Questioned in the House yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that he had been informed on the morning of October 2 that his Minister of Defence had seriously breached the Cabinet code of ethics. That same Wednesday, in the afternoon, the Prime Minister
stated, and I quote: ``I have a lot of confidence in the Minister of National Defence'', adding that he would keep him in that job.
How can the Prime Minister, after learning that very morning that his defence minister had gone against the code of ethics, repeat in this House, barely hours later, within mere hours, that he had confidence in his former minister and even tell us that he would be there for a long time? How can he explain this?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): As I stated in the House, I was informed in the morning that there was a problem, not one connected in any way to the duties of the Minister of Defence, but perhaps one connected to the performance of his duties as a member of Parliament serving one of his constituents.
I therefore referred the problem to Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor. I did not know what his conclusions were going to be, but I had confidence in the Minister of Defence, as always. I repeat that he did an excellent job in his three years as Minister of Defence, both for the Department of National Defence and for Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that he did not really know whether what the Minister of Defence had done was a problem, when the underlying principle of his code of ethics is that ministers shall neither interfere, nor appear to interfere. The former Minister of Defence had written a letter. The Prime Minister cannot expect us to believe today that he was not really sure whether or not he had contravened the code of ethics. That is just too facile.
(1420)
Furthermore, in response to General Boyle's letter of resignation, the Prime Minister wrote that he had served with courage, dignity and integrity.
How, knowing that the accusations made under oath by Mr. Gonzales were weighing heavily against General Boyle, could the Prime Minister be so sure and praise the integrity of the chief of defence staff without even knowing the outcome of the ongoing inquiry with respect to him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, General Boyle had testified, and had himself said that he was not aware of certain facts which the commission was investigating in this connection.
In the performance of his duties as chief of defence staff, he has done a good job. He had a very difficult task, arriving as the new head of the Armed Forces just as the commission was starting up. That was hard. This was the first time in history that there had been an inquiry of this nature. I believe that General Boyle did his best, and acquitted himself honourably. At the end, he realized that he was the subject of controversy and he submitted his resignation in a most honourable manner, and I accepted it.
As for myself, should the commission comment on this at some point, I shall have something to say, but it is the custom in Canada-and a very good one-that no one is declared guilty until there is a verdict.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to take care to add to that statement: ``And, if there are accusations hanging over someone's head, the Prime Minister ought perhaps to hold back on his congratulations until there is a verdict''.
The House is faced with a problem at the present time, and this is it: the Prime Minister, who was aware that his minister had intervened and broken the code of ethics, admitted it only after it became impossible for him to avoid doing so, when he was forced to do so. In his letter to General Boyle, the Prime Minister was still praising the General's integrity and good service, while fully aware that there is an ongoing inquiry, which may lead to some conclusions. At any rate, there is at least some reasonable doubt.
What are we to think of such an attitude on the part of the Prime Minister? Are we to understand that, for him, the integrity of his government is intact, just as long as no one is actually caught red-handed.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this entire incident of last week was made public, and the decisions were made before the press was informed. I was informed on the Wednesday morning. I was informed, and the Minister of Defence received Mr. Wilson's opinion on the Thursday. He came to see me at 6 p.m. and I accepted his resignation the following morning. I think that this is totally reasonable.
It amuses me a great deal that the opposition has nothing much to say against the government and has to resort to rehashing the past. I must therefore congratulate my entire cabinet for doing a good job with the rest of government, since the opposition has nothing to say these days.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. By the way, we noticed that he said ``the rest'' of affairs were being managed well, so we understand that that particular one was not.
The Prime Minister said that the decision of his former defence minister was in no way linked to the Somalia affair, but rather to the code of ethics issue.
But yesterday, the new defence minister very clearly linked the departure of the former minister and that of General Boyle to the
Somalia affair, stating, and I quote: ``In recent days, two people have taken some very difficult steps. First my colleague, theformer Minister of National Defence, resigned, and now today, General Boyle has done so as well''.
Is the Prime Minister aware that in his desperation to save the face of his government, he is going so far that his new defence minister no longer dares to follow him?
(1425)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is very interesting in the line of questions we are hearing this afternoon is that we know that it is thanks to the actions of this government in calling for an inquiry into what went on in Somalia. That is why we have some facts and expect many more to come out.
And as for the issue of my predecessor's resignation as Minister of National Defence, there again we have an action that was undoubtedly very difficult for the former Minister of National Defence. Why did he decide to hand in his resignation? Because of the guidelines established by the Prime Minister of Canada and his government to ensure that the government runs well.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): my supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the fact that his new Minister of National Defence keeps coming back to the need to get to the bottom only of the events that took place in Somalia is a way for his government to divert attention and to bury once and for all the document altering and cover-up operation?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Not at all, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it was the hon. member and other members in this House who asked for a preliminary report from the investigators on the questions having to do with the whole situation concerning General Boyle. All I said was that, with General Boyle's resignation yesterday, this topic has obviously been dealt with to a certain extent.
I will accept the proposal of the hon. member and other members in this House and assure them that not only will we get to the bottom of what interests you today, but that we will get to the bottom of what interests Canadians: what went on in Somalia. It is for that reason that I am in agreement with those who want the Commission of Inquiry to deliver a report at the end of March, as scheduled, precisely so that when we go into an election there is no cover-up.
performance record, its broken GST promise and the fiasco at national defence to mention two.
However, the biggest blot of all is still the government's failure to deliver on its election promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. There are 1.4 million unemployed, 2 million to 3 million underemployed and 4 million workers worried about losing their jobs; almost one-half of the entire Canadian labour force.
Where is the government's plan to create the millions, not the hundreds of thousands, of new and better jobs required to fulfil its election promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a very definite plan concerning that. We have managed to create 665,000 new jobs in the Canadian economy over three years. We have also managed to run the economy with 1.5 per cent inflation.
The Minister of Finance, in addressing the problem of the government's deficit, has always managed to do better than the plan he had put forward. That is the way we do things. In two years time there will be no need for the government to borrow money, something that has not been done in the last 25 years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is one glaring weakness in the Prime Minister's answer. The only way to have job creation in the numbers required to satisfy Canadians is through lower taxes and through leaving more dollars in the pockets of consumers and private sector job creators. However, this government cannot deliver lower taxes. In fact, it is doing the opposite. It is taking $25 billion more out of the pockets of taxpayers than it did in the year it was elected.
(1430 )
When is the government going to make major tax cuts to generate the millions of new and better jobs required by Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remember campaigning, and the only problem the country faced at that time was the reduction of the deficit. That was the only speech the leader of the third party had. It is amazing that he has not found a new one.
Jobs have been created in Canada; more than in Italy, more than in Germany, more than in France and more than in Great Britain all together.
It is not a priority of this government to give a 10 per cent tax cut to those with a million dollar per year income. When we have room our priority will be to make sure that some of the benefits will go first to those in society who need them most. That is certainly not the preoccupation of the member from the third party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the real reason the Prime Minister cannot talk about tax cuts is that his government has been one of the slowest in the country at deficit reduction.
He points to European countries and yet his government is behind Alberta on deficit reduction. He is behind Ontario on deficit reduction. He is behind Nova Scotia on deficit reduction. He is behind Newfoundland on deficit reduction.
Around the kitchen table, as distinct from the cabinet table, Canadians are worried about a drop in their disposable income. The after tax income of the average Canadian family has dropped $3,000 since the Liberals came to power.
What is the Prime Minister going to do to address the $3,000 pay cut which his government has delivered to Canadian families?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to give one example, because of the good management of this government the interest rate went down by 3 per cent or 4 per cent in the last year and a few months.
Somebody with a mortgage of $50,000 will pay $1,500 less after tax. Somebody with a $100,000 mortgage will pay $3,000 less after tax. Somebody who has bought a car for $15,000 will pay $500 less in interest each year. This is because we have a good Minister of Finance and a good government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: May I ask you, my colleagues, to please tighten up a little on the questions and on the answers.
The Minister of National Defence said in the House that he wants a thorough investigation of what happened in Somalia. The official opposition agrees with him. But if he wants to find out what really happened in Somalia, he should first of all have a thorough investigation of the document tampering that went on afterwards.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
(1435)
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I must say they are pretty touchy today!
If the minister refuses to order an interim report on the document tampering, could it be because the cover up occurred under the current Liberal government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, we want a thorough investigation of everything that happened in connection with the situation in Somalia.
The mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia is quite clear. The commission is to consider all aspects, and we hope to have some answers as soon as possible and, especially, some recommendations.
I could not agree more with the hon. member. If the members of the commission of inquiry think they should produce an interim report, that is up to them. We are not going to give instructions to the commission. I am sure all members of this House realize that one should not interfere with the work of the commission of inquiry.
That being said, I hope the hon. member will join our efforts to ensure that there is a thorough investigation of what happened in Somalia and that the commission of inquiry will report as scheduled on March 31, 1997, so that everyone, all Canadians and all members of the Canadian Armed Forces and members of this House will have the information they need to make an informed decision if by any chance an election is called in 1997.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that the government is trying to arrange things so there will be no release of any report on document tampering by the commission of inquiry before the next election, to save the face of the government and that of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will try and do some face saving for the benefit of the hon. member. This was my answer to this question: Yes, if the members of the Commission of Inquiry on Somalia believe it is in the best interests of all concerned and it is part of their mandate, and if they wish to publish an interim report, they can go ahead. I am not asking them to do so because I do not want to interfere with the work of the inquiry. But if they think it should be done, I have no objection.
In fact, and I say this to avoid any misunderstand, I hope to get to the bottom of all this, not only of the facts that are of interest to the hon. member but of who did what in Somalia, how this was possible, how it was covered up, if there was a cover up, who is responsible, and how we can make sure this will not happen again.
I would like to have, and I am sure all members of this House are with me on this, all the answers to everything connected with the Somalia affair before the next election. This does not mean I know the date. That is always at the discretion of the Prime Minister. It is after all his prerogative. I hope the commission of inquiry will
publish its report on March 31, as scheduled, then we will all know where we are.
Can the finance minister tell the House why he and his government continue to promote discriminatory tax policies that deny families the freedom to make the parenting choices for their children?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member cares to take a look at the Income Tax Act or at government policy he will find out that the situation is really quite different than the one which he has described.
As an example, within the existing system, to the benefit of married families, is the married credit which reduces income taxes by as much as $1,500 for a couple under the circumstances which the member has described.
At the same time there is a special supplement under the child tax benefit for parents who care for their preschool children at home. The child tax benefit is based on family income, so it automatically increases when a parent gives up a job to stay at home.
The fact is the tax system directly answers the member's question. He might do a bit of research before standing up so quickly.
(1440 )
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, $7,000 may not be a lot of money to the millionaires of this world, but it is a lot of money to regular Canadians.
Can the finance minister explain to Canadians why one form of child care is worthy of a tax credit while the other is not? Can he explain why his government is yet again interfering with the private parenting choices of Canadian families? Why is there discrimination?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again it is quite the opposite. We are not interfering with the question of choice. What we have is a system that provides considerable benefits where one of the two parents decides to stay at home for precisely the reasons which I think the member is trying to allude to.
If we immediately went to the kind of system that the member is talking about, the second spouse entering the workforce would immediately face crippling taxation. That makes no sense.
Another thing is a number of the European countries, in fact virtually all of the European countries on a family basis are now shifting to the same kind of taxation that we have in Canada, which is by far the best.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell should not applaud. He might be shown the door if the other one comes back.
Will the Prime Minister pledge in this House that the former defence minister will not be back in cabinet so long as a report shedding light on the whole issue of the falsification of the documents and his responsibility regarding this operation will not be made public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint someone to the cabinet when he decides to do so. The minister handed me his resignation for very honourable reasons and I accepted it with much regret. I maintain that he has done an extraordinary job as Minister of National Defence, under extremely difficult circumstances.
The previous government had seven defence ministers in nine years. The minister who resigned last Friday succeeded in making huge cuts and in reducing military personnel, including the number of generals, which went down from 125 to 70. The former minister has earned the thanks of this House for a job well done.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister refuse to wait until the release of an interim report on the falsification of documents, before thinking about bringing back in the cabinet his friend, the former defence minister? After all, the Prime Minister said in this House, on October 2, and I quote: ``It is exactly because I want the commission to finish its work that I will not prejudge the conclusions of the commissioners''.
Perhaps it would be wiser to wait. Who knows what the conclusions of the commission might be? It might be better for the Prime Minister to not second guess these findings.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the defence minister said on several occasions two days ago, yesterday and today, the government hopes that the commission will fulfil its mandate to shed light on what occurred in Somalia.
This is the commission's mandate and we hope to get the report as soon as possible, so that, if changes must be made within the armed forces structure because of these incidents, the defence minister will be in a position to make them as quickly as possible. If the commission wants to report before March, this will be fine with us.
Recently the finance minister admitted that employment insurance works as a deterrent to new hiring. With the huge surplus built up in the EI fund, when will the new Minister of Human Resources Development announce a cut in the premiums so that Canadian youth can find the jobs they are so desperately seeking?
(1445 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the importance of reducing payroll taxes.
In the first year that we took office the UI premiums at that time were supposed to go to $3.30 but we did not allow that to happen. In fact under this administration they have gone down to $3.07, to $2.95 and to $2.90 last year. At the same time we have introduced a whole series of measures such that since we have taken office we have reduced the unemployment insurance burden on salaries by $1.8 billion, precisely to put people back to work.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister talks about the first year in office. The first year in office the debt was at $490 billion. It is approaching $600 billion and we still have 18 per cent unemployment among our youth.
The employment insurance system discriminates against young people, even those with jobs. Full time students are forced to pay premiums even though by law they are never able to collect those benefits. Premiums are monies they badly need for texts and tuition. Will the new Minister of Human Resources Development act immediately to exempt full time students from paying premiums for insurance they cannot collect?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about helping young people. Let us look at the record.
The fact is when the previous Minister of Human Resources Development increased the amount of money to be made available for summer students, the Reform Party opposed it. When this government increased the tuition credits for students going to school, the Reform Party opposed it. When this government made more money available to caregivers so that they could go to school while their children were taken care of, the Reform Party opposed it.
The Reform Party has opposed every single measure brought before this House to help students, to help young Canadians. The fact is members of the Reform Party are disconnected from the reality of the Canadian public.
We learned today that the government has decided not to appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision last June to strike down the provisions of the federal law prohibiting third parties from spending more than $1,000 on advertising during election campaigns.
Does the minister not believe that his decision not to appeal this ruling could create a situation similar to that in the U.S., where rich lobby groups can finance the candidates they want and therefore unfairly influence election results?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, intends to review the whole issue and propose measures to correct the situation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government has an opportunity to make these changes and appeal this ruling.
Is the minister's inaction not an admission that he is quietly getting ready to support the Libman case to be heard by the Supreme Court, which challenges the provisions of Quebec's referendum legislation on expenditure limits, in order to defend his own Liberal colleagues and friends and fine tune the government's strategy in Quebec's next referendum campaign?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that this case
deals only with the Canada Elections Act, and not with the Referendum Act.
So, as far as the Canada Elections Act is concerned, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada is reviewing the situation and will soon be in a position to come back with proposals.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell us whether the government is actively pursuing the asbestos matter and, if so, what progress has been made so far?
(1450)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I reassure the hon. member that the federal government has an aggressive strategy in relation to the asbestos issue which we are pursuing in partnership with a number of other key stakeholders, including the province of Quebec.
A few weeks ago I took the opportunity to meet with my Quebec counterpart. She and I determined that the best approach was a co-operative partnership. We are now in the process of developing that partnership.
My colleague the Minister for International Trade has made representations to many foreign governments, including France. My colleague the Minister of Health has intervened with his colleague the French Minister of Health to ensure that the record is clear in relation to the accurate and true medical and health facts surrounding the use of asbestos.
Yesterday it was with great pleasure that I announced that my department will be providing $500,000 to the Asbestos Institute to continue a research program in relation to the controlled and safe use of substances.
I ask the Prime Minister again, will he now make the ethics guidelines for cabinet ministers public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these guidelines are instructions from the Prime Minister to his ministers and they are obliged to follow them. There is an officer who advises them and when ministers feel they have a problem, they receive guidance.
These are instructions that the Prime Minister gives to his ministers. As I said, at the end of the day, in the British tradition, it is the Prime Minister who is responsible for the conduct and I have always accepted full responsibility in those matters. The guidelines are instructions for my ministers. Communications between the Prime Minister and the ministers by the nature of our system are confidential.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister apparently feels that ethics are a private matter between himself and the ministers. He will not release the guidelines and he only uses them when it is to his political advantage, as in sacking the Minister of National Defence.
Ethics are a public matter. For the public to judge whether the conduct of the Prime Minister's ministers is ethical, they need to know what the guidelines are. How are Canadians supposed to know whether the ethics guidelines followed by cabinet ministers are ethical if the Prime Minister will not make them public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the leader of the third party is arguing that the minister should not have resigned. He gave me his letter of resignation and I accepted it. I presume from the line of questioning by the hon. member that it was not a sufficient reason to resign, but with the standards that we have, it was enough.
Yesterday, the new Minister of Human Resources Development, and I take this opportunity to congratulate him-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: -and pity him to some extent-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Lalonde: I repeat, to pity him to some extent.
Yesterday, the new minister expressed pride in the reform undertaken by his predecessors to modernize our unemployment insurance system and adapt it to what he called the new economy.
(1455)
Does the minister realize that, under his so-called modern system, many people who have to rely on unemployment insurance, too many people really, will receive lower benefits for a shorter period because of tighter eligibility requirements?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her first question to me in this House. I am delighted.
I can assure all Canadians that our goal in introducing this new employment insurance system is to move away from passive measures and toward active measures that make work more attractive, thereby helping workers go from unemployment to employment.
This is a much more positive approach. And I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that a larger number of Canadians are covered under this system than the old one and that a larger number of women are benefiting in particular.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister will have to make a quick review of the issue, because I am asking him whether he realizes that these active measures planned for the next five years represent only a $200 million increase, while at the same time more than $65 billion will be paid out in UI benefits. The shift toward active measures is a smoke screen.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not $200 million but $800 million that will be injected over the next few years. That is a fairly large amount designed, as I said earlier, to provide assistance in the years to come to those previously not covered by the system.
The women of Papineau-Saint-Michel certainly appreciate it, because they were not covered under the old system , and they are very grateful to the government for it.
What is he afraid of? What is he trying to hide? Why will he not release the ethics guidelines for the ministers to the public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the conduct of ministers is always the responsibility of the Prime Minister. It is for him to pass judgment and take all the consequences of his judgment. This is the way the system has operated for years.
Regarding communications within a government, it is very important that between the Prime Minister and the ministers there be some confidentiality. Of course members of the third party do not care much because they know they will never form a government. They are not preoccupied with the responsibility of a government that we are.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks a lot about responsibility and how he wants to shoulder responsibility. I will take him at his word.
Will he assume responsibility now for those guidelines and release them to the public so that the public can have a look at them? What is he trying to hide? There is nothing to hide, surely. Release them to the public.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide. The actions of ministers become public and the Prime Minister takes responsibility. It is a very public process.
When a Prime Minister deals with members of his cabinet, he has the right and obligation to have some private conversations with them. Otherwise, there would be no government. The government is the Prime Minister assuming his responsibilities. Everybody knows I never run away when I have responsibilities to face.
What is the minister doing to protect our hog producers from the damaging results of this United States action?
(1500 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Commerce has for quite some time now been reviewing the countervailability of a number of Canadian farm programs both federally and provincially, particularly in that period between 1991 and 1994.
I am happy to tell the hon. gentleman that as a result of the most recent DOC review of Canadian programs there are two very important pieces of good news. First, Canadian hog producers will be receiving a refund of $28.5 million on duty that they have already paid and that they will be getting back.
Second, in the course of its work the U.S. Department of Commerce has also taken a look at the Canadian net income stabilization account program, the NISA program, which is the
whole farm core of our safety net system in Canada, and the DOC has confirmed that the program is not countervailable. It is trade neutral, which verifies the policy position taken by this government.
On January 12 of this year in the Citizen the Minister of Finance was quoted as saying: ``As soon as I can, as soon as our financial situation allows, I will address the serious issue of child poverty in Canada''.
With 1,747,000 children living in poverty today, how soon will the Minister of Finance be able to act?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question strikes very much a resonant cord with the government. Indeed it is for that reason that over the course of the last 15 months we doubled the working income supplement for families with small children. The Minister of Justice brought in a comprehensive package dealing with guidelines on support payments for custodial parents.
There is no doubt that as a government we wish we could do a lot more and we intend to do so. The hon. member is quite right when he points out that while we are bettering the financial condition of the country we must also bear in mind the need to better the financial conditions of individual Canadians.
One of the greatest frustrations I think we have is the clean-up of the mess that somebody else created so that we can do precisely the job that the member wants us to do.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.