figures today showing that over 5 million people, up 38 per cent from 1989, are living under the poverty line.
It is now December 11, 1996, and the EI reform takes effect in three weeks. The Minister of Human Resources Development has been trying for weeks now to reassure the public that the reform is a good one, but we are worried, and so is the public.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development claim that complete information on the new EI system is available to everyone from a 1-800 number, when it was impossible to obtain this telephone number in Canada employment centres, when it took several days to get it, and when those answering this 1-800 number were not even able to tell us anything useful about the transition measures?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now that our government has finally decided on an active measures approach, and I see that Mme Harel in the Quebec government is trying to do the same thing with social assistance, I have trouble understanding that, when Quebecers have led the way with active measures, the opposition is today trying to discredit a reform that is actually based on active measures.
The transition measures have been worked out, and I signed and ratified them last week. The Leader of the Opposition was absent that day. These measures have all been designed to favour workers. We are looking out for workers, and each of these measures is to their advantage.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how unfortunate it is for the minister's reputation that he always comes up with the wrong answer to the right question. I do not get it.
If we question the minister about active measures, he tells us about transition, when we ask him about transition, he talks to us about employment centres, and when we ask him about employment centres, he goes off on another tangent.
I will ask him another question. We have checked, and it is quite obvious that public servants are still not able to inform the public about the new EI system.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm that nothing, and I mean nothing, has been done as of yet to provide public servants with the information they need to inform the public properly about the new system and the related transition measures? In short, will the minister admit that the situation in his department and in employment centres is one of total confusion?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have checked, and employees of our department have had training sessions since the bill became law. They are perfectly aware of how the new legislation will apply.
I have checked and the transition measures have been worked out, and they are to the advantage of workers, in the sense that each week worked in the last 26 weeks will be considered to contain 35 hours.
(1420)
The only employees not yet trained are those who have no contact with the public, with clients. And those who will begin processing applications referred to them by their colleagues have asked to have these training sessions at the end of January, when the first applications come their way.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it took our researchers several days to come up with the 1-800 number that all unemployed workers in Canada will need to know. Our extensive research showed us that employees were unable to answer the questions put to them. And the minister thinks that the poor folks who will soon be unemployed will have no trouble obtaining all the answers and information they need. It is to weep.
The 1-800 number is to all intents and purposes not in operation at the present time. Three weeks before the system is to start up, and I draw the minister's attention to the coming holiday period, employees have still not been trained to implement the EI system. I ask the minister to tell us what has become of the transition measures that were going to ensure that people moving from the old to the new system received fair treatment? Where are they written down, where can a person see them? That is a clear question.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find encouraging is that it took you three weeks to find the 1-800 number. It is a sign that not too many of those on your team are unemployed.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would remind you always to address your comments to the Chair.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the 1-800 number has been given out to all those who have received UI benefits since the month of July. This number, and I am giving it out because it is important, is 1-800-276-7655. This number has been given out to anyone who has received EI benefits since the month of July.
I can therefore assure you that the information is available to our people, and that, throughout the country, our people are well trained to receive clients and provide them with very good service.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Since the minister raised the issue of active measures, let us talk about them. Last week, after several days of questioning and denials, he finally realized that transitional measures were required. The minister will now have to admit that the shift to active
measures is in fact window dressing to hide cuts to the consolidated fund.
Does the minister know that the federal government will spend some $150 million less on active measures in Quebec in 1996-97 than it did in 1993-94? Will the minister recognize that the so-called shift to active measures is nothing but window dressing?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the active measures we are implementing now are designed to break the old cycle of dependency. It is extremely important to put people back to work. We are very happy to have a system that fosters active measures. Over the next few years, an extra $800 million will be added to the $1.9 billion already available, for a total of $2.7 billion.
(1425)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. Does he know that, in 1993-94, $854 million was spent on active measures in Quebec and that, according to figures I obtained from his own senior officials, this amount will be reduced to about $710 million this year, or some $150 million less? Does he know that?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am always shocked by the attitude of people who like to fiddle around with this figure or that figure. I am glad that our government's transparency seems to be operating in favour of the hon. member for Mercier.
But do we recall the number of times through equalization payments, for instance, made to the Quebec government, Quebec alone receives 47 per cent of all amounts paid in equalization; 47 per cent, that is quite a large share.
Canadians could not get a straight answer from the Prime Minister last night so I would like to try today. After three years of being in office, why is it that these Canadians and thousands like them feel that the Prime Minister has broken his number one election promise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said that jobs were to be the priority of this government. Over the last three years 672,000 new jobs have been created in Canada.
We have worked very hard to put the finances of the nation in good shape. We have been very successful. Today we have the lowest interest rates in Canada in 40 years. Because we have turned the fundamentals the right way, yesterday we read in the press that last month housing starts rose by 17 per cent. People now believe that they have a future and can borrow money at the lowest rates they have ever known. We have done what is right.
Nobody can promise that there will be a job for everyone in Canada tomorrow. There will always be some unemployed people. What is important is that the government have a priority to create jobs and give everyone an excellent chance to find a job. That is exactly what this government has done.
We wish that we could have created a million jobs, but 672,000 jobs were created. That is the best record of all G-7 countries other than the United States.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, those numbers and that answer did not satisfy the audience last night and those numbers and that answer do not satisfy this House.
The Prime Minister last night told the 17.2 per cent of Canadian young people looking for work: ``Go back to school''. His answer to the two million to three million people who are underemployed in this country was: ``Get a loan and start a business''. His answer to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians was: ``Some are lucky. Some are unlucky. That is life''. That sounds like rolling the dice with the lives of the unemployed.
Is that really what the Prime Minister has to say to 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, that some are lucky, some are unlucky and that is life? Is that the Prime Minister's position on the unemployed?
(1430 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very true that the government has put order into the affairs of the nation. I said that we could not put everybody on the federal payroll. Is that what the leader of the Reform Party is proposing?
We have set the conditions for people to find and create jobs in Canada because the conditions are now the best. When we started, the interest rates were much higher than they are today. Today they are the lowest they have been in 40 years and people can start to work. It is why three-quarters of the jobs have been created by
small businesses in the last three years, and 672,000 new jobs have been created in Canada since this government came to power.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister of this country to tell 1.5 million unemployed Canadians ``that's life''. That is a tragedy .The policies that were created are a failure. The Prime Minister is the one who promised people jobs, jobs, jobs and gave them the heave ho. He is the one whose jobs strategy is not working. He is the one who will not balance the budget until the next election. He is the one who will not provide the tax relief required to create more jobs.
Instead of wishing unemployed Canadians good luck, why does the Prime Minister not adopt a new jobs strategy? Why does he not balance the budget, lower taxes and facilitate the creation of the millions of jobs required by unemployed Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget the government put $350 million new dollars toward helping young people in their search for work. Not long ago for example the Minister of Finance reduced the contributions for employers who are employing new employees, exemptions for EI contributions so that it would be easier to create jobs. Jobs are created by the private sector because the government has decided to put the nation's fiscal house in order, and that is what we have done so far. That is why we are praised around the world. We have been the best in bringing down our deficit and creating the proper conditions for job growth.
The Liberal government is obviously more generous with businesses than with workers, regardless of what the minister may say in his speeches. Indeed, in addition to allowing the non-payment of pension contributions, the federal government also remitted customs duties to Singer, from 1982 to 1986, for an undiscounted amount of $30 million. This is outrageous.
How can the minister justify such generosity toward Singer, when the only compassion he is showing to the retired employees of that company is nothing but hot air? As we say: ``With a friend like this, workers do not need enemies''.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously, I was not a government member in the early or mid-eighties. Maybe the hon. member should talk to his friends of the time.
As regards this very important case, I wish to point out that Singer's solicitors asked us to settle out of court. I looked at everything that relates to this issue, and I came to the conclusion that there were no precedents, and my legal advisers said that this very serious issue had to be settled by the courts.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the minister does not have his little piece of paper, he really has a very hard time answering.
The federal fund that manages private pension plans, including the one for retired Singer employees, is called ``government annuities''. This fund generates actuarial surpluses of $2 million per year, and these $2 million are put into the federal government's consolidated fund.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1435)
The Speaker: We are getting close to the question. The hon. member for Saint-Jean.
Mr. Bachand: Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that he is currently letting the dispute deteriorate because he wants to get these $2 million and put them into the government's consolidated fund? Instead of settling the basic issue, he is appropriating these $2 million and too bad for his friends, the retired Singer employees.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it want to tell you, since we must address the Chair, that we asked our legal advisers to review this extremely important issue. Given the seriousness of the situation, I asked my department's officials to act with great diligence, so that the issue can be settled at the earliest possible moment.
I ask the Prime Minister: Which statement is true? Is it the one he gave Johanne last night when he said that he did not promise to kill the GST, or is it the one he gave on CFRB radio that he did promise to abolish the GST? What will it be, flip or flop?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Reform Party, we put in writing what we were going to do. We said that we were going to modify the GST, that we would harmonize it with the provinces so there would be only one form of taxation.
Not long ago the Reform Party said that was the solution. Reformers applauded the actions of the Minister of Finance. They agreed that it was the proper solution to put provincial tax with the federal tax to make a new tax, a harmonized tax. The GST is not a harmonized tax.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, maybe this is a classic case of believe what I write but not what I say.
Ms. Savoie showed last night that her memory was certainly far better than the Prime Minister's. In October 1990, December 1992 and May 1994 the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would scrap, kill and abolish the GST. He even said it in this place. That is the promise that Johanne Savoie said she voted for in 1993. That is the promise the Liberals ran on in 1993 regardless of some small print in the red book.
Instead of trying to rewrite history and change what was seen on the news last night which was the actual truth, why will the Prime Minister not just admit that he broke his campaign promise to abolish the GST? He should just admit it.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we wrote in the red book that we were going to modify the GST. For a while the Reform Party had the GST in its program. After it did not have-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
(1440 )
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I was just commenting that in the report made by the Reform Party on the harmonization of tax on page 118 it said: ``We commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces. While we support the much needed harmonization of the tax, this will be a very difficult political objective to achieve''.
Let us not forget that at its party convention in 1992 it promised to eliminate the GST only after the budget is balanced. It changed its position about six or seven times. We put it in the program and we are in the process of harmonization right now.
Until November 1, there were 126 people working in 11 Quebec information centres, 66 of these people in Montreal, and the other 60 distributed throughout the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec City, Outaouais, Eastern Townships, Eastern Quebec and North Shore regions. According to certain sources, the government apparently intends to close 9 of the 11 information centres as early as February of 1997.
Will the minister confirm that his government intends to close nine information centres, retaining only two: one in Montreal, which is totally logical from a geographical point of view, and the other, purely coincidentally, in the Prime Minister's riding, in Shawinagan?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that today's technology makes it possible for us to repatriate certain services to a certain number of strategic spots, to which we can gain access in a far more interesting and administratively far more efficient manner.
We are, therefore, taking advantage of the technologies now available to deliver better government services.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us call a spade a spade. Will the minister admit that there is only one thing involved here: patronage?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people in the opposition will have to do their homework a bit better. The Quebec regional division selected Shawinagan for their centre for reasons of efficiency, because the Revenue Canada centre is already located there.
Since Revenue Canada is there, this was an opportunity to save the Canadian taxpayers a considerable amount of money.
Is this Prime Minister so arrogant and so out of touch with reality and so contemptuous of the electorate-
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to please proceed to his question now.
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister prepared to beat up on people simply because they expect him to keep his promises?
(1445 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are entitled to know what the agenda of the Reform Party is. Reform stands up in this House and talks about taxes, what it would do with taxes and about what the government does. I think the Canadian people would be very interested in
knowing what the hon. member himself, as he sets out the Reform Party program on the Internet, says about what we have done.
The Reform Party has criticized the government for eliminating the tax advantages for family trusts. The Reform Party has criticized the government for taking measures to combat the underground economy. Reform would let tax cheats off the hook and would call it tax breaks.
The Reform Party has criticized the government for the elimination of the preferential rate for large corporations. Reform does not believe that we should help small businesses.
Some hon. members: Liar.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Canadians are entitled to know what the real tax agenda of the Reform Party is.
The Speaker: Colleagues, sometimes my sound system is not as good as I would like it to be. I hope I did not hear what I thought I heard. I do not know where it came from but it is not in keeping with our traditions to use the words I think I heard. I hope that those words would not be used in the House of Commons.
I want to proceed directly to the member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the Prime Minister did not get up to address that question. He should be embarrassed to get up after that performance last night
For almost 33 years straight, the Prime Minister has been part of the elite of Canada. He has been a big city lawyer and a professional politician. He has no idea what people go through in the real world out there.
Last night he chided people who were unemployed. Today, Stats Canada tells us that child poverty has rocketed upward in the last year.
Is the Prime Minister's `them's the breaks' answer all he can muster for the 1.5 million unemployed people out there today, all the poor people who have been revealed by Stats Canada and all the people his government has completely abandoned?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not very well informed. I was elected to Parliament and represented a rural riding of Quebec all my career. I am very proud of that. My career has been based on coming to Parliament in order to serve my constituents and all the people of Canada.
A little snipe like the one from the hon. member will not take anything away from my record as a servant of this country.
[Translation]
(1450)
The matter of transferring the regional airports in Sherbrooke, Charlevoix, Forestville and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu is still dragging on, and the municipal representatives are anxiously awaiting answers from the federal government. The federal government is the one responsible for withdrawing from airport management, and thereby imposing unacceptable financial burdens on the municipalities.
Is the secretary of state aware that, unless the federal government rehabilitates these airports' infrastructure, the Government of Quebec will not sign the agreement to transfer these airports, as the Quebec Minister of Transport has recently stated?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated in this House, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has indeed drawn up a 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.
This said, a policy has been implemented in connection with airports, and will be adhered to throughout the country. It is aimed at allowing us to provide assistance, under a certain program, to airports serving commercial airlines. The others, which are not used by commercial carriers, will receive somewhere in the order of $50,000, if memory serves me correctly.
I have met with all of the mayors, and the matter is being looked into.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the same response as I got last week. I get the impression that the hon. secretary of state has acquired the same bad habit as his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, but I will give him another chance to answer a real question.
Since a number of major projects are now on hold, pending a federal government decision, can the secretary of state tell us when he intends to settle this matter of vital importance to the economic development of the regions?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out that, in large part, this matter has been brought to my attention by all of the members of the Quebec caucus, who represent the interests of the Province of Quebec very well.
I have met with all of the mayors and some reeves of the regional municipalities, and I must say that my Quebec colleagues and myself are greatly concerned by the airport issue. I believe, however, that it is incorrect to say that the projects are on hold. The municipalities are awaiting a government decision, but there is a national policy in place which applies at the present time, and a decision will be brought down shortly as to whether we shall be in a position to provide a positive answer to the various requests from the municipalities. This is of considerable concern to all members of the Quebec Liberal caucus.
Last Friday, December 6, 1996 Canadians everywhere held vigils and church services to commemorate the 14 lives lost in the Montreal massacre.
Is the Minister of Justice planning a national gun amnesty program for Canada, a program with a national focus and a national thrust, and will the details be released soon so that all interested Canadians can co-operate and participate?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has been a vigorous and longstanding proponent of a gun amnesty. On those occasions when he has spoken about it the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has pointed out the many advantages of a gun amnesty. It provides Canadians with an opportunity to turn over unwanted guns to the authorities, no questions asked. It gives people a chance to get removed from their homes, in a convenient way, weapons that could be dangerous if stolen or found by children.
We are going to consider very carefully the declaration of an amnesty in conjunction with the implementation of the firearms act, Bill C-68.
This government is profoundly convinced that the implementation of Bill C-68 will make this a safer country. The suggestion made by the hon. member for a gun amnesty is a very constructive one which we will actively consider.
(1455)
To quote commentator Brian Stewart of the CBC: ``The Prime Minister made a number of strong statements in defence of the government's record but he did not always tell the whole truth''.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: We cannot say in this House what someone else said that we would not say ourselves. I would simply caution the hon. member for Calgary Southwest not to quote what we cannot say in the House. I ask the hon. member to please proceed to his question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, we accept the cautioning but we are wondering why it is okay to say in a town hall meeting that the Prime Minister did not tell the whole truth on jobs or GST but it is not okay for this House to ask that question-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: My colleague, as you know, I have no control over what is said outside the House but inside this House my ruling would be very simple. We cannot take words said by someone else and bring them into the House when here they would be unparliamentary. That is what I am conveying to the hon. member.
Once again, without further elaboration, I would ask the hon. member to put his question directly.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to this question. His government has failed to deliver jobs, jobs, jobs and to scrap the GST. What is his explanation, the whole truth, for breaking the number one and number two promises of his election campaign?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we say that we work on the creation of jobs, and I reported on TV and I say to the House of Commons, in the last three years Canada has created more jobs than Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan together.
It is a question of debate. He can say that he would have done much better. He can say that he would wave his magic wand and there would be no deficit tomorrow. That is a matter of debate.
The record is there. More jobs have been created in Canada than in the five nations I mentioned in the last three years. This is a fact and it is recorded clearly.
(1500 )
We had a program with respect to the GST. He had a program. We said that we wanted to harmonize the GST. We have harmonization in four provinces. If the other provinces want to have only one tax to make life easy for business in Canada, there will be no GST, there will be a harmonized tax. However, only four provinces have agreed to it so far.
The Minister of Finance is working to make the harmonized tax the system for Canada. No, it is not complete yet. I admit that. However, we cannot make decisions for the provinces. We respect the Constitution of Canada.
I put the case squarely before the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. During the statements you made a statement which I found to be unparliamentary. Subsequent to that I asked you to withdraw the statement and you made another statement which I also find to be unparliamentary. After that, my colleague, you were kind enough to approach the Chair and converse with me for a few seconds.
You are in your seat now and I put it squarely to you. I would ask you to withdraw what I deemed to be unparliamentary language in your statement and subsequently, I would ask you to withdraw the statement that you made after that. Will you do that?
(1505 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the institution of the House of Commons and out of respect for the Speaker, I withdraw remarks in reference to the broken promises of the Liberal Party. The remark was specifically the word ``lies''. I also withdraw the remark that I made subsequent to my statement which made reference to that very same word.
The Speaker: I thank the member for that. I consider the matter closed.
Now I will proceed to a point of order by the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The Speaker: My colleague, I am well aware of the citation that you are giving to the House. The reason I intervened was that in my view the statement that you were making was unparliamentary. I only heard part of it, but from my point of view while I was sitting here it was unparliamentary.
If the hon. member would like to discuss it further with me, I invite you to see me in my chambers. But when I do not know where a member is going with a statement and I feel it is in the interests of the House to intervene, I do and I will continue to intervene.