With the government going after the unemployed, cutting transfers for social assistance, transfers for health care and transfers for post-secondary education, how can the Minister of Finance justify still failing, after three years in power, to systematically evaluate all corporate tax expenditures, which have not been reviewed in years, and keeping them as they stand.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a sober report yesterday. I consider it a very professional one. I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the members here for their work.
There are many things in the report we agree with. They are either things we are looking at or things that we are in fact currently working on. There is certainly material for debate, and this is a good start.
To my understanding, in response to the Leader of the Opposition's specific question, it is not $3 billion that we can recover, if I understand the report correctly, but $3 billion that can be put into job creation, which is the very aim of the Mintz committee currently looking at the situation from the same point of view.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I in turn would thank the Minister of Finance for his objectivity in recognizing that the work of the Bloc represents a very substantial contribution to public finances. Certainly, it is the most substantial contribution made by an opposition party, especially in opposition.
(1420)
Despite these kind words for my friend, I am nevertheless obliged to say to the Minister of Finance that he is hiding behind his committee because everyone knows the report will be released only next year, after the federal elections. People want to know now what the government will do.
Should the Minister of Finance, who seems to recognize reason, not make substantial changes in tax expenditures right now, as we are suggesting he do and use this money for other tax measures that would help create jobs in small and medium businesses, for example? That is what it means to be proactive in creating jobs. This is what the people are expecting and not getting from the government.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I received the report favourably first, because the reports of the Bloc Quebecois have changed in the past three years. Second, I must say the quality of the report is very similar to what the Liberal Party submitted on the environment, the economy and other areas when it was in opposition.
That said, the aim is to ensure that the basic impact of government spending, be it tax credits, tax exemptions or other incentives is to promote job creation. This has been our philosophy from the start. This is why we have eliminated a list of loopholes three pages long. These loopholes did not promote job creation. We are going to continue the job, I hope with the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have to say once again to the Minister of Finance that we will of course co-operate with him when he is reasonable. When he wants to save taxpayers' money, of course we will work with him. When he repents and finally is prepared to collect taxes from those who should be paying, of course we will co-operate and we will co-operate with him. He may rest assured, the Bloc will co-operate.
Since he is in good humour, I will go a step further. In our document, we established that a sample of 27 major Canadian corporations with profits of $7 billion in 1994 paid income tax at a rate barely above 6.5 per cent, whereas the corporate rate is usually around 30 per cent.
This does not concern the minister of defence, so I would ask him to allow me to ask my question of his colleague.
Mr. Loubier: Let us ignore him in any case.
Mr. Gauthier: He is well versed in defence matters, but not in things financial, unfortunately. Can the Minister of Finance set up a mechanism guaranteeing Quebecers and Canadians that business and especially big business will pay the government the taxes it is supposed to within a reasonable period of time, while maintaining intact the concept of deferred income tax? Some simple adjustments need be made. We would like to know from the Minister of Finance whether he would agree to act quickly in this matter as the Bloc asks him to?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards deferred taxes, I think the Leader of the Opposition is going a bit beyond his report, which was more subtle. In the report, the Bloc acknowledged there were advantages to having taxes deferred. This is our position exactly.
On the other hand, this is why there is a tax on major corporations. We want to be sure they pay their fair share, and this is the case.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too will have to accept the congratulations of the Minister of Finance. It must, however, be admitted that the official opposition does some good, as the minister admitted today.
But enough polite remarks directed at the Minister of Finance, for I have no congratulations for him. With all the resources at the disposal of the finance department, he could, in three years, have conducted the same in-depth study done by the Bloc Quebecois with its meagre resources and realized that he was wasting $3 billion a year in tax revenue.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1425)
Mr. Loubier: Speaking of deferred taxes, when the auditor at Consolidated Bathurst was asked ``When will you pay your company's deferred taxes?'', he replied ``Never''. Right now, deferred and accumulated taxes represent a total of $36 billion, 5 per cent of the Canadian GDP, and nobody in the finance department, starting with the minister himself, seems to be concerned.
Given the size of this tax expenditure and its unwarranted use by certain large corporations that are making a profit, will the Minister of Finance not admit that he should immediately issue rules so that one day these corporations will pay their fair share?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois is raising his voice; gone are the measured and professional tones of yesterday. In addition, he is also misrepresenting the report.
I can tell you that as far as the notion of deferred taxes is concerned, we have looked, and will continue to look, for loopholes.
I would just like to quote one other person with almost the same philosophy: ``As for taxing corporations more directly, as recommended by the Bloc Quebecois's finance critic, this cuts their profits, reduces their interest in investing and results in fewer jobs. Furthermore, the higher Quebec's tax burden, the less foreign companies will be interested in investing in that province and creating jobs there''. This statement was made by Bernard Landry, Quebec's finance minister. He is right, and the Bloc Quebecois's finance critic is wrong.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is taking the Canadian public for a ride. What we are saying in our document is that the majority of Canadian SMEs are paying their fair share of taxes. But a few are taking advantage of tax loopholes, with the knowledge of the Minister of Finance, to avoid paying taxes.
We humbly ask him this: Will he, or will he not, assume his responsibilities and demonstrate professionalism as Minister of Finance, by looking out for the interests of all Canadian taxpayers, and not just those of large Canadian corporations?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are times when debate in this House takes on a form that does Canadians proud, particularly when we deal with issues in a fundamental and profound way.
No doubt the question of taxation, which is in constant evolution, is something that should not lend itself to partisan speeches, but should lend itself to real study.
Under those circumstances I did say to the Bloc Quebecois that their report which came out yesterday will make a valuable addition to the debate, as did a great number of the reports done by the Liberals in opposition help advance the yardstick.
All I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition is that he ask his members to continue in the same vein, so that the debate can be responsible, can advance the yardstick and not simply play politics with a very important subject.
It will take more than $30 million to even the score. Bombardier has just received an untendered contract from the Department of National Defence worth over $216 million.
Does the government really think that a $30 million grant in British Columbia will hide the fact that it gave another $216 million to Bombardier for the CF-18 maintenance contract?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am astounded at my hon. friend's question.
I would think the announcement that he alluded to which is to be made today or tomorrow by the Prime Minister respecting an investment in western Canada is one that would be welcomed by many people.
(1430 )
What I am really concerned about is the tremendous effort we have become involved in to make sure that facilities in western Canada are used in new and innovative ways, in new partnerships with the private sector and with our allies in western Europe.
If the hon. gentleman is suggesting that we should not pursue the air training program for western Canada I wish he would say so.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister very much but he did not answer the question. This $216 million to Bombardier is for the CF-18 maintenance contract.
On October 31, 1986 Brian Mulroney gave this very same contract to Bombardier even though Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg had the best bid. In opposition these very same Liberals cried blue murder over that contract. Now that they are in power, the Liberals have done exactly what the Tories did.
How can the Liberals justify giving this lucrative $216 million contract to Bombardier without tender? Even the Tories tendered the contract before they rigged it.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure because the hon. member and members of his party have been very careful and responsible in dealing with a number of issues that relate to the military elements we have to deal with at this time.
I want to make sure I understand what the hon. member is saying. Is he saying that he wishes to begin again the process of trying to determine how we can strike a deal with our allies from western Europe who require training facilities in Canada? Does he want us to start from scratch when we are into a tough competition with other parts of the world to get the very same contract?
My information is that people in western Canada hope we can conclude this deal. Our allies hope we can conclude this deal. What is good for western Canada is very good for the military forces of this country. It is also very good for Bombardier which not only operates in Quebec, as the hon. member seems to think, but also in many other parts of the country with which he may not be familiar.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister's answers are very interesting.
In opposition the Liberals called the CF-18 contract ``blatant political pork barrelling that went completely against the merit principle and the bidding process''. In 1986 the current Minister of Foreign Affairs accused the government of saying one thing and doing another. It looks like the shoe is on the other foot now.
Why did the Liberals say one thing in opposition and do exactly the opposite when in power? Why did they give Bombardier the $216 million untendered contract for CF-18 maintenance?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks about saying one thing and doing another.
He must at some point come to grips with whether or not his party is interested in creating jobs, with whether it is interested in protecting jobs, and it will have to decide where it wants those jobs.
The unfortunate situation here is that the hon. member and members of his party day after day in this House get up and say one thing, then turn around and ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Human Resources Development why we are not creating jobs in the country. Is the hon. member for or against jobs?
According to a Toronto morning newspaper, the federal government was to announce this week if it is going to intervene in the Libman case, in which the Quebec referendum act is being contested before the Supreme Court.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm to us that the federal government is seriously considering contesting the Quebec referendum act?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of taking part in the Libman case, because we are convinced that all points of view on the matter will be before the court.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude from this clear response by the Minister of Justice that the minister recognizes the full and total legitimacy of the Quebec referendum act, and consequently disapproves of the actions of certain of his colleagues who deliberately violated the referendum act during the last referendum in Quebec?
(1435)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Not in the least, Mr. Speaker. It is not our intention to take a position on the matters before the court. We have simply decided not to take part.
As I have said, the reason is clear. All points of view on these matters will be before the court. This is not, however, a federal government position which indicates our agreement with the act. It
is merely a decision to not take part in the appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Reform will give Canadian families a $2,000 tax break by the year 2000. What does the government have to offer to Canadian families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Reform will withdraw $4 billion from the Canadian health and social transfer. We will not. We will protect the Canada Health Act. We will protect health care in this country. Reform will not.
Reform will gut equalization payments to those provinces which require them. What Reform is saying, according to its philosophy, is that there are families in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan who are not worthy of receiving government help. We do not believe that is the fabric of this country. It is not the philosophy on which this country was built.
I have a list of measures that the government has brought in to help Canadian families, to help Canadian children. Reform voted against every single one of them. Stand up and defend your record, not what you do in the future, but what you have done in the past.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, may I say that the government has nothing to brag about with respect to transfers to the provinces.
Today is national child day. Reform's fresh start directly helps families and their children by reducing taxes dramatically. We will reduce taxes by 89 per cent for families with incomes of $30,000 and free over one million Canadian families from the tax rolls altogether.
In recognition of the importance of our children, will the Liberals commit today to increase the spousal deduction and extend the child care deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children at home?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member of the Reform Party could explain, given her interest in child care, that when the government broadened the eligibility for the child care expense deduction and when we extended the age limit for children, why did Reform vote against it?
When the government increased the working income supplement for working families, why did Reform vote against it? When the government enriched the tax credit for infirm dependants, why did Reform vote against it? When the government improved child support awards, why did Reform vote against it? When the Minister of Justice brought in the new guidelines, why did Reform vote against it?
Why has Reform voted against every progressive piece of legislation brought by the government into the House to help Canadian families?
Yesterday, the minister announced on behalf of the government-for the second time, given that the Minister of Finance had made the same announcement earlier-a five cent reduction in unemployment insurance premiums. Perhaps he thinks that by announcing a five cent reduction twice, people will think the total reduction will be ten cents. But no, five cents it is. In fact, he is maintaining the special deficit reduction tax on workers earning under $39,000 and their employers.
(1440)
How can the minister ignore the disastrous situation of the job market and be content with announcing marginal measures that will have very little effect on employment?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would suggest to the hon. member for Mercier that the announcement was not made twice; the Minister of Finance and I did it jointly, in front of the same cameras.
We did announce-and the Minister of Finance may want to comment on this later-a five cent reduction. For the third consecutive year, our government has reduced employment insurance premiums, which is absolutely remarkable since they had risen for years.
I would also submit to the hon. member for Mercier that another program, a program for small business, was announced yesterday. Some 900,000 eligible small businesses will not have to pay any employment insurance premiums on behalf of new employees in 1997. This means that any small business in Canada that hires a new employee will not pay employment insurance premiums in 1997 and only 75 per cent of the premiums in 1998 for that employee. That is what we are doing to promote employment. That is what we announced yesterday.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the same government will, for the first time, this coming January, impose a payroll tax on all the employers who hire part time employees working fewer than 15 hours per week.
Since premium rates represent in fact a tax on jobs-and we are not alone in thinking so-and since the employment insurance fund is forecast to grow from $5 billion this year to $10 billion next year, what is the minister waiting for to substantially reduce premium rates, as requested by the official opposition, the business community, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, instead of using the fund to artificially reduce the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human Resources Development just said-for the third time-we have reduced employment insurance premiums, after a decade of increases by the previous government.
To give you an idea of the philosophy behind this, I would like to quote the response of Quebec finance minister Bernard Landry to the same question. He said: ``Pursuant to the commission's regulations, but also in response to repeated requests from several socioeconomic partners, the government plans to lower payroll taxes. We will do this, however, with the expectation that real job creation will ensue''.
That is precisely why we have targeted small and medium size businesses, since they are responsible for the vast majority of new jobs created in Canada.
Today we learn that five Greenberg stores in New Brunswick are closing as a direct result of the harmonized GST. Seventy-nine people and their families will no longer receive a pay cheque. This company alone will lose $695,000 in the first year and $563,000 each year after because of this crazy deal.
I quote the president of the company: ``Somebody needs to listen. These are real people in New Brunswick with real jobs that are going away''.
The Reform Party is listening. Why are Liberal MPs not listening?
My question is to the finance minister. Why is the government insisting on pushing through this insane legislation that is killing jobs in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, far from insisting, what we are doing is co-operating with the provincial governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland whose major purpose is to make sure that employment is created in their own provinces. That is why the three premiers are going across Canada, across North America, explaining what has happened, the tremendous reduction in taxes for their small and medium size businesses.
(1445 )
That is not the issue. The real issue is why is this member of Parliament so against Atlantic Canada's benefiting itself? Why is this member of Parliament so against small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada being able to compete? What kind of vision does the Reform Party have when it cannot understand the legitimate ambitions and desires of an important part of the country?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the finance minister can be so callous about the loss of 79 jobs in Atlantic Canada. However, this is just the beginning. This one company alone says that at least another 71 jobs are on the line, and this comes after repeated warnings to the finance minister from the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and even Nova Scotia finance officials. They are saying that these changes will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will kill even more jobs.
Will the finance minister please set his pride aside for a moment, for the sake of saving some jobs in Atlantic Canada, and kill this legislation before it kills even more jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Reform Party recommended harmonization. The Reform Party at the finance committee came out full score in favour of harmonization. Why is the hon. member standing up here now and arguing against harmonization? There can be only one reason. It is an abysmal lack of knowledge of Atlantic Canada. It is the fact that he does not understand the ability and the desire of Atlantic Canadians to take control of their own future. That is the problem.
The Reform Party supported harmonization but it is against it for Atlantic Canada. What are its real motives?
Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: ``-we have been in touch with counsel for the retired Singer employees, and our lawyers are reviewing with them the implications of these contracts''.
Based on our information, it appears that, at the time the minister made this statement yesterday, no one from his department had yet
contacted, either by telephone or by letter, the lawyers for the retired employees, or their spokesperson.
How can the minister state that his department is having discussions with the lawyers representing these retired employees when, according to them, they have not heard anything from the department?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was given information to the contrary. I was told that, by the end of the week, I would receive a report from our lawyers regarding this issue. I will be pleased to inform the hon. member accordingly.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the excerpt I just quoted is taken directly from the Hansard. Those are the words said by the minister yesterday. He clearly told us that his lawyers had contacted those of Singer, which is not the case. I even phoned the lawyers for the retired employees 30 minutes ago, and they still have not heard anything.
I have some advice for the minister: if he wants his actions to reflect his words, he should immediately go to the telephone located in the lobby, contact Mr. Desautels and deal with the issue because the people involved have been waiting for years for a settlement. Mr. Desautels can be reached at (514) 948-1888.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I said exactly the same thing a moment ago. I do not see why the hon. member claims I changed my tune since yesterday.
I said that I was told the department's lawyers had had discussions regarding this very important issue, which we care about. Following these discussions, they are to report to me by the end of the week. I will then be pleased to report to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. member.
(1450)
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, about two hours ago I received a request from the company and the union to appoint a mediator. I will be appointing a mediator later this afternoon.
I have also been informed that negotiations with the new mediator can start early tomorrow morning. I urge both parties to take advantage of the mediator and get back to the negotiation table and solve this dispute so that citizens can have normal, good transportation service in the capital region.
Suddenly that national press conference has been cancelled. I would like to ask the minister why.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the details are not finalized.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the tobacco legislation has been long awaited. Too many kids have started smoking in the meantime. There is a vacuum. Reform has waited for that legislation and we are now ready to move.
The minister said: ``Judge me by my legislation, not by my oration''. Reform is ready. We will go through the legislation in a fast track. When can we expect it?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am that the hon. member stood in his place and gave support to the government to bring in tobacco legislation.
However, I do wish to share with the hon. member and with members of the House that the hon. member did say that Reformers see the answer to reducing tobacco consumption in education, not in legislation.
If this is a change of the mindset of the Reform Party I want to say congratulations. I am glad it has seen the light.
The mining industry in Canada and Quebec, like so many other industries, is still affected by overlap and duplication between the federal government and the provinces. In its throne speech, the Liberal government made a commitment to withdraw swiftly from this sector. But with the introduction yesterday of its policy on minerals and metals, the government has clearly reneged on its commitment.
Why is it taking so long for the government to withdraw from the mining sector, as this contributes to greater uncertainty and reduces Canada's chances of attracting investments?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
We are a government that acknowledges that primary jurisdiction over mining rests with the provinces. However, we are also a government that acknowledges the increasing globalization of the mining industry and consequently there is a role for the federal government as it relates to the mining industry.
Industry respects that, most provinces and environmental stakeholders respect that position.
The issue of regulatory reform was specifically raised, avoiding regulatory overlap and duplication. I was very pleased to receive the final report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, of which the hon. member is a member. My department and I will be reviewing that report. The hon. member knows that we responded to the interim report. We are working with departments such as fisheries and oceans, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and others.
Our goal is shared by the hon. member, to ensure an efficient regulatory regime for this important sector of our economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources tabled a report supported by the Liberal majority, which calls for the elimination of overlap in mining regulations.
What is the minister waiting for to implement the recommendations of her own Liberal colleagues and meet her government's commitment to the mining industry?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that we are not waiting for anything. We have been working for the past number of months and in fact years with our colleagues in key departments such as fisheries and oceans, transport, environment. We have been working with the provinces to ensure that we have the necessary regulatory regime but one that does not contain within it expensive and inefficient overlap and duplication.
(1455)
I must say that my department works closely with the province of Quebec and its mining department. We have a very positive relationship with my colleagues in the province of Quebec and we will continue to build on that relationship to ensure the kind of regulatory regime in this country that will attract foreign investment and will attract jobs in the mining sector.
He must know that rather than drawing Canadians together with his efforts he is either unwittingly or otherwise actually playing the politics of division. People in Canada do not want this distinct society and they do not want it from coast to coast.
Given the recent poll results that show that even Liberals do not support the idea of distinct society, will the minister put concrete proposals on the table that benefit all provinces rather than pushing the distinct society clause when it has no receptive audience in Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the support for the distinct society clause is about 40 per cent in polls. It is lower in this poll because it was connected with a kind of question that looks like a threat: ``If you don't recognize Quebec, then Quebec may leave''. Instead of increasing support, it decreased it.
I urge the hon. member to look at the recognition of Quebec on its own merit, why it is good, why it is bad. I think it is good. It is good for our country. It is good for Canadian values. It would not endanger the charter of rights and freedoms. It would not endanger equality between citizens. It would be a great thing to recognize Quebec distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our country.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this idea was wrong in the Meech Lake accord, it was wrong in the Charlottetown accord, it was wrong when the Prime Minister promised it last year, it was wrong when the government pushed it through the House of Commons, it was wrong when it was adopted as policy at the Liberal convention. The Tories of course followed suit but they just do not get it.
Canadians say realign the powers of the federation if need be, put other proposals that affect all the provinces on the table if need be; it is a good idea, but this distinct society idea is dead. It will not sell.
Will the minister put proposals on the table that treat all provinces and Canadians equally and that bring us together as a
country rather than pushing the distinct society clause which, I am warning him, is driving people apart?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government has said that we do not want to make a change in the Constitution if it is not supported by Canadians.
So we will try to convince Canadians that in order to reconcile Quebecers and other Canadians it would be a fair and good thing to recognize that in this anglophone North America there is a province of Canada that is francophone and this is an asset for Canada.
If it were the province of the hon. member that was francophone we would recognize this province without any problem and we would be proud of it.
The Canadian mining industry contributes over $23 billion to the Canadian economy annually and employs more than 340,000 people who work to develop our mineral resources in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The minerals and metals policy was announced yesterday. Can the minister please explain to the House how this new policy will affect economic growth and job creation in the Canadian mining industry?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was the Liberal Party and only the Liberal Party that during the last election campaign acknowledged the importance of the mining sector to the Canadian economy and promised a new minerals and metals policy within the federal government.
(1500 )
Yesterday it was with great pleasure that I announced this new minerals and metals policy. Let me reassure all my friends on the other side of the House that this policy delivers on an important red book commitment which is to affirm and reaffirm the primary role of the provinces as it relates to jurisdiction over mining.
In addition, it acknowledges the increasing globalization of this industry and the importance of ensuring that we continue to attract foreign investment, that we continue to have access to foreign markets on fair terms and that we produce the science and technology that permits this industry to continue to be such an important contributor to the economy.
That is what this policy is about and it is one that I think we should all be very proud of.
Credit card debt now accounts for 20 per cent of record levels of personal debt which stands at 90 per cent of family disposable income in Canada. On top of that, bankruptcies are up 20 per cent from last year. The Bank of Canada prime rate is at 3.25 per cent while bank credit cards, oil company cards, department store cards charge usury rates, some as high as 28.8 per cent.
Will the Minister of Finance consider bringing back the Usury Act that used to outlaw this kind of immoral interest rate policy which was repealed by the Trudeau government, or what does the government intend to do about this kind of legalized robbery?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to deal with matters such as credit cards and interest rates on credit cards is by the consumers to indicate whether or not they wish to accommodate such an industry.
When interest rates were high, generally consumers in other areas did not borrow money and did not make purchases, and recently we had it in the housing industry. When interest rates were reduced through the very fine policy of our finance minister, then consumers gained confidence and started to buy houses.
The same can apply in the credit card industry. It is best to leave it to the marketplace. Already there are changes by some of the lending institutions where in certain cases they are instituting credit cards with lower rates. It is best to leave it for the marketplace and Canadian consumers. If the consumers do not like the policy and the high interest rates, they do not have to use the cards.
The Speaker: I wonder my dear colleague, because I do not know the answers that are going to be given today, would the hon. member raise his point of order after we find out which questions
are going to be answered today. Perhaps his questions will be answered. I will allow the hon. member to raise his point of order as soon as we find out what is going on for today.