This resignation was certainly the only possible solution under the circumstances. Yet everyone is wondering how the Prime Minister could have got himself into such a situation.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he explain having made such a poor choice for the position of lieutenant-governor of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have accepted the resignation of Jean-Louis Roux as lieutenant-governor of Quebec with enormous regret.
Jean-Louis Roux is one of the most honourable men in Quebec. He has enjoyed an exceptional career in our province. He was involved in all manner of causes for the defence of human rights and freedoms in this society.
I would ask the indulgence of the Chair to demonstrate how this man has participated in the advancement of human rights and freedoms in Quebec. As early as 1947, he was involved in opposing censorship in the Les enfants du Paradis affair. He was involved in Radio-Canada's strike over the right to unionize. In 1965, he fought class legislation concerning authors. He was even opposed to the War Measures Act in 1970. He fought for freedom of expression during the controversy over the play Les fées ont soif in 1978.
Way back in the 1950s he was one of the founders of Cité Libre, in opposition to the regime of the day. He was a member of Artistes pour la paix, Amnesty International, and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal, which helped people involved in tracing war criminals.
Such was the career of this man, Jean-louis Roux, one of the greatest artists Quebec has ever known. Unfortunately, he made one mistake-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, pardon me, but I rarely take advantage of the House, and I am going to continue.
This is a most honourable man. Are there two standards in our society? He was a federalist as well. I trust that some of those who have written things about him today will have the courage to look up what was written in Le Devoir during the 1930s and 1940s.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has only himself to be annoyed with. He is the one responsible for the present mess.
(1420)
He is responsible for the mess and, like it or not, he will still have to find answers to a number of questions to which the public wants answers.
If the Prime Minister is so informed about the career of Jean-Louis Roux, how can it be that his knowledge does not go back further than 1949? It is what happened prior to that which has shocked all the people of Quebec.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roux has always spoken of that time in lectures and radio or television discussions. He has taken part in public discussions on radio and television explaining how Quebec society has evolved from the thirties to the present.
He himself stated on one such program that he had made the mistake of putting a swastika on his lab coat during his student days, at the age of 19, and that he regretted this. He has stated publicly that he regretted this enormously. He has also said it to me personally. This was public, and not a question of a criminal act.
When we investigate people to whom we are offering positions, we do not go looking into the darkest recesses of their personal lives, we look at their record of honour as a citizen, and whether they have a criminal record. In my opinion, Jean-Louis Roux had an impeccable record, except that he had committed one error at the age of 19 years while at the Université de Montréal.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ought to have been more careful, since his responsibilities require it, knowing what Jean-Louis Roux is capable of saying. The Prime Minister will recall the odious comparison he made during the last referendum. The Prime Minister ought to have been more careful, more mistrustful.
How can the Prime Minister justify the fact that his sole concern before appointing Jean-Louis Roux as lieutenant-governor of Quebec was the services he had rendered to the Liberal Party of Canada, rather than the irreproachable profile he ought to have provided?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I invited Jean-Louis Roux to become a Senator, I did not even know he was a Liberal. Even when I invited him to the Senate, I said to him: ``I do not know if you are a member of my party. If you want to sit-''
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): I offered him a seat as an independent. And, if we need to go poking into everyone's lives, could the Leader of the Opposition tell me why people like Camille Laurin and Denis Lazure were in Mr. Lévesque's cabinet, when they had defended Count Jacques de Bernonville, the right hand man to Klaus Barbie in Europe?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to hear the Prime Minister, one would believe that Mr. Roux should not have handed in his resignation earlier today. I am somewhat surprised. Normally, before important appointments are made, there is always an investigation conducted by the RCMP; that is the routine investigation commonly called a security check.
Could the Prime Minister tell us today if he looked at the RCMP's investigation report on Senator Roux before appointing him as lieutenant governor?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always apprised of the findings of security investigations and, like the others, this one turned up nothing. I based my decision to appoint Senator Roux on what I knew at the time and, as
everyone knows, I just listed a few of the many things he has accomplished in Quebec society over the past 50 years.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has changed his tune a few times since yesterday. According to his Deputy Prime Minister, he was 100 per cent behind Jean-Louis Roux. According to what his press attache said yesterday, the Prime Minister was not aware of Jean-Louis Roux's remarks and actions. And today, the Prime Minister himself tells us Jean-Louis Roux raised the matter with him.
(1425)
It is difficult to follow what the Prime Minister is saying. Let me put my question in clear and simple terms: Will the Prime Minister rise in his place and tell us today whether or not the routine RCMP investigation on Senator Roux contained any reference to events that took place in 1942?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that this was a routine investigation, and no one ever brought anything to my attention that might have prevented Jean-Louis Roux's appointment as a member of the Senate of Canada.
We spoke, yesterday evening. I did not raise this matter since I knew nothing about it. He informed me of the facts now in the public domain, that I shared with the House a moment ago. This morning, he voluntarily tendered his resignation.
Yesterday, the Minister of Canadian Heritage defended Mr. Roux, whom I believe she described as an honourable man. Other ministers did the same during media scrums and I stand by that position. He made a deliberate choice to put an end to the controversy and to resign; we did not ask for his resignation.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Jean-Louis Roux has resigned but Canadians are worried about the government's mishandling of this issue.
They are having a hard time accepting why the government, and yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister, tried to dismiss the wearing of a swastika, which is the most vile symbol in history, as simply a youthful prank.
What Mr. Roux did in 1942 is reprehensible but so is the government's sidestepping of this issue. Instead of trying to deal with it head on, incredibly the Prime Minister still defends him. I ask the Prime Minister now: Will he admit that it was wrong for his government to try to defend the wearing of a swastika? And will he apologize to Canadians for his error in judgment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, nobody at all defended that. In fact, I said that it was an error, and Mr. Roux himself said that it was an error which he regretted.
Nobody said that it was a defensible thing. What the leader of the-temporary leader, I guess, we do not see the leader very often-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): We said that it was an error made by a young person 19 years old. We always said that it was an error. The deputy Prime Minister never said that it was not an error.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I might remind the Prime Minister that we had a few questions for him yesterday about several things, although he was not here to appreciate them.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We are all even now so we will get on with question period.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, we are even but I was the only one who got cut off, you will recall.
The Prime Minister is here today and I am really glad to be able to ask him a question. He is fond of saying that the buck stops with him.
The Prime Minister personally appointed Quebec's lieutenant-governor and if he did not know about Mr. Roux's past he certainly should have. Since the truth has now come out, it seems that he would much rather hide and hope things go away.
The sign of a good, strong leader is that if someone needs to be fired, he gets fired. We never see that here in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister always hopes things will go away. Will the Prime Minister accept full responsibility for the appointment of Jean-Louis Roux and will he admit finally, just once, that he has made a mistake?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House of Commons all the circumstances of the incident. Mr. Roux resigned today and I have accepted his resignation.
I have to repeat that this man has served the population of Canada extremely well. He is a great artist. He made a mistake 54 years ago when he was 19 years old. It is all in the past. I do not believe anybody can take anything away from his great career and his great service to the Canadian population and the people of Quebec in particular.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we see it spotted on the front rows here that this Prime Minister simply is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake. Why is it so difficult to say I am sorry?
We have to move on from here, of course, because there is a vacancy in the lieutenant-governorship of Quebec. Canadians would like to think that the Prime Minister will take more care in
appointing the next lieutenant-governor. The public and the province should be consulted, and merit alone, not loyalty to the Liberal Party, should the Prime Minister's guiding principle.
Now that the Prime Minister is ready to make another appointment, will he consult with the public and the province before appointing Quebec's lieutenant-governor, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will follow the rule that was established in 1867. It is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to inform the premier of the province but he has to take full responsibility for the appointment.
I have taken full responsibility for all lieutenant-governor appointments I have made so far. In this case, I will repeat that this man made an error when he was 19 years old but his record shows very clearly to me and any objective person that he resigned because he did not want to be the object of a controversy.
However, no one should take anything away from his great contribution to the advancement of arts and culture in the province of Quebec. He also participated many times at the Stratford Festival in Ontario in a very eloquent way. It was fantastic to see a francophone perform so well in a Shakespearian play.
On the one hand, he tries to justify the former lieutenant- governor's actions. He admires his great career and is sorry he resigned. On the other hand, the Prime Minister tells us: ``I did not know. It was not in the security report. I was not aware of these facts''. He then tells us: ``The lieutenant-governor was courageous enough to decide to resign on his own shedding a tear of regret''.
What we want to know is this: If the Prime Minister had known the facts, would he still have appointed him? That is what the people want to know.
The Speaker: The hon. member has asked a hypothetical question, so I would ask him to please rephrase it.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I understand you are giving me another chance to rephrase my first question so I can still ask a supplementary. I appreciate your diligence.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the Prime Minister, what we would like to know, is this: Does he think Jean-Louis Roux's resignation in these circumstances is a good thing? Does he approve of his resignation, his decision, does he think this is proper? That is what we want to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he resigned and I regretfully accepted his resignation for the reasons I clearly explained to the House earlier.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that the Jean-Louis Roux affair adds to the long track record of this government, whose motto is that people are not guilty until they get caught?
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): There was no question, so there will be no answer.
Canadians are telling us that transparency and accountability are fresh ideas they would really like to see in this Parliament. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister said we had all the facts, underline all. How strange then that more facts were released yesterday to the press but not to us.
The former minister of defence unintentionally breached some guidelines. He lost his job. The Secretary of State for Training and Youth knowingly breached Treasury Board guidelines and she continues to enjoy the support of the Prime Minister.
How does the Prime Minister decide which guidelines are to be enforced and which are to be ignored?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we replied to these questions last week. The money has all been paid back. There was the use of a credit card and every time that it was used it was checked with the department and the payments were made back to the government in a proper fashion.
No money was lost. It was just as explained last week. The secretary of state made a clerical mistake involuntarily and all the facts were submitted to the ethics counsellor who said that there was no need for me to ask for a resignation.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians still have some unanswered questions. Here are some facts that are still needed.
Of the $9,700 whited out, $9,200 is still unaccounted for. There are two and a half years for which we have no records. There is no way of knowing which items were charged to taxpayers. There is no way of knowing when personal expenses were incurred, how
much they were and when precisely they were paid back. There is no way of knowing how many other ministers are engaging in this same type of abuse of their cards. There is no way of knowing what the actual guidelines are-
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to please put his question.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, with the problems we have with access to information and whiteout, will the Prime Minister commit to tabling in this House full and complete documentation for the entire period without whiteout?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the personal expenditures of the member are information that is of a personal nature and is covered under the Privacy Act.
It is the role of the comptroller in every department to look at the expenditures and to determine what is official government expenditure and what is personal expenditure. That is what happened in this case. There is no mystery to it. The comptrollers have gone through it. All the money has been repaid.
Although the ceasefire declared unilaterally yesterday by the rebel Tutsis seems to be holding, Zaire is still in the throes of a major crisis, because the principal players hold conflicting views. The Nairobi summit does not seem to have produced any concrete results today, with Rwanda still opposed to an international force being sent in.
In a context where Zaire is ruling out any peace talks until Rwandan forces leave its territory, can the minister tell us what efforts his government now intends to take to help resolve the major crisis brewing in central Africa?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, Ambassador Chrétien is now in Africa to discuss with all parties the possibility of a meeting or a ceasefire. The Government of Canada is prepared to take an active part in Ambassador Chrétien's recommendations.
(1440)
At the same time, as I said yesterday, we are very concerned about Rwanda's role, and I have asked my officials and the ambassador to Rwanda to present Canada's positions to the government of Rwanda in order to co-operate in all the efforts being made to find a solution in the great lakes region of Africa.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, all players now agree on two priorities: obtain a lasting ceasefire and open up safe humanitarian corridors.
Is the minister, or is he not, prepared to support the position of the French government, which feels that the best way to ensure the creation of such safe corridors is to send in an international force by order of the Security Council?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it would be prudent that any decision about response into the very troubled situation also involve the African states. There should be full participation of those who are most immediately affected.
It is a point of our own diplomacy and that of Ambassador Chrétien on behalf of the United Nations to come up with recommendations. One of the options or choices could well be some form of safe refuge or safe corridor, but until those direct consultations of the ambassador are concluded it is probably too early for Canada to say exactly what it will do.
We are prepared and ready to respond to all requests that will provide a solution to the situation and we can only wish God speed to Ambassador Chrétien in the work that he is doing.
On September 23 this House passed Bill C-216, an act to outlaw negative option billing. I ask the heritage minister again, does she condone a top official at the CRTC's opposing Bill C-216, undertaking actions to see this bill defeated in the parliamentary process?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I do not accept the claim of the hon. member. In fact, over the course of any legislation any member of Parliament in this place or the other place is entitled to seek a briefing and indeed that was the question in this particular case.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a discrepancy in the minister's understanding and mine. We will leave that as it is.
The reality is this minister is opposed to the passage of Bill C-216. The Canadian Consumers' Association of Canada on October 18, because it is concerned about that, wrote to her and said: ``We are writing on behalf of Canadian consumers to ask the
minister to send a clear public signal that you support Bill C-216, the private member's bill''.
Will she undertake that she not only supports the bill, yes or no, but that when it comes back to this House it will be undertaken as an act of Parliament?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if you follow the logic of the member it should not return back to this House.
Last week, when we asked the Minister of Finance to table his bill that would amend the Income Tax Act, so as to eliminate the use of family trusts as tax loopholes, he simply maintained that the ways and means motion tabled had already taken effect. Of course the motion takes effect when it is tabled, but subsequently, a bill is required to amend the Income Tax Act.
Contrary to what the minister claimed last week, he must table a bill to amend the Income Tax Act. Consequently, when does he intend to table this bill?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week I said that when the ways and means method is used, whatever is required in the Act to plug the loophole referred to by the hon. member takes effect immediately.
(1445)
That being said, we intend to proceed with the bill at the appropriate time, as usual, as soon as the House leaders on both sides can agree on a time slot.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to offer its immediate participation and co-operation. We are ready to support the bill.
On the same topic, could the Minister of Finance promise that this bill will provide a statutory and objective method to calculate the guarantees required by Revenue Canada of millionaires who want to transfer their assets outside Canada, instead of leaving the choice of guarantee t the sole discretion of the government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we intend to proceed in the usual way. I repeat what I said when the leader of the opposition asked me a similar question. I said, and I quote: ``If there is the slightest risk the Canadian government will not be paid its fair share of taxes, we will require a lot more than a notice of waiver. We will require a bond, a debenture, a valid security for ensuring that the taxes will be paid''.
In view of the fact that Canada is about to conclude a free trade agreement with Chile, can the minister indicate the state of negotiations for labour and environmental side agreements to the accord?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that the Canadian government has pursued very aggressively the necessity of having side deals both on labour and the environment in talks with the Chileans. I would like to inform the member that to date the talks have been very positive and we are very happy with the negotiations. There are some outstanding issues and until those outstanding issues are completed, the deal is not done.
However, on the issue of labour and side agreements at this point we do not see any problem with those side agreements holding up an overall agreement regarding the Canada-Chile free trade deal at some time in the future. That of course is pending the successful resolution of some of the other outstanding issues.
Is the justice minister comfortable knowing that as a result of legislation enacted by him and his government the perpetrators of these heinous crimes may never see a court room or never do time in prison? Is he comfortable with that?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what that question means. But I do want to take the opportunity to congratulate the police in Ontario who are responsible for the very excellent job of finding the people responsible under very difficult circumstances.
I am not sure what the question means. If the hon. member is referring to the sentencing process in this country, perhaps he could tell us, if he is concerned about sentencing, why he voted against our Bill C-41 which provided for tough sentences for violent crimes. Perhaps he could tell the House why he voted against our bill which strengthened the Young Offenders Act by doubling the maximum penalty for first degree murder. Perhaps he could tell us
why he voted against Bill C-68 which provided for mandatory penitentiary terms of four years for those who use guns in crimes. Perhaps he could tell us something about that.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of course the justice minister knows full well that it is Bill C-41 and the provisions of that bill that I am referring to.
Since the passage of that bill, which I call the ministers go soft on crime law, a man who raped his former common-law wife is walking free, a man who pointed a gun at his wife and fired it at her is walking free, a man who broke into a home, beat three dogs to death and set a truck on fire never even saw the inside of a court room because of that legislation.
(1450)
I ask the justice minister what he has to say to the victims of these crimes.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is no doubt part of the Reform Party's false start. It is going to get its members about as far as everything else they have done in the area of crime and justice by coming to this House and picking facts out of isolated cases, distorting their message and pretending they mean something they do not.
When we came to this House with Bill C-41, which distinguishes between violent and non-violent crime, which provides for tough sentences for people who harm others, Reformers voted against the bill.
When we came to this House with changes to the Criminal Code to make it clear that those who use guns in crime would go to prison for mandatory minimum time, they voted against them.
When we came here to say that those 16 and 17-year olds who commit crimes of violence under the Young Offenders Act will be tried in adult court unless they satisfied the onus, they voted against it.
If anyone has any explaining to do about their position on violent crime, it is the hon. member and his colleagues in the Reform Party.
The new Canada-United States tax convention came into effect on January 1, 1996. It penalizes low-income earners by depriving them of 25 per cent of their American pensions. On May 6, the minister assured us he was looking into the matter.
Since the minister recently met with his American counterpart, is he now in a position to give the assurance that a satisfactory solution to this matter will be found before the end of this year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because this is certainly a matter that concerns us all. The member knows full well, having pointed it out himself, that I met with my American counterpart a month ago. Our officials are currently working on this matter. They intend to meet with their American counterparts before long.
I remain optimistic but, unfortunately, I am not in a position to tell him when a solution will have be found because it will all depend on what the other side does.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): The clock is ticking, Mr. Speaker. It is the daily bread of those concerned we are talking about here.
Just today, there was a report in Le Soleil on one of the many individuals facing this problem. This person was quoted as saying: ``My monthly cheque for $400 has been cut by $110'', leaving only $290 per month to live on. ``They have taken away whatever little leeway I had left. I cannot make it under these circumstances''.
Thousands of low-income earners have been deprived of an essential basic income for ten months. What concrete steps does the minister intend to take in the short term to find a solution?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, simply to repeat what I said, I am appreciative that the hon. member raises this issue.
It is an issue that has been raised by many members on this side of the House, in fact on all sides of the House. There is no doubt that as a result of this action Canadians from coast to coast have been unfairly treated.
We have brought this matter to the attention of the Americans. I have met with the secretary of treasury twice. It is as the result of action taken by the American government that this situation has arisen.
We are negotiating with them. Our officials have met with them on numerous occasions and are going down again within the next couple of weeks.
Unfortunately I am not in a position to say when we will arrive at a solution, but it is uppermost in our minds. It is a priority. It is a priority I am sure for this House. I will draw that to the attention of my counterpart.
The $87 million awarded to Bombardier through technology partnerships Canada is supposed to represent one third of the contributions required for the RJ-X project. Yet at the time of the announcement the board of directors of Bombardier had still not given approval to the project.
Why did the minister commit $87 million of taxpayer money before Bombardier was prepared to make a commitment to the project itself?
(1455 )
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what his question is intended to show, but if they do not want the money we will not force it on them, I can assure him of that.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem when taxpayers are providing money and interest free loans to a company which is profitable and they are not provided with the details of the repayment or of the money to be gained. In fact, the minister still refuses to provide details on previous moneys given to that particular company.
Will the minister tell Canadians today when they can expect Bombardier to repay the $87 million and what rate of return can be expected from the money that has been given to Bombardier?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if it were that simple then we would not be involved in this project using technology partnerships Canada.
What this program is intended to do is create opportunity by participating in risky projects for research and development that will create products which will sell on the world market. We expect, based on our own projections of sales of the RJ-X, that we will be fully repaid and, in fact, that we will be more than fully repaid by this project. However, it is a risky project. That is why it is important, if we want to create jobs in high risk, high technology areas, for the government to be there.
If we can sell more than projected we will make more money. If we sell less than projected we may not make as much money. That is the way business works. However, the important thing is that jobs are going to be created. Twenty-seven hundred jobs will be created or sustained by this investment. That is the kind of project we are looking to support.
[Translation]
Could the minister explain her reasons for thinking that her initiative will encourage the development of the Canadian recording industry?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recording industry pours $1.2 billion into the Canadian economy and employs 16,000 Canadians.
As a result of the announcement we made this week, 2,000 new jobs will be created, and since we are always trying to create jobs, when we realized that exports have increased 175 per cent in the last decade, we intend to work even harder on this.
The Quebec Election Act provides under section 40.92 that the chief electoral officer of Quebec may release information contained in the permanent voting list for Quebec to Elections Canada, for the purposes of drawing up a similar list.
Why does the federal government refuse to use Quebec's list, which is already ready to be used at this time, and instead insist on doing its own enumeration?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the subject is now being considered in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am looking into the point that was raised by the hon. member. It is quite possible that an amendment will be tabled in response to his concerns.
Who in cabinet is holding up the tobacco legislation and why?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is clearly mistaken. There is no hold up.
(1500 )
He already knows that the consideration that is impacting on the legislation is dictated largely by the Supreme Court decision of last year, by the blueprint document, the consultations that have taken place, the 2,300 submissions that have followed and the desire to put forward legislation that will be effective, that will not end up in court and that will do what the minister and this government has promised: to look after the health of Canadians and to ensure the prevention of disease.
Those are the only considerations. We have indicated before and we will repeat it again today, as I did in committee, it will happen soon.
While the stock market is soaring and records are being set on Bay Street, Canadians are setting records for poverty. Canadian children are going to bed hungry. The unemployment rate is unacceptably high and millions of Canadians are looking toward a bleak Christmas.
What specific measures does the Prime Minister intend to introduce in the very near future in order to alleviate child poverty and to help the unemployed? The poor and the hungry children need help now. The unemployed need help now. They cannot wait. Can the Prime Minister indicate what specific measures he will bring in before Christmas to give some hope to impoverished Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that as a result of the tremendous and virtually unprecedented decline in interest rates over the course of the last year, huge numbers of Canadians are now facing the possibility, thank Heaven, of going back to work.
The conference board said today that as a result of the decline in interest rates, it expects close to 330,000 new jobs to open up for Canadians over the course of the next year. At the same time, the hon. member knows that last year the working income supplement for families with poor children was doubled. Credits for caregivers were increased. We made it possible for young single mothers to have day care so they can go back to work. We have increased possibilities for disabled Canadians.
I would suggest that if the hon. member would look at the last budget he would see a lot of things we have done.
What is the minister doing to stop Bradson from using scabs to work on Parliament Hill and other federal properties and to end this terrible dispute?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bradson was hired and signed a contract with Publics Works and Government Services Canada to protect Parliament Hill. Part of that contract was that the company would continue to supply protection regardless of what might happen. It is fulfilling that commitment because protecting the House of Commons is considered an essential service.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.