in the last election that he would fulfil every promise he made during the election, did he mean only those he could not weasel out of with billion dollar payoffs? Where is the government's integrity now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we keep our promises. I will give the member an example. His party is always telling us that we should have free votes in the House of Commons.
When there was a free vote last week members of his party were all forced to vote the way their leader wanted them to vote. These are members of a party that said it would be a new type of Parliament for them. They were so civilized that their leader was in the last row at the beginning. He has now moved to the first row and they throw books on the floor.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging that the Prime Minister is proud of having one free vote in two and a half years. Maybe we are getting somewhere.
It states in the red book: ``The erosion of confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians''. That would be Sheila Copps who is now campaigning in the bye bye election and the Prime Minister who is obviously in denial.
Since the entire world knows the GST promise has been blown to high heaven, why is the Prime Minister arrogantly denying that he bamboozled Canadians and reneged on his solemn election promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should just go to his office and read page 22 of the red book. He will see that we are doing what we said we would do. It is very clear.
Operation Propaganda continues at the Department of Canadian Heritage. Today, it is young people they want to indoctrinate as part of Operation ``National Unity''. One of the questions on the form to be filled out by young people interested in the Young Canada Works Program asks them to write a 250-word essay on what Canada means to them.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage recognize that this question is aimed at selecting young people on the basis of their political views?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the last federal budget clearly shows, we made a decision to promote employment among young people. We doubled the budget for young people this summer. That is the intention of this government and that is why we have specific programs to help our young people find jobs this summer.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against encouraging young people. However, since that question infringes on the most basic of individual rights, the freedom of speech, will the minister withdraw this questionnaire from circulation and order that all the responses received so far be destroyed?
(1435)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, who says we are curtailing the freedom of expression in this country? Since when? Young people in Canada and Quebec are totally free to express their views, and we want things to stay that way.
Can it be shown in the face of these numbers that CIDA is giving fair consideration to companies outside Quebec, or did regional distribution requirements acquire flexibility because of the 1995 referendum?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for International Cooperation is not here, I can assure the hon. member that the work of CIDA is subject to exactly the same rules as all government agencies, that is, to ensure proper tendering, proper bidding and evaluating on merit.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, CIDA makes contributions to universities, countries and international institutions. With all the deserving organizations in Canada and abroad it is a bit surprising that two Quebec universities received the two top bilateral contributions in 1995, with a combined value of over $42 million. That is a lot of pork.
Is CIDA still an international development agency or has it become a regional development agency to buy Liberal votes in Quebec?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the major objectives of the international development program is to extend the opportunity for young people in this country to travel and to bring foreign students here so they can get the kind of experience we offer in Canadian universities.
One of the first priorities we have in that program is to work with the francophonie, which includes some of the poorest countries in the world, where we have a direct connection because of the longstanding cultural and linguistic interests. It is for that reason a real emphasis is placed on trying to help the development of those poorer francophone countries.
More than two and a half years into his mandate and in spite of the fact that the deadline for coming to an agreement with the Americans was December 31 of last year, how does the Prime Minister explain that no tangible progress has been made on this issue, when what is at stake is so important?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada has been pursuing with vigour the matter of trade remedies with our partners in the NAFTA. That was the basis on which the NAFTA agreement was signed and we have honoured the agreement to pursue these matters.
A report will be coming shortly from the trade remedies group. Progress is being made, but there is still a lot more work to be done in achieving our goals within the NAFTA. We will continue to work toward those goals of removing trade remedy law applications so that we can have a true free trade system.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): The industries are still waiting, Mr. Speaker. Since the U.S. keeps harassing our industries, and the steel industry in particular, to settle the dispute over trade remedies relating to countervailing and antidumping duties, is the minister contemplating taking an industry-by-industry approach any time soon?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly are pursuing the question of the steel industry to try to bring about an end to the anti-dumping measures that are applied, as we do in any other case in which there are trade irritants.
It is worth noting that the greatest trade relationship of any two countries in the world is between Canada and the United States. There is $1 billion a day exchanged between our two countries, which means a lot of jobs and a lot of economic growth in this country. Ninety-five per cent of that trade is hassle free with no problems at all. A very small percentage still needs attention and it is getting the attention of this government.
For weeks a young Canadian has been on a hunger strike in the United States to protest the move by U.S. customs to impound a shipment of computers en route to Cuba from Canada. What action has the minister taken to help this young Canadian and make sure these computers, which have been sent for humanitarian purposes, make their way to Cuba?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House a few weeks ago, we have been in direct contact with the young Canadian who is on that hunger strike.
Our officials have been negotiating daily with U.S. officials to secure the release of the computers. I am happy to inform the House that we now have the agreement of the U.S. authorities to release the computers. They will be sent to Mexico. Mr. Rohatyn is going to San Diego to take receipt of those computers.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the officials of our department and of the U.S. state department who have co-operated in resolving this very serious problem.
Inmate Tamara Papin, now at a provincial jail because she escaped custody from the Edmonton women's prison, was charged yesterday with the murder of Denise Fayant, another inmate.
The philosophy of operating a prison for violent offenders like a comfort cottage is nothing short of stupid. Fayant's death was brutal and unnecessary. Will the minister admit that the core philosophy behind the women's prison is a total failure? Will he shut it down, yes or no?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the incident referred to by the member is before the courts. It would be imprudent for me to comment on it.
I will comment on the more general issue of security in the Edmonton institution. The incident is under review. All incidents, whether they are of violence or security aspects, are under total review. We are waiting for the report and recommendations from the committee. We will ensure that all those recommendations which have been reviewed will be in place.
In addition, over $400,000 in improvements has been approved, which was announced several weeks ago. Those improvements will take almost two months to put forth. We will ensure that before any inmates are returned to the institution, the full security review is complete.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, somebody died in that prison, a fact which this government cannot get through its head. There is something wrong in that prison.
Corrections Canada built the prison for women so that female inmates would receive special treatment on the basis of their gender. Warden Jan Fox believes that no female criminals are dangerous and that women commit crimes only because they themselves are victims.
Given the fact that Corrections Canada has allowed Warden Fox to jeopardize public safety through her gender experiment, will the solicitor general fire her now, or do we have to wait for someone else to die?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious temptation by members of the Reform Party with this fiasco or the incidents which have occurred to give up on the institution.
We believe that this model of incarceration still represents the best approach in addressing a very special need that women have. This need has been identified both by the task force in 1989 and by the recent Arbour commission.
It would be prudent for us to learn from the incidents and make sure we put into the procedure the proper elements which would forbid and prevent any more security breaches in other institutions.
[Translation]
Last week, we learned that criminal charges had been laid against an IRB board member, in Montreal. We also learned that this person was not suspended, on the pretext that this was a private matter.
Given the duties of an IRB board member, how can the minister justify that this person was not suspended until the court renders its decision on the case?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Immigration and Refugee Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal. The chairperson of this board has complete authority over the board's human resources.
To my knowledge, this case is of a private nature and is not related to the professional responsibilities of the individual. Based on the information I have, this individual is currently not at work.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in effect, he is on vacation. Serious criminal charges have been laid against this board member and they include making death threats against a work colleague.
Does the minister realize that, by not taking action, she jeopardizes the board's credibility, since the chairperson stubbornly refuses to suspend a member facing criminal charges?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not jeopardizing anything and I wish the member for Bourassa would be more cautious in his statements. In Canada, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The hon. member should wait until the case is heard by the court before passing judgment.
southwest Nova Scotia. Their economy depends on the Bluenose ferry to move goods from Nova Scotia to markets on the American east coast. The government plans to cut the service during the winter. People are concerned about the future, but workers and private companies do not have enough information to know how to respond.
Will the transportation minister agree to a wide ranging study on privatizing the year round Bluenose ferry service and will he promise to make the study public so we can all know the facts?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member went to the maritimes and came back a convinced believer in transportation subsidies which I am delighted to hear.
Let me point out that we currently subsidize the line he is talking about for more than $5 million a year. We are trying to reduce our subsidies for transportation. We are trying and succeeding. We have discovered that by reducing the service for the six winter months when only 8 per cent of the traffic of that service takes place, we can save $1.5 million.
It is a tough decision but the government is willing to make tough decisions based on principle. Reform's taxpayers budget talked about eliminating these subsidies to transportation yet the hon. member and his friends immediately go off and suggest that we increase subsidies. That is a very contradictory position.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe when the minister gets back to his office he could have his staff explain the difference between subsidized and privatized.
The people of Nova Scotia are asking for $100,000 of infrastructure money for a privatization study. A privatization study. They know full well the Liberals squandered millions and millions of dollars on boccie courts and Saddle Domes. They also know that the government was responsible for a general's going away party which cost a quarter of a million dollars.
Will the minister authorize a privatization study at a cost of $100,000? Yes or no?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member presented a letter to me, and I understand to every member of the press gallery, dealing with this issue.
I can say to him that we made public in the summer of 1995 the full financial decision making of Marine Atlantic with respect to this route. This included all the financial reports, all expenses, revenues and subsidies for the years 1992 to expected 1998. I will certainly provide the member with the information that was provided last summer which he apparently does not have.
(1450)
With respect to the $100,000 he has referred to, another particular study on this route, the request is currently being studied and a decision on that will be made in due course. When the study is completed we will make the results available to the hon. member and every other member of this House.
We are facing tough decisions in Atlantic Canada. It is not helped by the members from the Reform Party who believed in subsidizing roads when it came to the byelection in Labrador and now apparently-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
Who is listening? Can I ask the Secretary of State for the Status of Women to please inform this House of what message these women will be bringing to Ottawa?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Secretary of State for the Status of Women, I am very pleased that women are marching across the country for bread and roses, jobs and justice.
When we went to Beijing last year we brought many of the objectives these women are marching for. We agreed in Beijing that there is a role for non-governmental organizations and women's groups to work with government to bring gender issues to the fore. That is why I am very pleased these women are using their role as NGOs to bring forward issues that will promote the equality of women across Canada.
Yesterday, over 1,100 people gathered in Tracadie and in the Gaspé Peninsula to condemn the current plan for the snow crab fishery. This plan shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the effects on employment of crew members and plant workers in this industry. In fact, one quarter of them will lose their jobs and three quarters will lose four weeks of work.
Since the crab fishery is being boycotted in the gulf sector, zone 12, is the minister aware of the urgency of the situation and the human drama affecting crew members and plant workers in these regions?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the division of the plan was for 16,100 tonnes; 77.5 per cent went to those large midshore crabbers who are behind the strike to which the hon. member refers and 22.5 per cent went to the small inshore fishermen. The difficulty is that the midshore crabbers are not happy with 77.5 per cent. They want 100 per cent.
If there are insensitivities in this plan and if there are any injustices to plant workers, it is not by this House, it is not by the plan. It is by those midshore crabbers who want 100 per cent of the quota and do not want to share with the small boat fishermen.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the snow crab plan is missing its target, and one of the main consequences is a further drop in already low incomes. That is what the minister needs to understand.
Can the minister make a formal commitment in this House to respond in the affirmative, as soon as possible, to a request from these workers, who would like to meet with him?
[English]
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is holding the plant workers up is the greed of those people who want 100 per cent of the quota.
If anybody is missing the point, it is the hon. member. He does not understand that there are 16,100 tonnes of crab at a time when fishermen in Atlantic Canada would die to catch something. He should pay attention to the real issue which is that there is a resource to be caught. There are fishermen who want to catch this resource and I will make sure it is caught by those who wish to catch it.
Alberta farmers decided in a plebiscite that they wanted the freedom to market their wheat and barley as they choose. Will the minister act immediately to honour farmers' wishes or will he continue to rob farmers of the $2,500 a load, money so desperately needed for spring planting?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman would want to join with me in applauding the fact that over the last 18 months we have seen a steady increase in grain prices around the world. These grain price increases are accruing to the benefit of our farmers in Canada.
With respect to the marketing system, the hon. gentleman knows full well that a process has been under way in Canada for many months, beginning last year, continuing through the winter and coming to fruition in June. It is through the auspices of the western grain marketing panel. It will allow all farmers who have different perspectives on grain marketing to bring those perspectives forward and to have them debated and discussed in a logical and orderly manner.
I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to pre-empt the opinions of farmers who have contributed to this process. I would remind him, quite contrary to his precipitous advice, that 130,000 farm families depend upon the viable marketing system for their product.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should be known as the minister of procrastination.
Alberta farmers have already spoken on this issue. They have decided by plebiscite. The minister's refusal to act is costing farmers about $2,500 a truckload when they so desperately need the money for planting.
When will the minister stop working against farmers and act on their democratically determined wishes?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting contradiction in what the hon. gentleman is suggesting.
The member is obviously an opponent of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is obviously requesting this government to take a course of action that would diminish the Canadian Wheat Board. Interestingly enough, in conjunction with our red book in 1993, we indicated support for the Canadian Wheat Board. If we were to do what the hon. member is suggesting, we would be violating one of our election campaign commitments. It is interesting that Reformers seem to be prepared to invite us to do that when in another context and in such a sanctimonious way they invite us to adhere to the red book promises. Will they make up their minds?
The government's policy has driven the unemployment rate up and the Governor of the Bank of Canada has told us why: interest rate policies have kept the economy in a low growth vice to the point where we are on the verge of a catastrophic deflation.
In opposition the Liberal Party condemned the job killing policies of former Bank of Canada Governor John Crow. Is it not time the finance minister ate some crow, admitted that he has been supporting the same job killing policies and instructed the Bank of Canada to work for sustainable economic growth, not against an imaginary inflation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time the citations the member sets forth were made, we were in opposition and Canadian interest rates were substantially higher than the interest rates in the United States.
Today as a result of the actions of this government, Canadian short term interest rates are substantially below U.S. interest rates. They are almost 400 bases points or four percentage points below those of a year ago.
Also, employment is on the increase as a result of the actions of this government. Unemployment has dropped down from 11.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. In the last four months the country has created over 160,000 new jobs. That is a fundamental difference between today and then.
(1500)
There is one other difference-
Some hon. members: More.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.
This week having been proclaimed national mining week, the keep mining in Canada lobby has produced a provocative 12 point plan for mining in our country.
Will the government be acting on this 12 point plan and what will it being doing to further promote mining in Canada?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the 12 point plan is substantially consistent with the government's current objectives and responsibilities.
The government is acting in areas of federal jurisdiction to strengthen Canada's mining industry. Canada remains one of the best places in the world for mineral investment. We estimate that 49 mines may open over the next two years.
In addition, I am very pleased with the industry's involvement in Canada's second annual mining week currently taking place. It is through partnerships like this that we raise the awareness of mining to Canadians everywhere in the country.
The Speaker: I have a question of privilege from the member for Halifax.
The Speaker: Colleague, being at this end your Speaker did not hear the comments. If such comments were made, and I hope they were not, I point out that sometimes in the course of exchanges these things happen. I hope it did not happen but because you named an hon. member, and I do not want to get into any debate here, the hon. is here and if she wishes to clarify this I will permit her to do so.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to say to the hon. member from Halifax is that the Liberals should not be promoting women walking across Canada. The Liberals should be available to talk to them and perhaps they could give them a vehicle to drive them.
The Speaker: I would like to close this point of privilege right here.