In keeping with the commitments made in the throne speech, what proposals does the government intend to submit to the provincial first ministers at the June 20 meeting?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the agenda is not yet set, but it will be shortly.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply is again evidence of the government's great talent for improvisation, particularly as regards meeting promises made before the referendum and in the throne speech. I will just point out that in this case, rather a long time later, six months, they are still trying to set an agenda.
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' travels to the various provincial capitals have not resulted in any consensus whatsoever for the June 20 meeting, what basis is the government planning to use for its proposals?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Leader of the Opposition is jumping to conclusions. The agenda will be known shortly and can then be debated.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit on behalf of the government that, as long as the government is not clear in what it is saying, and as long as they use improvisation as their strategy, any meeting with the first ministers aimed at trying to reach agreement is doomed to failure, because unfortunately the federal government does not know where it is headed?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the throne speech clearly established the direction the Government of Canada intends to propose to Canadians. It is the direction of a more modern federation, one which works even better that at present, although it will be hard to better a country that is one of the best run countries in the world.
It can be improved, however, by building on its strengths, the strengths of a federation which will clarify the roles between levels of government, a federation which will work even better for all Canadians. And that is the orientation clearly set in the throne speech, which the Leader of the Opposition is welcome to reread.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this government continues to speak double talk. A few years ago, the Prime Minister wrote that he was betting on democracy and that, if he lost, he would abide by the verdict of the people of Quebec. But here we have his Minister of Intergovern-
mental Affairs talking of using other legal means, such as recourse to the Supreme Court, to oppose the will of the people of Quebec.
How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explain this double strategy: on the one hand, a cloying speech to announce the upcoming first ministers' conference, and on the other, the threat of recourse to the Supreme Court in order to restrict Quebecers and limit their right to determine their future even more?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question of preventing the people of Quebec from deciding whether they want to stay in Canada, as we would like, or leave it. At issue is Quebec's claim that it can act unilaterally, set and change at will the way the law is applied.
The basic issue is whether they are acting within the law.
(1420)
I have a quote for the hon. member: ``We are a country in law. Canada and Quebec are not banana republics. There is the Constitution, there is international law, and we have all been elected to defend the law''. This quote is taken from a debate in the National Assembly on May 19, 1994 and was made by the Leader of the Opposition at the time, Jacques Parizeau.
My question for the member is this: ``Does he want to turn Quebec and Canada into banana republics?''
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to answer our questions and not to ask us questions. Things might be more clear.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs even raised the possibility of terminating the Churchill Falls contract between Newfoundland and Quebec, by throwing the switch, as he put it so well.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs acknowledge that his own irresponsible, antagonistic and in fact banana-republic style remarks, form a very poor backdrop to the proposed constitutional conference where the Prime Minister says he wants to discuss harmony in Canada's future?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, see how the opposition twists words. I wanted to make the point that the only way for a government to ensure that order, justice and law are respected is to respect them itself. Anyone outside the law is not in a good position to insist others respect it.
This is why I gave the example of one province that, as compensation for the huge prejudice it considered it had suffered from being cut off from the rest of the country, could ask a government it considered outside the law to comply with it, otherwise it would consider contracts signed with this government null and void.
During his trip out west last week, the Prime Minister said that Canadians are probably going to have to live with high unemployment and less job security. Did the Prime Minister ever intend to keep his election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, or was it like the GST, just more Liberal rhetoric designed only to get them elected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it may well be the hon. member is not aware of the job creation numbers in which case she might want to look at them before she asks questions. Since October 1993 there have been 336,000 new jobs created in this country, all of them in the private sector and mostly full time jobs. There will be further statistics to come in the answer to the supplementary question.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to talk about jobs created. I wonder how many were lost to balance that out.
The finance minister can spout off all he likes but Canadians know the real numbers in terms of unemployment: 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed; 30 per cent of Canadian workers are underemployed; and one in four Canadians are living in fear of losing their jobs.
The Prime Minister's statement about perpetually high underemployment and unemployment is simply an admission of failure. That should sound familiar because that is exactly what he told Kim Campbell when she said underemployment and unemployment will live with us until the year 2000.
I ask the Prime Minister and the finance minister, in this latest flip-flop, is such high unemployment the flip or just the flop?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been a decline in the unemployment rate. It has come down 1.8 per cent since we have taken office. This is despite the job losses that have occurred at the federal, provincial and municipal government levels. There has been substantial job creation in the private sector. The government's policies are working. If anybody needs any further proof, it is that in the five months since the turn of the year, over 170,000 new jobs have been created.
(1425 )
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this government has broken one promise after another since it was elected. The GST was supposed to be scrapped but oops, that was a mistake. It is still with us. Jobs, jobs, jobs were supposed to be created but the reality of the numbers are that 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed. The Prime Minister says Canadians are simply going to have to learn to live with it.
Will the finance minister admit that he has failed and unfortunately Canadians are just going to have to learn to live with it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nobody on either side of the House who takes joy in the fact that the unemployment rate in this country as in many other industrial countries is too high.
The fact is the hon. member has been given numbers which clearly demonstrate that what she should really do is ask her questions spontaneously and not prepare her supplementaries before she comes into the House.
The real question is what would have happened if the Reform Party policies had been put in place? We would have had the decimation of the social safety net and the decimation virtually of every positive government program. What would the unemployment rate have been with the policies of the Reform Party which would eviscerate this government's capacity to create jobs and give Canadians a chance?
We are very proud of our record. On the weekend the Reform Party once again called for massive cutbacks in social assistance and massive cutbacks in the government's ability to help Canadians. One hesitates to think of what kind of country we would have if that bunch ever came into power.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he lift the veil of secrecy surrounding the details of the agreement with the maritime provinces, so that, at last, we can all know how and at what price he managed to reach this partisan agreement regarding the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the details of the agreement are well known. We released a statement explaining all the major points of the agreement.
We are now negotiating the final agreement, which is not yet ready. I can assure you that, as soon as the agreement is ready, it will be submitted to the House.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is not right for the federal government to pay almost $1 billion to the maritime provinces, with taxpayers' money, without providing details on anticipated revenues, harmonizing costs and the impact of expanding the tax base to include services. It does not make sense. This is the information that the Quebec government has been asking since the very beginning.
I think the Minister of Finance made a mistake. He may have a chance to correct it. Why does he not delay any decision on the GST until the next finance ministers' meeting, on June 18? He will then be able to make, in concert with the provinces, a good, transparent and fair decision on the harmonization of the GST, at no cost for Canadians.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the details of the impact to which the hon. member is referring were submitted by the Atlantic provinces. If the member wants to know these details, I am sure he can ask the provinces. I also want to say that, the other day, I confirmed that the whole issue of tax and sales tax harmonization will be on the agenda when finance ministers meet in June.
Last week in Calgary the Prime Minister said that high unemployment was systemic and it is the result of the global economy.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, would the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House why high unemployment is the result of the global economy?
(1430 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I welcome him into his new role. I want to say with all humility that if I were able to answer that question I probably would be in a place other than this and it would be a lot higher up than this altitude.
I have just come back from the OECD where countries like the United Kingdom, France and Italy wondered about the very same question. We in Canada are faced with a rate of unemployment of 9.6 per cent. It is far too high. We all agree on that. Other countries in the G-7 for example suffer from higher rates of unemployment and are faced with even greater challenges as they try to respond to the global environment we all have to operate in.
We must all work together. I want to give credit to the provinces as well as the Minister of Finance. The direction we are going in Canada has certainly taken us to a point where we can now say that we have reduced the unemployment rate by some 2 per cent or more in the last couple of years. We still have a long way to go but unlike a lot of other countries, we are going in the right direction.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good but it begs the question: How can the global economy be the saviour of our future on the one hand and the destroyer of our future on the other? The Prime Minister is going to have to get his answer straight because there is a lack of confidence in our economy when the Prime Minister makes half-baked statements that he does not have a clue about. It endangers the prospects of the country.
During the 1993 election the Prime Minister ridiculed Kim Campbell because she said that high unemployment was systemic and would stick around until the year 2000. In Calgary last week the Prime Minister agreed with Kim Campbell's assessment. Which Prime Minister should Canadians believe: the election candidate for Prime Minister or today's Prime Minister who is admitting that he does not know what to do either?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just think about what he said, the Prime Minister everyone should listen to is the Prime Minister who ran for that office in 1993 and the Prime Minister who is in office now. If the hon. member would check he would know that when those statements were made the unemployment rate was in double digits. In fact, since we came to office in October 1993 there has been a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate.
No one anywhere in the world is not going to have to face the global challenges. The difficulty with facing those challenges is that choices have to be made. We as a government have made those choices. I am afraid the hon. member and his party do not even recognize the challenges yet.
In a document made public this morning, Quebec's minister of immigration and cultural communities revealed that Montreal had become the main port of entry in Canada for refugees. In the last 12 years, over 120,000 refugees have entered through Montreal. In the last two years, the number of refugee claimants was even higher in Montreal than in Toronto.
How does the minister explain that 56 per cent of claimants arriving in Ontario obtain refugee status, while the proportion in Quebec is 70 per cent?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I am a little taken aback by the question from the member for Bourassa. Am I to understand that he is asking that more refugee status claimants be turned down in the Montreal area? Is that what I am to understand? Am I to understand that he is asking that the minister intervene with the quasi judicial tribunal responsible for making these decisions? If so, I cannot share his opinion.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at least the minister should recognize that Quebec is much more generous than the other provinces when it comes to refugees.
Can the minister tell us whether her government would give favourable consideration to future proposals from the Government of Quebec regarding a new cost sharing to help with the social benefits provided to those seeking asylum, in light of the very recent statement by the Quebec minister responsible for relations with the public?
(1435)
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must inform the members of this House that I have never received written or verbal requests from Quebec's minister of immigration.
least seven contracts of over $150,000. All the money has gone into the pockets of his campaign pals.
Why did the Prime Minister think it was unacceptable for Brian Mulroney to award his friends with lucrative contracts but he thinks it is acceptable for the Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board has checked the various contracts that have been mentioned. These contracts have been for work carried out to give personal advice to the Minister of National Defence on a very difficult and complex subject. All the rules of Treasury Board have been respected in allocating these contracts.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. The Minister of National Defence has abused his special ministerial discretionary budget to reward campaign pals in his very own riding. This budget is intended to benefit all Canadians, not political friends of the minister.
Will the Prime Minister restore some integrity to his government and order his Minister of National Defence to pay back the $150,000 taxpayers' dollars of money that he has siphoned to the pockets of his campaign pals?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again we have looked at these various contracts to give advice on a difficult subject. The work was performed by a trained economist who could speak English and Greek and was aware of the various problems that existed in the area of veterans and veterans allowances. All the rules of Treasury Board have been satisfied.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, AECL has not announced a decision with respect to the sites of those regional offices.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance, who is talking about the economic development of Montreal, promise as part of this memorandum of agreement that Atomic Energy of Canada will continue to operate in Quebec, as requested by the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, the Chambre de commerce du Québec and the Chambre de commerce de Montréal?
If he is so concerned about Montreal, I imagine he could give us a short answer and elaborate a little more than he does about family trusts.
[English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say again that a decision has not been made.
What assurance can the minister give this House that the reserves community across Canada will be involved in this restructuring process?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to announce that the government has accepted most of the recommendations of the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves and coincidentally those of the House committee and the subcommittee of the Senate.
(1440 )
The paid ceiling of the primary reserve will be raised to a level which will increase efficiencies, will allow an actual primary reserve strength of around 30,000 and a supplementary ready reserve will be re-invigorated to provide an estimated strength of 20,000. That will mean that Canada will have an effective reserve of 50,000 persons.
The reserves community has been and will continue to be closely involved in planning the implementation and restructuring of reserves. These reserve units be given more authority for the management-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
The prairie economy is being cheated out of hundreds of millions of dollars by the minister's failure to reform western grain marketing.
Will the minister act immediately to require the Canadian Wheat Board's buy back prices be based on the projected final Canadian price rather than significantly higher U.S. prices, thereby allowing producers with legal export permits to realize the benefit of better prices when they find them?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the purpose of the buy back policy as practised by the Canadian Wheat Board is to ensure that all western Canadian grain farmers can share in the value of the pooling process rather than that value being reserved for the limited few.
With respect to the general operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, that subject is being examined very closely by the Western Grain Marketing Panel. The panel is looking at a variety of methods by which the board's operations can be made more flexible, more responsive and can be enhanced in the very best interests of all western Canadian farmers.
It is fundamentally important for all of us in this House to recognize that we must act in the interests of all of those whom we seek to represent. That would refer to all western Canadian farmers and not just a select few.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the minister of agriculture understands that all prairie farmers are getting less money than they should right now. Prairie grain farmers are paid two to three dollars less for their wheat than American farmers.
The minister might have avoided the problem if he had acted promptly to correct it. He continues to tell farmers to wait for the Western Grain Marketing Panel report. We have heard it hundreds of times. We are missing opportunities for these premium prices.
Will the minister of agriculture give his word in this House that he will act decisively to correct the problems in the marketing system rather than make cosmetic changes or delay decisions that will continue to hurt all prairie farmers, hurt the prairie economy and kill jobs on the prairies?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question contains within it some fundamental fallacies.
If, for example, there were a whole flood of individual sales across the U.S. border aimed at certain specific spot prices that might exist for the temporary time being at certain specific delivery points, within a very few days those spot prices would disappear, the price would be depressed overall and all western Canadian farmers would suffer as a consequence.
I have indicated repeatedly that the Western Grain Marketing Panel process is one that is fully credible and legitimate. I expect the panel to produce a very valuable report. I expect that report to be available toward the end of June and it is the government's intention to respond to that report very quickly.
Three months ago, the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation told us she was about to negotiate with the provinces the transfer of all federal social housing programs.
Can the minister tell us what is the status of these negotiations and whether the federal withdrawal will come with fair and realistic financial compensation?
(1445)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, talks are under way with the provinces. We have already announced that the amounts currently spent would be transferred to the various provinces. That is what is on the table.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Minister of Finance promised housing co-operatives that there would be secure, stable funding for social housing.
Can the minister give us a guarantee that her government will continue to honour its financial commitments to existing social housing by transferring the amounts that were promised to the provinces?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that we are proposing to transfer the administration of social housing to the provinces.
At this point the federal government spends approximately $2 billion a year on social housing. Our proposal is to continue to spend that amount. All contracts are binding whether they are with the federal government now and transferred to the provinces as they are today.
It is important to note that we hope the provinces will have considerable savings and therefore will have dollars to devote to social housing if there is only one administration. We think it is very important to work together on this.
The Liberals say one thing and do another. They stand for nothing, they believe in nothing. It is no wonder their CBC policy amounts to nothing.
Who is to blame for the mess over at the CBC? Is it the Prime Minister for another broken promise, or Sheila Copps for not keeping her promises either?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not hear the latest news about an agreement having been reached at the CBC and programming continuing undisturbed on our national network.
It is very clear that, like any other government agency, the CBC has undergone budget cuts, but it is very capable of managing cuts of this extent while continuing to offer quality programming to the Canadian public.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was a great answer, too bad it did not relate to the question.
The Liberals vilified the Reform Party for wanting to cut $365 million from CBC funding. We were honest with Canadians. Our position was consistent. We said the CBC should be privatized. Why does the minister go along with the fact that her predecessor slagged the CBC by $377 million? Why will she not admit that the government has no idea of what the program for the CBC is going to be? She has no concept.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the Reform Party and the Liberal Party of Canada fundamentally differ in their view of what Canada's public television policy should be.
While the Reform Party may be intent on privatizing-its electoral platform calls for privatizing Canadian television-neither the Liberal Party of Canada nor the Government of Canada have any such intentions. We will maintain a public television network from coast to coast.
Can the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food give the House any assurance that this vital section of our economy will meet the target of $20 billion in exports by the year 2000?
(1450 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian agri-food sector established that target of $20 billion in agri-food sales by the year 2000, the trade amounted to about $13.5 billion per year. That was in 1992-93.
All of the trade figures are in for 1995 and they are $17.4 billion. That is up 12.6 per cent from the previous year and nearly 30 per cent over that period of 1992-93. The figures are up in the United States, in Asia and in many markets around the world for Canadian agri-food products.
The goods news is that every $1 billion increase in our agri-food sales abroad translates into at least 7,500 jobs for Canadians.
The 1984 Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act enables the federal government to force Canadian companies and American subsidiaries operating in Canada to disregard any foreign government measure adversely affecting our economic interests.
Could the minister tell us whether or not he intends to use this legislation to counter the implementation of the Helms-Burton law in the U.S.?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have indicated in the House on several occasions that when we see exactly what the United States does to implement the Helms-Burton law, which is simply a law that has not been given
regulations, we will then take a look at all the appropriate and necessary measures to ensure that Canadian interests are fully and adequately protected.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will ask another question to try to get the specific information we are looking for.
Does the minister intend to use the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act in support of those Canadian companies doing business in Cuba, which, like Redpath Sugars for instance, may wish to maintain business relations with that country?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we would certainly apply any Canadian law to any Canadian company that deals with extraterritorial measures.
I should point out to the hon. member that sugar was exempted under the Helms-Burton law because of strong Canadian pressure and lobbying. That part of the Helms-Burton law does not apply to sugar at all and, therefore, it does not apply in this case.
The minister and I both know from personal experience how much it would cost to fulfil the mission to Haiti to really make a difference. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs state clearly to the House that Canada will not consider renewing the Haiti mission unless these two criteria are met?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to thank the hon. member, along with several other members of the House, who accompanied me to Haiti last week on a fact finding mission to determine what the future of the mission should be. I very much appreciate the involvement of members of Parliament in that very important task.
In saying that, it is not possible to answer the question because at this point we do not know specifically what will be recommended. Options are being considered to substantially reduce the size of the force. Before that happens the Haitian government has to make a request to the United Nations security council. Until we know what the request is and what the security council decides it is not our position to say what our responsibility will be.
What I can say to the hon. member-and he knows this-was that part of my mission to Haiti and other Latin American countries was to ensure that they understood that Canada does not participate in missions such as this by itself. We want the full participation of other countries and the full mandate of international organizations.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is the exact point. Our peacekeeping missions seem to be made up with knee-jerk reactions at the last minute.
(1455 )
This option is up at the end of June. Boutros Boutros-Ghali visited the Prime Minister on the weekend. He definitely said he would like Canada to participate in extending this mission.
The Prime Minister then said that we need two things. Can the minister not assure the House that at least we will have an answer to those two questions: international involvement and the UN finds a way to pay the bill.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is hardly fair to say it is an ad hoc reaction when I spent five days last week travelling to a number of countries in Latin America to talk to them specifically about what would be required.
We asked a parliamentary delegation to come along with us. I invited the UN special representative to come to Ottawa in early June to brief Parliament on what might be required. We have undertaken a wide variety of consultations with countries around the world in order to determine what will be required.
Canada is taking a lead in helping to define what the UN will be recommending. We are putting together a consensus of other countries to make it happen. What we need to have before we can make a formal response is a request. One cannot stay if one is not asked. Until they ask, we cannot give the right answer.
The Liberal government was elected on the promise of creating jobs, jobs, jobs and offering hope to unemployed Canadians. Last week the Prime Minister said that Canadians will have to accept and get used to high unemployment, another broken promise.
Today the Minister of Human Resources Development says he does not really know why Canada's unemployment levels are so high. Will the government please explain to all Canadians, espe-
cially to those who are out of work, why this government has broken yet another promise?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of times today people have cited the Prime Minister. I would like to read what the Prime Minister said in a speech within the past week. ``The Canadian economy has managed to create more than 600,000 jobs since the time we were elected''. This is very significant.
The Minister of Human Resources Development talked about the problems of the global economy and the problems that other countries have creating jobs.
The Prime Minister went on to say: ``Believe it or not, Canada, not the government, but mainly the private sector has created more jobs in Canada than in Germany and France together''. That is an indication of what this government has done. Those countries have four times our population and we are creating far more jobs than they are.
It is the fourth time I put a question in the House regarding the agenda of the conference. The minister says that the throne speech alludes to some elements, but the provinces were consulted and we can only presume that this consultation process resulted in decisions being made regarding the agenda.
I would like to know what are at least the starting points of this discussion, this federal-provincial conference, if the official agenda is still not available.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. However, I can only give him the answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, namely that the agenda has still not been drawn up and that the major points of the process to reform our federation are outlined in the throne speech.
On September 6, 1995, Mr. Jaswant Khalra, a prominent human rights activist, disappeared from his home in Amritsar, India. When Mr. Khalra visited Parliament Hill last year, he expressed fear for his life to many parliamentarians. Mr. Khalra's family believe that he was forcibly taken by the police.
Could the secretary of state give the House an update on Mr. Khalra's fate and what action the Canadian government is taking on this issue?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has made repeated representations to the Government of India on the disappearance of Mr. Khalra.
During the recent visit of the Team Canada mission to India, both the Prime Minister and I discussed the case with our Indian counterparts.
(1500 )
The high profile of the case has led to an order by the Supreme Court of India to the powerful Central Bureau of Investigation to begin its own investigation of the disappearance. Pending the conclusion of the CBI's investigation, the National Commission of Human Rights has suspended its own inquiry.
In the meantime, officials of NCHR are in regular contact with the CBI. They are confident the latter is doing the right thing and heading in the right direction.
Today, however, there is no news concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Khalra. Rest assured Canada is putting a high priority on this case and will continue to monitor the whereabouts of Mr. Khalra.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has the floor.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, during the period-
The Speaker: I would like to ask you whether this question of privilege arises from something that took place during the period for oral questions.
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Very well. Please proceed.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, during the period for oral questions, my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa, asked a question of the immigration minister. The Minister for Human Resources Development made unacceptable, unparliamentary remarks to my colleague, the hon. member for Bourassa.
The hon. member for Bourassa is of Latin American origin. He is also a Canadian citizen. He is a sovereignist, and was elected as a sovereignist. He is entitled to his opinions, whether or not they are to the liking of the Minister of Human Resources Development. However, the Minister of Human Resources Development, who has a rather odd understanding of democracy, shouted at my colleague from Bourassa: ``If you are not happy, get yourself another country''.
That is unacceptable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the Chair did not hear what was said. I am not certain that this is a question of privilege. But we have the minister with us today and it was he who was referred to in these allegations. If he wishes to clarify the situation, he may have the floor.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify exactly what I did say. The hon. member stood up in this House to ask questions on immigration and refugees.
What I said in this House, and repeat now, was that he ought to decide which country he respects. While it was Canada which gave him citizenship, here he is now seated in this House preaching separatism. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker.
(1505 )
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie rose on a question of privilege. If words were exchanged between members of Parliament I can see that these words might not be acceptable to one side or the other.
However, because it was raised as a question of privilege, I judge this not to be a question of privilege. It might have been a question for clarification or of order, but my ruling is this is not a question of privilege.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Is this a question of privilege or a point of order?
Mr. Duceppe: A point of order.
The Speaker: Is this a new point of order?
Mr. Duceppe: After what the minister just said-
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I have ruled on the question of privilege, and it is my opinion that we are now moving on to the debates. I do not believe it was a point of order. Sometimes things are said in this House, on one side or the other, that are not acceptable. In my opinion, this is debate. I would like to close the incident here.
It is not, in my opinion, a question of privilege. If the comments are on my ruling on the question of privilege, I do not wish to hear any more about it at this time.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I would a clarification.
The Speaker: Very well.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand properly. I raised a question of privilege on something said during question period, and you declare it is not a question of privilege. I would like some clarification. I cannot therefore address the unacceptable things said by the Minister of Human Resources Development without-
The Speaker: Absolutely.
[English]
We can get into a debate with any member of the House at any time. I have ruled this is not a question of privilege and at this point it is not a point of order. There may be a debate on this issue.
[Translation]
Of course, all members have their opinions on what was said and what is said; that is why we have debates here in this House.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a debate with the hon. member who has just spoken or on the Speaker's ruling. It is clear that the Chair has settled the matter.
(1510)
Once the Speaker has made a ruling, I think it is inconsistent with our parliamentary traditions to question or otherwise comment on the quality of this ruling. The Speaker presides over this House and I think he does a good job.
From time to time, members on both sides of the House are not always complimentary toward one another. A few moments ago, I heard a member across the way accuse my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, an Acadian, of being assimilated. I do not think he appreciated these comments either. The hon. member has just left the room.
A few days ago, similar charges were levelled against me. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, whenever we as parliamentarians are involved in a dispute, we should come to you for a ruling. You did settle this matter and I think it is unacceptable for members to question your judgment.
[English]
The Speaker: I understand that in the heat of debate on what goes on in the House certain expressions and words are sometimes used. As your Speaker, in debate I give you all the leeway possible.
However, when a decision is made by your Speaker it is made with the House in mind. I hope hon. members would accept these decisions in the spirit with which they are made in the hope that true debate can occur.
I hope any remarks after I made my decision were not directed at the Chair. In my view this would be unacceptable. I ask members that after a decision has been made it be accepted as such and that we move on.
We have debates in front of us today and I propose we move to the debates at this time. If there is reason for me to come back to the House after I review what has been said in Hansard and on television, I will do so.
However, like members, I hold the office of the Speaker in the highest regard. We must if we are to operate in the House.
At this point at least, until I have information to the contrary, I believe we should get on with the work of the House which is debate.