My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Will the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance, admit, and furthermore, could they inform members of their caucus, that if the government has $2 billion to play around with today, it is first and foremost because it has cut social transfer payments to the provinces by almost $5 billion over two years?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a committee report. The Minister of Finance will table his budget in February.
Regarding transfer payments to the province of Quebec, I would like to point out that, while some transfer payments from the federal government have gone down, equalization payments have increased. At the moment the amount being transferred to the province of Quebec is about the same as it was when we came to office. In the case of Quebec, there has been no change, unlike richer provinces perhaps.
The Minister of Finance is going to prepare his budget and we will see. Usually, he brings it down in February. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait two months, and then he will have his answer.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is because we are used to tricks from the other side. We have seen the government in action for three years.
Generally, when government members throw out an idea, the government is later tempted to use it in making unpopular decisions. That is why we are putting it on notice.
I ask the Prime Minister if he could tell these members and the House that the measures they proposed in the Liberal report to help students and the poor do not represent even half of what his government has cut in health, social assistance and higher education during its term of office, and that, as a result, it is still a long way from undoing the harm it has done to the most vulnerable members of society.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for one thing, when we made cuts, they were much deeper in our own case, in order to reduce direct federal government spending.
Moreover, it is very clear that, when the time came to make cuts, we could not ignore the fact that 20 to 25 per cent of our spending was in the form of transfer payments to the provinces. At the same time, as the Prime Minister has just said, we did not touch equalization payments. Furthermore, I can tell you that equalization payments alone amount to $3.9 billion dollars, or 45 per cent of the total, for Quebec.
That being said, when we look at measures to help the most disadvantaged members of society, to help children living in poverty, to help students, a question comes to mind: Why did the Bloc Quebecois vote against all these measures?
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows very well that the biggest cuts were to provincial transfer payments, and that they also dipped substantially into the UI fund. This was primarily how the minister refilled his coffers. We know this. He cannot deny it. Furthermore,
those living in poverty in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada know it. They know it each day that the government has hurt them, that it went after them cruelly.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that the best short term response to child poverty, family violence and school dropouts would be to re-establish the provincial transfer payments for social programs that it was too quick to cut, and will he promise to do so in his next budget and to inform government members that the path they have set out on is a very bad one?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, between 1993-94 and 1998-99, direct government spending will decrease by over 12 per cent. As for provincial transfer payments, the reduction will be less than 8 per cent.
At the same time, it must be pointed out that when provincial transfer payments were reduced, the reduction was less than 3 per cent of provincial revenues. This is a completely acceptable cost. Not only that, but when one looks at the cuts provincial governments have made in payments to their municipalities, we have cut much less.
That having been said, let us look at what was done in the last budget. Not only did we set an $11 billion ceiling-not a ceiling, a floor-to protect provinces, we included a formula that will see transfer payments increase after 1998.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the Minister of Finance has tabled budgets in which transfers to the provinces for health, education, and welfare drop, or will drop, from $30 billion to $25 billion in 1996-98, in other words cuts of $5 billion over two years.
Today, that same government is talking to us about creating programs and tax measures in the order of $2 billion to offset, very partially, the cuts to the provinces.
Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that the manoeuvring he is involved in at this time, this withdrawal from the funding of provincial social programs in order to create its own programs has but one objective, increasing federal government visibility? This is not done in order to help those who are truly in need, the victims, for the federal government is the one who made them victims and is now coming to their rescue.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards transfers to the provinces, the key objective is to help the most disadvantaged members of our society, those who are in need, and to do so in partnership with provincial governments. This is why we gave two years notice before making the cuts. This is also the reason cuts to the provinces are less than the cuts at our end, these cuts represent less than 3 per cent of their revenues. Yes, we have made cuts, but in manageable amounts.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when analysing the budget, we must remember that 84 per cent of cuts in federal government spending were made to transfer payments and subsidies to third parties, individuals or provinces, while only 16 per cent of cuts were made to departments or crown corporations. These figures come from the minister's own budget.
I refer to the Prime Minister, who stated in this House on December 13, 1995: ``It is very important we continue to make visible transfers-like the heritage minister, the flag minister-so that the people-will see that the federal government helps pay for the social programs the provincial governments manage''.
Will the Minister of Finance admit that this government is interested solely in visibility, that the only thing it is trying to do is to improve its own image, by blackening that of the provinces, which are forced to make the cuts for it?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, as regards equalization transfers, Quebec comes out the winner. As for subsidies to industry for job creation like those to the aeronautical and pharmaceutical industries, Quebec comes out the winner.
[English]
I think it is very important that we not allow any region of the country to attack any other. The member is absolutely right. When the federal government transfers money to the provinces it does so to protect the basic social programs. If those are visible like child care, like the working income supplement and the protection of medicare then this government will keep on doing it.
There are reports that the Quebec provincial government and the federal government are working behind the scenes to secure the approval of enough provinces to entrench the distinct society clause in the Constitution.
I ask the Prime Minister does the federal government endorse the constitutional position outlined over the weekend by Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this House of Commons voted a year ago on distinct society.
Again we have the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois together. Distinct society is very clear to me and it is something I have subscribed to all along. Everybody recognizes that the language in Quebec is different but perhaps the member does not know that. Quebec also has its own culture. Already in the Constitution the civil code of Quebec is the civil law in that province but not in the rest of the provinces. This was done in Canada in 1867 by the Fathers of Confederation.
I know the Reform Party does not want to respect the wishes of the Fathers of Confederation who wanted to have a civil code which was different for Quebec than for the rest of the country. This was among many other distinctions they gave in the Constitution.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this nonsense continues on. If this is the case, if the Prime Minister is telling us exactly the truth, why in the world did we go through Meech Lake? Why in the world did we go through Charlottetown? Canadians spoke on those issues and they said no.
My question to the Prime Minister is what part of no did he not understand?
Canadians across the country, inside and outside Quebec, want to see a rebalancing of Confederation. They want to see moving government responsibility closer to the people. Canadians also want to see a strengthening of Canada's federal nature and institutions. These are the changes most likely to keep Quebec in the federation, not the empty, divisive rhetoric that we have seen time and time again.
How many times do Canadians have to say no, Canadians across the country, not just in these hallowed halls? Why is the Prime Minister not recognizing 10 equal provinces in this country?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the member asks for change is she not aware that last Friday the Minister of Human Resources Development was in her own province signing an agreement to change the status quo for a more improved situation in Canada, that it was the Government of Alberta that signed the first labour market accord in Canada last Friday?
This example shows that this government has the right approach. We are changing Canada one program at a time. I know the Reform Party does not understand that. The member does not even know that the premier and the government of her own province agreed to a new formula for manpower in Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what many of the provinces are calling for. However, I am not sure that changing the Constitution and entrenching distinct society rights could be labelled as one program at a time. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are all moving toward entrenching Quebec as a distinct society.
(1430)
Last winter in the government's throne speech the Prime Minister promised all Canadians, not just politicians or the elite but all Canadians, no matter where they live in the country, a say in the future of the country.
So I ask the Prime Minister this. Will the government assure the House and all Canadians that distinct society for Quebec will not be entrenched in the Constitution unless it is endorsed by a nationwide referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I never said that it would be approved by a nationwide referendum. But when I see that the provinces subscribe to what the House of Commons voted for last December, they recognize the reality of life in Canada; that in Quebec there is the French language, the French culture and a different system for citizens in law. It is in the Constitution.
As I said, in P.E.I. there is a guarantee that whatever the number citizens in P.E.I. there will always be four members of Parliament and they will always have four Senators. Some might say that is a special status for P.E.I. Yes, but it made that deal and we are respecting it. We are not saying that privileges have been given to P.E.I. because it guaranteed to give the House of Commons four good Liberal MPs.
In a report the government submitted to the Krever Commission last Friday, Judge Krever's approach was qualified as repugnant and without foundation. He was also accused of looking for scapegoats to explain what happened, instead of focusing on making the blood system safer. However, the Krever commission was given a mandate to investigate the events and the shortcomings in the system which led to thousands of Canadians being infected.
Does the Prime Minister endorse the statements in the report submitted by his government to the effect that Judge Krever's attitude is repugnant and that the government is in no way to blame for the tainted blood scandal?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the attorney general let me try to respond to the substantive question of the hon. member.
I say to the hon. member that the report which was tabled with the commission was a report of 474 pages. If the hon. member is asking if the government agrees with some inflammatory language that may be contained therein, the answer is no.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us why his lawyers say Judge Krever should concentrate on developing a new blood supply system, when no one in this government waited for Judge Krever's recommendations to start negotiations with a number of provinces on setting up a new blood authority?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we should be very careful. The fact of the matter is all provincial ministers of health have come together for the purposes of establishing a new national blood authority. All information has been shared with the Krever commission.
I want to assure the hon. member that the report she made reference to, the 474 page document, does contain some inflammatory language. I said in the first response that the government, the Minister of Justice and I do not concur with that inflammatory language.
The commission will have an opportunity later this week to examine the authors of the report; not only to examine the tone of the 474 page document but also to question the authors of that report on its substance.
Canadians from coast to coast are looking for a revitalized federation. They want to see positive, constructive change. Rather than dividing the country with a distinct society, when will the government present new concrete proposals to revitalize the federation? Where is your plan?
Ms. McLellan: We are doing it.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you address the Chair in all of your questions, my colleague?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member was not in the House when we tabled the speech from the throne in February where we gave a full plan of changes in Canada. Many of these plans and ideas have been implemented so far.
For example, we have signed an agreement with the province of Alberta on manpower training. We are out of forestry now. We are out of mining. We have transferred most of the airports to municipalities and are in the process of doing that with some of the ports.
A lot of the plans that were in the speech from the throne have been implemented but of course the hon. member did not know that. We are doing it program by program, idea by idea. That is the best way.
As far as a distinct society is concerned, we voted last December and for somebody who wants to keep the country together it was noted in Quebec that they voted against it.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the response of the Prime Minister that there is no plan because in there somewhere he talked about airports. I do not know what that has to do with the unity of this country.
The old vision has not worked. Its defenders continue to create divisions on cultural and linguistic lines, pitting one region against another and preserving the status quo. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that all voters and not just governments will have a say on this issue through a national referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have political programs when we have elections. I know that the Reform Party will have one. To deny the reality that in Canada 25 per cent of the population speaks French is denying a reality that it is a source of strength in Canada.
They are different in Quebec because the majority of the people speak French. They have a French culture and the civil code which was given by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867, making them different from the rest of the country.
Some of the provinces have some special rights when it comes to education. For example, last week we voted to change some special rights that exist in the Constitution for education in the province of Newfoundland. There are some special rights for education in Quebec too in the Constitution that were put there by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 as there were at the time of entry into Confederation in the late fifties of Newfoundland.
[Translation]
Last week, the media reported on some questionable practices involving the Canadian Space Agency and its president. However, it seems that a number of ministers and the Prime Minister himself were informed several weeks ago of the serious allegations against the president and his executive vice-president.
Could the minister indicate whether he has checked or investigated these allegations to shed some light on the practices reported at the Canadian Space Agency?
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, the serious allegations referred to by the hon. member were about the fact that a secretary destroyed handwritten notes before they had been typed. That is all. I do not think it is that serious.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks these allegations are not all that serious, why does he not ask for a public and independent inquiry to remove any suspicions about the practices of the space agency which apparently did not conform to established guidelines, so the credibility of the Canadian Space Agency and its president can be restored?
(1440)
[English]
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 take a great pride in my responsibilities as minister responsible for the Canadian Space Agency. It is something of which all Canadians should be proud.
What I find most often is an issue about pride in the Canadian Space Agency raised to me is the notion that it is located in the riding of someone who wants to break up the country that it represents.
Why is the Prime Minister and the Liberal government trying to undermine Justice Horace Krever and his attempt to tell Canadians the honest truth about what happened to the tainted blood?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise to the hon. member's question is false.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, between 1980 and 1985 when this tragedy was going on, the Prime Minister was justice minister and then Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, in those days the health minister was the House leader.
Could this have anything to do with the fact that they do not want Justice Krever to find out the truth?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should understand that each and every year literally hundreds upon hundreds of requests are made of the Privy Council Office to have access to cabinet confidences.
What the hon. member is making reference to is a cabinet confidence. As told to the hon. member and as told to the House not once, not twice, but on three previous occasions, there are other ways in which commission counsel can have access to that information by subpoenaing, if necessary, individuals who could elaborate on the various facts that apparently are important to the commission and its counsel.
There are ways this information can be gathered other than releasing cabinet confidences.
Since the minister announced that the corporation would no longer be allowed to carry on the well-paying distribution of advertising mail, her decision has met with strong disapproval. Yesterday, more than 1,000 people braved the cold to protest on Parliament Hill and in front of the Prime Minister's residence. It should be noted that this is the largest collective layoff in Canada's history, with 10,000 jobs disappearing because of the government's deliberate action.
Before putting these 10,000 workers out into the street, and given the impact of such a decision on Canada Post's finances, will the minister have the courage to take a closer look at the issue and to reconsider her decision?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Radwanski consulted Canadians right across the country. He came to the conclusion that the Canada Post Corporation should first concentrate on its primary role, which is to provide the best possible mail services to all Canadians.
He also found that Canadians from all over the country do not want the corporation to deliver unaddressed advertising mail. He agrees with the persistent allegations of unfair competition made against Canada Post in this regard. After reviewing Mr. Radwanski's report, the government decided to ask Canada Post to stop delivering unaddressed advertising mail, and we will stick to our decision.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to mention that Mr. Radwanski's logic, which is now the government's logic, will lead directly to an astronomical tariff increase or to a reduction in services that could adversely affect postal services in Canada.
(1445)
Does the minister realize that almost all Canadians living outside large centres will not be served by private distributors of advertising mail, and that they will no longer benefit from Canada Post's own mailout distribution service, Admail?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not true. We expect this responsibility to be transferred to the private sector. In fact, out of these 9,850 part time employees, 20 per cent have already indicated that they are no longer able to deliver these mailouts, even if there is still work to be done at Canada Post with this advertising mail.
Last Friday, the government entered into an historic partnership with the province of Alberta. How will the new Canada labour market development agreement ensure that unemployed Albertans will get effective results based training they need for the real jobs in Alberta's labour market?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was indeed an historic agreement that was signed last week with the Government of Alberta.
The Government of Alberta will be able to respond to local market conditions to help unemployed people go back to work. The accountability framework, which is included in the agreement, refers to the number of people who will be returned to work with the help of those programs.
It is results based. It is results oriented. We will be able to measure how much money has been saved on the employment insurance account. The Government of Alberta will report every year to Parliament because we are responsible to all Canadians for how much has been done.
[Translation]
This means that from now on a worker in Alberta, in the member's riding for instance, will no longer have to wonder whether the program is federal or provincial. A single wicket will provide workers with the opportunity to return to work without any hassle.
However, several Quebec lumber companies are now taking the minister to court over the export quotas they have received under the agreement. They say the minister bungled the quotas. The industry claims the minister missed the boat when he set the quotas. It wants the minister to quash the present allocation and issue quotas that are more in line with reality. Thousands of jobs are being lost across the country because the minister bungled the deal.
What specific action does the minister plan to take to resolve this situation?
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement was not arrived at overnight.
It was arrived at after the federal government, representing the five provinces, impacted the six industry associations. Three different sectors in the industry were widely consulted. I understand that two companies at the present time are proceeding with some legal action.
I wish to assure the hon. member that the system the government is currently responsible for was one arrived at after an incredible amount of consultation. The six industry associations and the five provinces impacted still support the deal.
I urge the hon. member, if he has more questions, to consult with the industry association in his province that supported this deal.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary continues to blame the industry for the job losses.
Industry did not negotiate the softwood deal. This government did. The minister claims that the industry set the standard for the deal. Allow me to set the record straight.
The companies agreed to a reduction of 9 per cent of the 1995 exports of softwood lumber to the U.S., yet the majority of lumber producers had their quotas reduced by not 9 per cent, but 30 to 40 per cent. That is the problem.
Lumber companies are now demanding that the government cancel the softwood lumber deal. Will the government fight for Canadian jobs and cancel the softwood lumber agreement with the United States?
(1450 )
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government lives up to its international commitments, especially those that it entered into after a great deal of consultation with five provincial governments, six industry associations and all of those that have been affected.
If the member opposite was truly interested in jobs in the lumber industry he would support the sawmills, the lumber associations and the provincial governments who insisted on having this type of a deal.
The port of Trois-Rivières is one of the most cost efficient and profitable in Canada. In 1995 alone, shipping activities increased by 45 per cent compared to the previous year. And yet, as a result of decisions by the federal government, it might lose its national port status and, consequently, its international stature.
Since the port of Trois-Rivières meets all the criteria to be recognized as a Canadian port authority, and since all stakeholders agree that it does, could the minister commit now to recognizing the role and significance of the port of Trois-Rivières by granting it Canadian port authority status?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned this issue when he was in Trois-Rivières a few days ago.
The fact is, the member should realize that Bill C-44 has not been passed yet. Before changing the whole system, we must wait for the new legislation to be in place. Thanks to the committee's hard work, the bill is now back in the House. I hope for a quick decision of the House on this bill. Only then will we be able to make a decision.
There is no problem for Trois-Rivières to wait for the legislation to be passed.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, out of respect for what people want, can the minister assure us that, in making his evaluation, he will endorse the chamber of commerce, the evaluation committee, the Corporation économique de développement industriel et commercial and the cities of Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières Ouest, Grand-Mère and Shawinigan-in the Prime Minister's riding-that he will abide by the will of the community instead of yielding to a small group who is hustling around the Trois-Rivières Liberal Association?
Can he assure us that the $12 million reserve accumulated over the years by the port of Trois-Rivières will not be siphoned off to the Canadian consolidated fund like the reserve of the port of Quebec was by the previous Tory government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I very seldom use my privilege. The member was absent on Friday. I spoke with the mayor of Trois-Rivières and on CHLN. The member is three days late.
I said that once the bill is passed, the government will want the port to maintain its present status. If the bill is passed as it was proposed by the minister, Trois-Rivières will qualify.
The member's information is exactly three days late.
Does she think it is more important to have a highly respected international radio voice whose job it is to promote Canada to the world at a cost of $16 million or a highly politicized secret Canada information office whose job it is to promote Liberal pre-election propaganda to Canadian voters at a cost of $20 million?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed at the question posed by the hon. member. On March 28 the hon. member for Kootenay East said that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage had picked the pocket of the CBC by supporting Radio Canada International and giving it finances.
I would say that he is picking and choosing himself.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that subsequently the minister removed $414 million from CBC funding. The minister is slashing and burning the CBC and she is getting away with it with impunity.
(1455 )
Four hundred and fourteen million dollars was removed which is why the CBC removed its funding for Radio Canada International. The Reform Party position is to see continued public funding for CBC Radio and privatization for CBC television.
What is the position of the government? Is it going to find funding for Radio Canada International, yes or no?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member never ceases to amaze me. The Reform Party wants to privatize the CBC. We have just approved $800 million for the CBC budget, a measure which the Reform Party voted against. We have a $200 million production fund which the Reform Party voted against.
The Reform Party wants to privatize the CBC. It wants to play politics with it.
Rather than taking the side of either labour or the transit commission, will the government take the side of the transit user? Will the minister legislate an end to the OC transit strike before this House rises?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canada Labour Code which governs these talks provides for free collective bargaining. I think we should allow the free collective bargaining system to work the way it works in most cases, especially in this case.
I said on Friday that I was inviting both parties to go to the negotiating table. They asked me to appoint a mediator which I did right away. They should use the services of a mediator. Instead of asking the minister to legislate they should mediate. They should go to the negotiation table and do their work. That is what I am asking. I asked them on Friday and I ask again today: Go to the negotiating table and settle the problem.
[Translation]
The Canadian International issue shows once again the government's inability to make rational decisions in order to solve problems. Indeed, whether it be deregulation or assistance measures for Canadian International, the government is completely lost.
How can the minister say that he set up a committee on the return to regulation in transportation when he has always preached deregulation? Are we to understand that the only solution found by the government was to set up an inefficiency and mismanagement bonus through its selective reduction of taxes applicable in reality only to those who intend to stay non cost-effective?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the support of the hon. member for the government's program of deregulation in the airline industry. We have absolutely no plans to re-regulate the industry. We have no intention of doing it.
What I offered to Mr. Buzz Hargrove of the auto workers Thursday of the week before last, more than 10 days ago, was that I would look at a report he gave to me on certain airline industry issues. He rejected it out of hand. I repeated the offer to look at the report he had given me. I repeated it last week and he rejected it again quite bitterly. I then put it in writing and he rejected it again.
He has now accepted the offer. My only regret is that if he had done so over 10 days ago, millions of dollars of ticket sales would have taken place for Canadian. Unfortunately the company did not get those sales because of the intransigence of Buzz Hargrove.
It is only the government's big-headed pride that is going to force our soldiers to miss Christmas with their families for no reason. How long is the government prepared to leave our troops stranded in Africa with no real mission, just to satisfy the Prime Minister's ego?
(1500 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad commentary on a situation that has improved dramatically to a point that it is unparalleled in history to see so many people repatriated without the firing of a single shot, without having to commit anybody into a dangerous situation on the ground.
People around the world understand that the initiative led by the Prime Minister of Canada has led the single largest repatriation of humanity in history.
We know now that unemployment in Canada is stuck at 10 per cent. Yet in Saskatchewan with a New Democrat government the unemployment rate is the lowest in the country. We know too from the government's own studies that unemployment costs the country billions and billions of dollars in lost revenues and would contribute to addressing the deficit had the problem of unemployment been addressed.
Knowing that the government of Saskatchewan has developed a partnership approach to dealing with the economy which has generated an unemployment rate that is the envy of the country, when will the Minister of Finance speak to the minister of economic diversification and development in Saskatchewan to find out how to deal with unemployment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Talking about partnerships, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to take a look at what the government has introduced, whether it is technology partnerships by the minister of energy; Team Canada which has become one of the most important innovations in international trade around the world and is in fact a partnership with the federal government, the provincial governments and the private sector; or the multitude of youth programs introduced by the minister of HRD, he would see before him a government committed to partnership. It is the reason the private sector created over three-quarters of a million jobs.
In terms of Saskatchewan we are delighted to see the tremendous number of new jobs created, with retail sales going up as a result of the agricultural boom occurring in western Canada. I would certainly thank the senior minister from Saskatchewan, the minister of agriculture, for what is going on in Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Now that we know the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence are completely out of touch with the real situation in Zaire, and the Minister of Finance has just announced that the agriculture industry is booming, although the price of grain is dropping, I would like to know if the Minister of Finance is aware that, under his government, Canadians are getting poorer.
I wonder whether it is because they only show him the bank statements, or maybe he only gets the news about the stock exchange or about our exports. Does he know that real incomes are going down and that the unemployment rate is the highest it has been since the depression in the 1930s? Is the Minister of Finance in touch-
The Speaker: The Minister of Finance has the floor.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could provide some figures to help the hon. member.
The annual rate of 3.3 per cent in the third quarter is the highest rate since the end of 1994. Since we came to power, three quarters of a million new jobs have been created in this country.
Interest rates are at their lowest level in 40 years. Inflation is low. Manpower productivity is rising. Our competitive position, compared with the United States, is the best it has been in 46 years.
[English]
Let us take a look at what kind of shape the country was in three years ago when we took office. There were 39 tax increases and we have not increased personal taxes once. The debate is now how to lower them. We have become the major exporting country in the world-