Some hon. members: We want Gauthier.
Mr. Duceppe: They are getting excited on the other side, Mr. Speaker.
In the Canadian affair, the Minister of Finance said, in reply to a question from the official opposition, that the fuel tax rebate will apply to all airlines. The minister added that, in return, companies will have to give up, and I quote, ``substantial'' tax write-offs.
Exactly how substantial are these tax write-offs, and for how long does the minister expect this measure to be in effect?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a precedent in this case, that being the offer made to airlines in the early 1990s.
We are holding discussions, which include the Minister of Transport, in order to work out the details and decide if the offer will be the same one or a different one. As soon as all the details have been worked out, and the minister is in a position to make an announcement, he will do so.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in other words, when the minister used the term ``substantial'', he had no specific figure in mind. In other words, he made a statement without knowing what the consequences would be. This is interesting, Mr. Speaker.
I put the following question to the minister. Perhaps he has an idea on this one: How many tens of millions of dollars will taxpayers have to fork over in order to make up for the financial shortfall arising from this fuel tax rebate?
I imagine that, in announcing a tax rebate, the Minister of Finance has some idea of the cost. I hope he does.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member across the way knows very well that there is a time and a place for announcing details. As I have just said, what I did Friday was to give a general indication of the offer that will be made to all airlines; this indication is based on a precedent. When the Minister of Transport and I are ready, the Minister of Transport will make the details public.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when a finance minister talks about a tax rebate, he should normally anticipate certain results. I do not think these are details. They may be details for the Minister of Finance, but they are a source of worry for Canadians.
This same minister admitted that Canadian's main problem was its poor management, thereby agreeing with the opposition. He confirmed the Prime Minister's statement of two weeks ago that there was no question of coming to the financial assistance of Canadian.
How can the Minister of Finance square such vague statements with the recent decision to help Canadian get back on its financial feet again?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position of the government was clear all along. We believe that the restructuring proposal of a private company which requires not only the agreement of management but of its unions should be put in place before there is any government response.
It was, in large measure, put in place by Wednesday of last week. We then responded to the proposal put forward by the management of Canadian and four of the unions. Two unions were outside the proposal. One has since joined. We are now waiting-five unions, one company management and three governments-for the response of the final union.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
To provide some background, just before the Prime Minister left for Asia, he stated that there was no question of bailing out Canadian International. A few hours after the PM's departure, his Minister of Transport met behind closed doors with the directors of Canadian International and employee representatives. The outcome of this was a promise of assistance via a fuel tax reduction, a promise on which we do not yet have details on either the exact mechanisms or the financial impact on the taxpayer.
Is the Minister of Transport aware that, by decreasing the fuel tax for all airlines, he is not helping Canadian International in the least, because its competitors will be able to take advantage of the cut to reduce fares, so, in the long run Canadian will end up in just
as much of a hole as before, and the big losers in all this will be the Canadian taxpayers?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bloc members should co-ordinate their questioning a little better. On the one hand, they say that we are trying to favour Canadian Airlines and, on the other hand, their official critic on transport is saying that it would in fact be even-handed.
The hon. member is more or less correct. It is even-handed. It will apply to all airlines and is not specific to Canadian Airlines.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc is concerned with the future of air travel in Canada, not the protection of one company.
How could the Minister of Transport have shown such a lack of basic prudence and judgment as to announce government assistance to Canadian International, without even knowing the costs and the mechanisms for the measure he was proposing?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the earlier questions from the Bloc asked for very specific information. Now we have another question which is much more general.
Yes, there will be a loss to the treasury and to various airlines from the reduction in tax. But there would be a much greater loss to the federal treasury if the second carrier in Canada, the one which provides competition and is one of the fundamental components of our competitive air transport policy, was allowed to go down for want of a relatively small amount of tax.
The fact is, if Canadian got into more serious trouble, we would not be collecting those taxes in any event.
Justice Krever's inquiry has now led him right to the doorstep of a previous Liberal administration. Legislation was drafted in 1984 which might have prevented this tragedy, but the Liberal government of the time chose to ignore it because a federal election was on the horizon.
Will the present government now co-operate fully with the Krever inquiry and release all the documents surrounding the draft legislation of 1984?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has every intention of assisting the Krever commission in getting to the bottom of the events surrounding the tainted blood scandal. In fact, it was the commission's lawyer, in December of 1985, who made the decision not to call previous ministers of health to testify before the inquiry.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Justice Krever thinks this information, particularly the information about why the legislative regulations were not proceeded with, may hold the key to why our blood supply killed thousands of Canadians, yet the government refuses to release all of the pertinent documents. We are talking about the national interest, the public interest in health. Is the security of our blood supply not part of the national interest? Is finding out why Canadians died not in the national interest?
(1425)
Why does the government place cabinet secrecy ahead of the national interest in health? Why does it place the political security of Liberal politicians ahead of the security of Canada's blood supply?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny the claim of the hon. member. In fact, the former minister of health, who could shed some light on the situation, stated publicly that she would be very happy to testify before the Krever commission.
Unfortunately, the commission's counsel made a decision not to call any previous ministers. I would advise the hon. member that if he is quite serious about getting to the bottom of the matter, he might advise the commission to rethink its decision not to call any ministers to testify before the inquiry.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the commission wants documents that pertain to why draft legislation and draft regulations that might have prevented this tragedy were not proceeded with. Those are the documents the commission wants.
In August 1984 when the current Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister, Health Canada scientists were sounding alarms about the dangers of AIDS and legislation was drafted that might have protected the blood supply. The warning and the legislation was ignored by both Liberal and Tory governments and tainted blood victims, their families and all Canadians deserve to know why.
Will the government dispel the appearance of a cover-up by giving Krever all the information he needs to get to the bottom of the tainted blood supply?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have already been advised by the Clerk of the Privy Council that among the 30 documents that were certified as subject to prohibition under the
Canada Evidence Act, there are no documents referring to the time when John Turner was the leader.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has appointed Normand Chamberland to the position of director general, Quebec region. Mr. Chamberland is a former RCMP officer, a member of the G-2 section, which had the task of infiltrating and destabilizing the separatist movement in the 1970s. Furthermore, it was acknowledged before the Keable commission that Mr. Chamberland had been part of an operation involving the theft of dynamite from the firm Richelieu Explosives.
Why has the minister allowed CSIS to appoint a person involved in a series of illegal RCMP operations in the 1970s to the position of director of its Quebec service?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to inform myself further about the matter. I am sure the individual in question met all the legal requirements. However, I will be happy to get more information for my hon. friend.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to the hon. minister, while he is gathering information, that he check whether it is true Mr. Chamberland got around it by the skin of his teeth and only because he testified under the protection of the Canada Evidence Act?
Does the minister himself not find it odd that, as its senior official in Quebec, CSIS is appointing Mr. Chamberland, a specialist in undercover work, who, as the Keable commission confirmed, never apparently hesitated to use illegal means to achieve his ends?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all these matters were gone into thoroughly by the McDonald royal commission. Its report was received and acted on by the government, in particular, in creating a separate security service in the form of CSIS. I think that the action in question has been proven appropriate and in the public interest over time. I think this speaks for itself.
Earlier in question period the Minister of Transport stated that he is waiting on the response from the sixth union, the CAW. We have heard that response and it is very clear that Mr. Hargrove is equally adamant that his members are not going to be allowed to vote.
(1430)
All weekend I have been receiving faxes from Canadian Airline employees, some pleading for help, some stating: ``Regretfully to Hargrove we did not authorize you to have the final say. We only authorized you to negotiate on our behalf''.
Is the Minister of Transport prepared to take some action or is he actually prepared to allow Canadian's restructuring plan to collapse?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in no way do we want the Canadian restructuring program to collapse. It is extremely important to that company.
I must be very candid with the House and the hon. member. It is a matter of great regret that one of the six unions is refusing to take part in the restructuring proposal of three governments, the company and the five unions.
However, if I can respond directly to the hon. member's question, it is a matter of my experience over the last week that the Canadian autoworkers and Mr. Hargrove did not always take exactly the same position from day to day. I think now that he realizes that the management of the company is attempting to restructure debt repayment, Mr. Hargrove will realize the critical importance of joining in a collective effort to save this airline.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have met with many labour groups in the past to discuss problems with strike lockout settlement mechanisms. They have pointed out it is very rarely used because the threat of using it generally causes settlement.
My question is for the Minister of Labour. Given that the labour code does not permit the government to ensure the democratic rights of Canadian's employees, if the government is not ready to act yet, will it at least amend section 108(1) of the labour code so that it would be in a position to take action when it decides it may be necessary?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I told the House last week that section 108(1) does not apply in this case. This is the restructuring of a company. I invite the leadership of the union, the president of the Canadian auto-
workers, to negotiate with the Minister of Transport and come to a settlement like the other unions who accept this package so that Canadian Airlines International can continue to operate.
I do not think it is proper for the government to amend the labour code at this time. As a matter of fact, we are in the process of amending the labour code. It is before a committee of the House. It took us three years to get it there, negotiating and creating a consensus with union and management, something the Reform Party does not believe in.
On November 22, when asked why people in the Magdalen Islands had been waiting since 1994 for the federal government to buy a new ferry, the minister refused to reply, claiming he was not aware of the case. However, over two years ago, his department set aside $30 million to replace the ferry, and the minister is now sitting on this money instead of responding to the needs of the people in the Magdalen Islands.
Now that he has had two more weeks to read a file that has been on his desk for two years, could the minister tell us why he does not go ahead and buy the new ferry as requested by all groups in the Magdalen Islands?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member will recall his earlier question, he related it to a letter that had been sent the day before of which I did not have a copy at that time.
With respect to the issue of the ferry to the Madeleine Islands, the situation is quite clear. He is correct, there was money put aside for the purchase of a new ferry. I might add there is also an existing ferry which will serve well for the immediate future. In due course we will replace that ferry with another one.
The important fact to remember is that there are many changes taking place in Atlantic Canada with respect to ferry services. A good number of vessels are coming free or being released from certain routes which previously were taken up. The situation is flexible. We hope to obtain a ship within the price limit that he has suggested to this House.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November 22, we also pointed out that the federal government had failed to follow up on recommendations made in a 1992 report ordered by Transport Canada, which revealed that the Lucy Maud Montgomery urgently needed repairs to be up to safety standards.
At the very least, until a new ferry is finally purchased, can the minister guarantee without a doubt that the Lucy Maud Montgomery is perfectly safe to operate?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the hon. member has referred to a 1992 report which is previous to this government being elected.
I can assure him that report was looked at with the greatest care. The alleged deficiencies of the Lucy Maud Montgomery were examined and the vessel was brought up to full safety compliance.
The Reform Party agrees that something must be done to address this issue. Will the Minister of Human Resources Development consider giving low income Canadians tax relief as an approach to child poverty rather than create another big government program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see that the opposition will be working with us to improve the lot of children in Canada. This is a very important issue and I thank the member very much.
We were very successful last week at the ministerial council with the provinces. We identified child poverty as something we really wanted to work on. We are looking into an integrated child benefit. That was a prominent issue on all of our agendas. We were quite pleased to see that the provinces welcomed that initiative. They could see that we could work in a complementary fashion with them.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, bigger and better government programs may be well-intentioned but have left a very poor track record. We will thank the minister when he actually accomplishes something. However, statistics tell another story of the past.
One in five Canadian children live in poverty. That is 1.4 million children in all. The most recent increase is among children who
live in families with working parents. Families have suffered a $3,000 national pay cut since 1993 due to tax increases. Rising taxes are exactly why the working poor have less money for their children.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development not see that it makes more sense to cut taxes to the working poor? That would leave more money in each pay cheque rather than giving them a government cheque through another big government program?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, very often low income families do not pay taxes which is the reason we are looking for a more sophisticated system.
We have done our share. I am very pleased to belong to a government that has doubled the working income supplement for low income families. This is what we have done and we are proud of our record, but we will do more.
On Thursday, the minister said, and I quote: ``We have a lot of compassion for the Singer employees, and because these workers deserve more than pretty speeches, we will examine the substance of the case''. However, we learned this morning that the minister's compassion does not extend beyond rhetoric. He refuses to follow up on the request made by retired Singer employees and leaves them no choice but to go to court.
Will the minister tell this House the true reasons for his department's refusal to give fair treatment to retired people?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the compassion we feel for retired Singer employees is very real. The issues they raised are extremely complex. These are legal issues which are complex and also very important.
As the minister, I have a duty to make sure the plan is administered in accordance with the law. It is for reasons of justice that we could not reach an out of court settlement, as Singer employees may have wished, given the very complex legal issues involved.
(1440)
We could not do this, because depending on the agreement reached, as many as 70,000 other retired people could have been affected, based on the information I have. This is why we have to go to court.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the truth just came out. The minister alluded to the financial implications that a favourable settlement could have, given that it could affect 2,000 other groups. He referred to 70,000 people, but in fact there are 2,000 other groups that could also seek fair treatment from the federal government.
Will the minister admit that the government is trying to avoid its responsibilities, and showing contempt for Singer's retired employees who, on average, are 80 years old?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the way to ensure fairness is precisely to go before the courts. There are complex legal issues involved. It will be up to the courts to decide what constitutes fair treatment. It is because of the complexity of the case that we decided to go that route.
Had we reached an agreement based on humanitarian grounds, we might have been forced to reopen 2,000 other cases affecting an additional 70,000 people. It is precisely to make sure we respect the law that we decided to go before the courts, instead of reaching any kind of agreement.
As a Pacific nation and a founding member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, Canada has an important window on this dynamic part of the world. Further, Canada will be hosting the APEC conference in 1997.
Can the minister explain to the House the significance of the recent APEC conference in the Philippines and trade visits to Pacific rim nations?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Asia-Pacific is the most dynamic economic region in the world. It is a great opportunity for Canada as one of the 18 members of APEC and the incoming chair of APEC to advance our opportunities in the Asia-Pacific.
Next year we will have the opportunity to host APEC. From coast to coast there will be a wide variety of activities which will fully engage the business community so that we can help to advance our export and investment opportunities. As I have said before, that means jobs and economic growth here in Canada.
Why is our millionaire finance minister so opposed to lowering taxes for the working poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be made very clear lest the Reform Party members are trying to convey another impression, that their budget would deal a devastating blow to the working poor.
The Reform Party would cut welfare. Reform members have said themselves that they would cut welfare substantially. They have said that they would cut equalization payments. Does that mean that the working poor in Atlantic Canada, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not entitled to a fair shake? They would cut health care upon which the working poor are so dependent.
What we have essentially said is that we will provide directed programs to help the working poor. As the Minister of Human Resources Development has said, in the last budget we doubled the working income supplement from $500 to $1,000. That is money in their hands which is what the working poor require.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Reformers would put $4 billion back into health care after the Jack Kevorkian of health care almost pulled the plug on it in the last several budgets.
The finance minister is a great defender of welfare. His friends at Bombardier can hardly wait to get their welfare cheque every month.
(1445 )
Reformers believe that the best social program is a good, long term permanent job and a strong family.
Can our millionaire finance minister explain why he is in favour of corporate welfare but is against lowering the taxes for the working poor?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the members of the Reform Party explain why it is that in this House they voted against the doubling of the working income supplement? Can they explain why in this House they voted against broadening eligibility for the child care expense deduction, why they voted against extending the age limit for children? Can they explain why they voted against enriching the tax credit for infirm children? Can they explain why they voted against improving the child support amendments brought in by the Minister of Justice and by this government?
Can the Reform Party explain why it is since it has taken office it has voted against every single piece of progressive legislation brought forth in this House?
With respect to France's ban on asbestos, French Prime Minister Alain Juppé recently announced his government's decision not to grant the exemptions Canada had asked for regarding asbestos cement in particular. Bear in mind that more than 2,000 jobs depend directly on this industry in Thetford and Asbestos, in Quebec.
In light of the fact that France's reaction is guided by emotional rather than rational, scientific reasons, what is the minister waiting for to file a complaint with the World Trade Organization to obtain the exemptions sought or $20 million in compensation for lost exports?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was recently in Thetford Mines and engaged in a consultation with the people of that community with respect to this matter. I assured them that the federal government will be doing everything it possibly can to preserve the jobs and those communities that depend upon the asbestos industry.
The representations we have made to the French government are not stopping. Yes, they have made a political decision that they want to ban the product, but they also have a review mechanism. Every year they have to look at the question of substitute products. It is our hope and expectation that they will look at the safe uses of asbestos products, particularly in cement piping, as something that will be acceptable. We will continue to press that case.
Meanwhile, we will continue to press that this does not spread into other parts of the European Community or other parts of the world. We are fully committed as a government to working with the people of Thetford Mines and the people in the industry in Canada to preserve those jobs in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was asking the minister when he plans to file an official complaint with the World Trade Organization.
Given that the Netherlands, which is scheduled to assume the presidency of the European Union on January 1, is likely to try to impose a ban on asbestos across the EU, what positive steps, aside from visits to Thetford Mines, does the Canadian government intend to take to prevent this from happening?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are watching the WTO situation very carefully. As I indicated to the people who are employed in the industry, if there is a case that we can pursue with the WTO, we are quite prepared to do that.
However, we have to await the next moves that occur in terms of the French government as to substitute products. That will give us the kind of information we need in order to decide if we should proceed to the WTO.
(1450 )
With respect to the European Union, it recently held a vote and the efforts by those who wanted to ban it Europe wide failed. Our efforts are already paying off in that regard. Our expert team which went to France to speak with the European commission has been successful in holding off any attempt to ban this on a European basis.
We know it is still an uphill battle. We are going to continue to fight it as best we can. We want to do everything possible to preserve that industry and those jobs with respect to the safe uses of that product.
Reform's solution is to increase spending by $4 billion to relieve the suffering. What will the health minister do to relieve the suffering of Canadians today?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be aware that the Government of Canada in co-operation with the provinces is working on a number of initiatives across the country in order to relieve the pressures which are on our health care system. Many individuals, including ministers of health from across the country, have indicated quite clearly that the problems in our health care system, which I have acknowledged and which they have acknowledged, are not as a result of lack of funding. They are due in large part to the inappropriate management of the various systems across the country.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the minister has been doing.
In the last five years cardiac surgery waiting lists have increased 31 per cent. In order to get breast cancer treatment in Quebec, women have to wait six and a half weeks.
The plans of the minister and the government for health care are killing Canadians. Canadians are suffering. What is the government going to do to alleviate the suffering of Canadians?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member would make those kinds of statements. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that the problems in our health care system today in various provinces are not because of a lack of funding.
The hon. member makes reference to the fact that the Reform Party would provide an additional $4 billion. What he forgot to tell us is that the Reform Party wishes to have user fees and facility fees reintroduced into the system. We on this side of the House are against user fees and facility fees.
On Tuesday the auditor general gave his most recent report. Since then members of the Reform Party have charged that western grain transportation money is not going to the farmers who deserve it. I believe they are wrong. Is this money going to the farmers who are entitled to it or not?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this program involved 242,000 applications. It covered 77.6 million acres of farm land, 720,000 different parcels which had to be adjusted for 924 distance factors and over a dozen different soil zones. This was the largest and most complicated program of its kind in Canadian history.
I am very pleased to note the auditor general's observations. He said in his report: ``Nothing came to our attention in the course of our review to suggest that there were significant problems with these payments''. Given the dour and taciturn nature of auditors, that is as close as we can come to high praise.
The Liberal government has set in motion its plan for pulling out of airport management with no regard for the consequences of such a decision on the development of a number of regions in Quebec. Last November 4, representatives of the Charlevoix, Forestville, Rivière-du-Loup, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and Sherbrooke regional airports met with the secretary of state for regional
development to argue that these infrastructures were necessary to the economic survival of these regions.
Has the secretary of state looked into these demands and when does he intend to take follow-up action?
(1455)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, the government introduced the national transportation policy in order to give full responsibility for certain facilities back to communities. At issue are wharves and airports. The policy was introduced so that regions could manage airport facilities in a manner better suited to their particular situations and needs.
There are, in fact, a number of airports in Quebec that do not meet the national transportation policy criteria. I met with a good number of stakeholders. We are now at the analysis stage.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the secretary of state for regional development to defend the transportation policy. Everyone knows that it is disastrous for regional development.
Does the secretary of state realize that his government now has an opportunity to take action on infrastructure issues that are not just useful but indispensable to the economic future of these regions?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, so aware are we of the importance of these airport facilities that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, introduced the national transportation policy in order to give regions more responsibility for organizing, restructuring and managing airport facilities.
As I mentioned, because they do not have regular flights, certain airports do not meet the national transportation policy criteria.
I met with mayors and various stakeholders. We are in the process of looking at what can be done, always with an eye to our ultimate goal of transferring responsibility to the regions and paving the way for improved development of airport facilities.
Does the heritage minister have any idea about what is going on? Why are we wasting our time in committee?
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, Canada is participating in the international copyright negotiations that are going on in Geneva under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization. This is normal. I am sure the hon. member would not expect that we would do other than participate in these discussions.
I am sure he is also aware that in the case of many of these agreements, Canada does not necessarily sign on. For that matter, if agreements were entered into at an international level that required obligations on the part of Canada which were inconsistent with the provisions of our copyright law and to which we wished to subscribe, then of course we would present the appropriate legislation to Parliament.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that the heritage minister did not stand, even though Bill C-32 was brought to this House under the heritage minister.
I ask again. Considering that the legislation which is presently before committee was brought forward by the heritage minister and that Canadian officials are presently in Geneva negotiating on copyright legislation that very well may end up making Bill C-32 redundant, can she possibly explain to the House what is going on and who is in charge?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only speak on behalf of the members of Parliament who have participated in the process over the last number of months. I believe they have heard 60 representations which represent thousands of Canadians. It is a very significant piece of legislation and will complement existing copyright laws which date back a number of years.
I only hope that the work the members of the committee have put into the copyright process will be respected. I certainly have no reason to suspect that the work of the members is irrelevant. In fact members on all sides have made very significant contributions. We expect to entertain approximately 60 or 70 amendments precisely because of the work by members of the standing committee.
As the minister knows, it has been federal Liberal and Conservative deregulation policies that have led to massive overcapacity and empty seats and destructive competition in the airline industry.
(1500)
Will the minister ensure the level of federal funds needed to keep Canadian Airlines flying, bearing in mind that the B.C. government alone has committed over $12 million? Most important, will the government show leadership and put in place policies necessary to stabilize the airline industry and to ensure the continued long term survival of Canadian Airlines?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed by the New Democratic Party's enthusiasm for moving forward into the past.
We have a deregulated system now which has created dramatic opportunity, first for Canadian consumers for whom the whole air transport system is set up. They have more choice, cheaper fares and they are using these fares in occupying these seats more frequently.
Deregulation has increased, in addition, the jobs available to Canadians as flight attendants, ticket agents, machinists and pilots. The whole industry has benefited by increased employment.
Again, the hon. member and his party would prefer to cut out those jobs and go back to the old system of regulation where fares would be, I point out, approximately $1,700 across this country instead of an average of $700. That is their policy, Raise fares, reduce competition, reduce jobs and in turn have people travel on foreign airlines instead of Canadian.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to. As the hon. member knows, this is the first year of the new government retail debt agency, Canada Investment and Savings. In this, the first year, I am delighted to say that 1996 Canada savings bonds sales have totalled $5.7 billion, an increase of 24 per cent over last year.
After redemptions the sales were 38 per cent higher than last year. This reflects partially certainly the innovative 10 year guaranteed minimum pricing structure that is so well suited to Canadians.
For those who might not have had a chance to buy Canada savings bonds and who would like to, the government will be introducing a new retirement savings product to be launched in February in time for the RRSP season.
I would like to thank all participating employers for their efforts and all Canadians who bought Canada savings bonds.