[Translation]
Would the Minister of Finance confirm what was said by economist John Lester of Wood Gundy, who indicated that if the labour force participation rate of Canadians were the same as it was in 1989, the current unemployment rate in this country would be 14 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt there is a connection between the participation rate and the unemployment levels reported by Statistics Canada.
This is why we talked mainly about job creation. The Prime Minister has said many times, and so have I, that since we came to power, we have created more than 790,000 jobs in the private sector alone, the vast majority of which were full-time jobs.
Even with last Friday's figures, if we consider the past five months, we created more than 70,000 jobs, most of them in the private sector, and these are full-time jobs, precisely for the reason mentioned by the hon. member. We must mention job creation, because the unemployment levels only tell us part of the story.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 14 per cent unemployment based on the 1989 participation rate is hardly something for the Minister of Finance to be proud of. The government has certainly nothing to be proud of. And if it does not mean a thing to the Minister of Finance, it has a particularly cruel meaning for the families of those who are looking for work.
The Minister of Finance bragged about creating full-time jobs. How can he brag about full-time jobs when, according to Statistics Canada, 40 per cent of the new jobs created in the last 12 months are part-time jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that figures are very volatile, that the situation changes from month to month, and that since we came to power, the vast majority of jobs have been full-time jobs. In fact, if we consider the five past months, that is what the situation is.
The hon. member would probably be able to find another period with figures to suit him. However, when we look at the indicators, we see that consumer spending increased 5.6 per cent during the fourth quarter, that investment in housing is rising. In January, housing resales rose 3.8 per cent. In February-and this is very important because of the multiplying effect-housing starts reached their highest level in two and a half years. Fixed investment by business rose to 23 per cent.
My point is, yes, we are concerned about the employment situation, and yes, we are concerned about the job situation for young people, but when we consider Canada's financial situation at the very beginning and the improvement in the employment situation since we came to power, the indicators show that Canada, despite its shortcomings, has one of the strongest job creation rates of any industrialized country. There has indeed been tremendous progress.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made a number of appalling statements that deserve some comments at the very least.
He said that I could always find figures to suit my purposes. We know he specializes in finding figures to suit him over the short term, to try and justify the government's poor performance. He also said that figures were volatile. Well, I would say it is not the figures but the jobs that are volatile.
What justification does he have for the fact that, always according to Statistics Canada, between February 1996 and February 1997, young Canadians lost 64,000 jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are of course concerned about the employment situation among young people. In fact, less than a month ago, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a very detailed program to help young people, a summer job program, a program creating internships with large corporations. That is why the government also encouraged the private sector to make the announcement they made last week about creating internships for young people.
It would also be very helpful if the Bloc Quebecois voted with the government. The Leader of the Opposition seems to object when I quote economic indicators. But I can him that the economy is recovering, and the broad indicators show that we are already seeing the results of our policies. Retail sales are reaching record highs, exports are picking up, manufacturers' deliveries are resuming and interest rates have dropped. So all the conditions are there, and next year we can expect an economic upswing.
Now, Mr. Speaker-
The Speaker: Thank you very much. The hon. member for Mercier.
Not only is there reason to despair at the low number of jobs created in Canada, the increasingly low quality of jobs created moreover, but also the unemployed have had increasingly less access to unemployment insurance since this government came into power.
How can the minister explain that, when the Liberals came in, 60 per cent of the unemployed were drawing unemployment insurance while, according to Statistics Canada, in 1996 the figure for the percentage drawing benefits was no longer 60 per cent, but only 41? How does he explain this?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier is drawing to our attention a problem that is of concern to the government, and it is true that the number of people who can make use of the employment insurance system has dropped.
I do, however, question the figure the hon. member for Mercier is giving out. Unfortunately-or fortunately, I should say-that figure excludes people who are in the EI system and who can work, which was not the case until now. This raises the numbers considerably, when those who are working for a time as well as drawing EI are included.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for the past six months the employment insurance figure has been, not 41 per cent, but 36 per cent. If the minister is satisfied, I do not know what he can be satisfied with.
Leaving fine speeches aside, will the minister admit that, in fact, the true impact of the reform is not that it makes it possible for Canadians to get back to work, as the minister has tried so often to tell us, but rather that it condemns them to falling back onto welfare, a provincial responsibility?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the hon. member for Mercier concerned with what is going on at the provincial level as well. I have noted recently that she has been keeping an eye, not only on our government and its ideology, but also on the Government of Quebec, and that she is beginning to be concerned about certain decisions that have been taken by it.
I would like to reassure the hon. member for Mercier, in the enthusiasm she is manifesting once again, that where employment insurance is concerned, we have, as a government, acted with a great sense of responsibility.
(1425)
This is the greatest reform in 25 years, one with which we wanted to help Canadians break out of the cycle of dependency into which too many of them had fallen. We wanted to create conditions that would help them break out of the cycle of dependency while continuing to provide assistance with their income, so we created a transitional fund in order to create jobs, and wage subsidies in order to help people set up their own businesses.
We have brought about a major reform and are most pleased with it, because we are helping first and foremost with current conditions.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
My question is to the minister of defence. Why is it not in the national interest to get to the bottom of a high level military cover-up?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is a requirement for the minister of defence as well as for any other minister who is involved in serious problems that confront the government and the nation is to take advice from as many sources as possible.
It was not very long ago that the hon. leader of the third party was asking the Prime Minister of Canada to guarantee that the commission of inquiry on Somalia end its work before the next federal election.
I have tried to take advice from as many sources as possible, but in the final analysis the Government of Canada made the decision to extend the Somalia commission of inquiry for a third time and to ask it to please report by the end of June, which would be in excess of two years after it began an inquiry that was scheduled to finish in December 1995.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the sources the minister could have listened to was the commissioners themselves who said that shutting down the inquiry early amounted to a cover-up and a whitewash. He could have listened to them.
The national interest is not the reason the Somalia inquiry is being shut down. It is being shut down because of political interests. It is not in the Liberal interest to have inquiry commissioners look into allegations of cover-up that occurred under this Liberal government.
Again, why does the minister not want Canadians to know the truth about a high level cover-up that occurred under this Liberal government?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to find out as much as possible is in everyone's best interests as long as the information available is of some contemporary utility.
As recently as September of last year the hon. leader of the third party felt it was appropriate to try to get to the recommendations of the commission of inquiry before a federal election. As a government we have extended for the third time the mandate of this commission. We recognize that not everyone is satisfied with that decision.
The hon. member speaks about the recommendations of the commissioners of inquiry. I recall there were three recommendations in the last letter. As I remember the text of the letter, one recommendation clearly indicated that the ultimate scenario would be that the commission would not finish its work until at the earliest the end of 1998. At some point you have to decide what you think is in the best interest.
If the hon. member would check with members of the Canadian forces and with most of the people who have been observing the
work of the commission of inquiry, he would find there is a fair amount of support for the decision the government took.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today at the Somalia inquiry Major Vincent Buonamici raised further questions about a cover-up at the highest levels of national defence. On Sunday it was revealed that the former defence minister's office participated in a departmental smear campaign to discredit Dr. Barry Armstrong. A lot of people seem to be working very hard to ensure Canadians do not get the truth about what happened in Somalia and in the subsequent events.
Why does the minister not want Canadians to know the truth and does the minister really believe that hiding the truth will bring a just resolution to what happened in Somalia and the subsequent events?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the need to determine what happened and why it happened in Somalia and what occurred subsequent to the very unfortunate events in Somalia is obviously very important.
What I think is of equal importance and what Canadians have come to accept as being absolutely essential is what we are going to do to ensure that the kinds of situations that occurred in Somalia do not reoccur and that what happened after those incidents occurred be an appropriate response to those kinds of incidents.
(1430)
Obviously the hon. member and members of his party have not yet decided how they want to address matters relating to the Canadian forces because, as the hon. member would know, by the end of this month we will be reporting to the Prime Minister, to the government and to the people of Canada on what we think should be done with the Canadian forces. We have yet to hear from the Reform Party.
The opposition has joined with demonstrators in the maritimes and Quebec criticizing the new employment insurance plan, which clearly, makes no sense. The program has barely been implemented and already the minister is having to rush in and make adjustments, because things are not working, and this morning once again, the Minister of National Defence was taken to task in Tracadie.
How can the minister justify the fact that the new measures apply to only certain regions-primarily those that fought his reform the strongest-other than for electoral purposes?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is quite simple: we obviously brought the solution to where the problem existed.
These are the regions that demonstrated the most clearly and drew our attention to the importance of changing the system.
My two predecessors, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence-my immediate predecessor-and I have always recognized, in undertaking a reform as enormous as the one involving unemployment insurance, which is 25 years old, that we would monitor the transition and implementation of the new system very carefully.
We knew that inevitably minor adjustments would be required here and there. My attention was drawn in the Atlantic caucus to an anomaly in the system relating to short weeks. The Government of Canada worked hard to correct the situation satisfactorily for the location where the problem arose.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify choosing the criterion of 10 per cent unemployment, when it will mean that the people of Westmount will be entitled to the new measure and the people of Saint-Hyacinthe will not?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the demagoguery of those opposite. No doubt they are talking about the committee-
Mrs. Tremblay: You are not allowed to say that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw the word ``demagoguery''.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was referring to Saint-Henri, is she-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to withdraw the word ``demagoguery''.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word ``demagoguery'', but I would say with pleasure that we worked hard to solve the problems brought to our attention. Where unemployment is at 10 per cent, there is less likelihood of finding work that would give people longer weeks. The aim of our system is precisely to encourage people to accept as much work as possible.
So, in Saint-Henri, where unemployment is above 10 per cent, the situation is remedied. Where unemployment is less, people are
more likely to work a full week. That is the logic and that is the sort of logic that promotes work.
The minister of defence made it quite clear from his first day as minister that he wanted to get the inquiry over as quickly as possible.
Why did he want it over last September and now why does he want it over? Is it for the good of the armed forces? Is it for the good of the country or is for the good of the Liberal Party?
(1435 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously these events and much of what took place around the situation the hon. member refers to occurred under the watch of the previous administration.
To the hon. member, because of his background and his respect for the Canadian forces, in direct response to his question, he has finally recognized on behalf of his party that I indicated immediately upon coming to my position as Minister of National Defence that it was my fervent hope and the government's that the commission of inquiry would end its work as scheduled in March.
When he asks why I felt it should be ended in March, although we have subsequently extended it to the end of June, it is because everywhere I have gone in Canada and abroad, speaking but mainly listening to members of the Canadian forces, I can tell the hon. member that if he spoke with many of his former colleagues he would know that in great part it was time to turn the corner and there is no question that the decision in part was because it is in the best interests of the Canadian forces.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly share with the minister the interest of the Canadian forces.
As a former member, I have really looked on with a lot of anguish. I have seen members of the airborne regiment, especially the junior ranks, persecuted, prosecuted and otherwise vilified. So I agree with the minister, at least let us clear the air.
But how can we clear the air if the full testimony of the likes of Kim Campbell's staff, Bob Fowler, Major Buonamici and Major Armstrong is not out? What will the minister do specifically to clear the air and get those unanswered questions answered?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was a valued member of the Canadian forces for many years and I understand his anguish.
I have never commented, nor will I, on the roster of witnesses or how the commission of inquiry conducted its work. It was entirely within its prerogative to set out its work schedule the way it wanted to. It has done that for over two years.
The hon. member has asked a very pertinent question. He has asked how we intend to move on and how to clear the air. I have undertaken to submit to the Prime Minister, to the government, to the people of Canada and to the Canadian forces by the end of this month a very comprehensive and substantial set of recommendations on the future of the Canadian forces. We have sought and received the input of literally hundreds of Canadians who feel very strongly about the future of the Canadian forces.
I still look forward to hearing that kind of input from the Reform Party, but regardless of that we will make public our position and our recommendations by the end of this month.
The government has decided to transfer to the private sector the management of the 150 casual employees who were working for its regional cheque printing facilities. These 150 people, who hold precarious jobs, will now have to decide whether to accept a 40 per cent salary cut or stay home.
Given that, in a release dated August 2, the President of the Treasury Board stated that he wanted to act responsibly and in a spirit of fairness regarding the cuts affecting government employees, what does he intend to do to correct such an unfair situation?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the facts of the situation to which the hon. member is referring. I am not aware of that situation right now.
However, I can assure the hon. member that, in the public service, we have put in place the necessary systems and procedures to make sure government employees are treated properly. Whenever transfers have been made from the public to the private sector, we have strived to respect the rights of all our employees and to treat these employees fairly.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister says he will look into the facts, but how can he claim to care about the fate of these former public servants, who used to earn $11 per hour and who, because of the minister's agreements with companies such as Drake International, will only get $9 per
hour in Ottawa and $7 per hour in Quebec City, for exactly the same work? Why such an injustice?
(1440)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the hon. member to send me the facts of the case he is referring to, so that I can look into the matter, because I am not aware of this case. I will then be pleased to provide him with a reply.
Will the minister who is responsible for letting this hearing take place take action to ensure in the future that families of murder victims will not have to relive their pain and agony over and over again?
The Speaker: Today we are debating this very motion. I thought perhaps the member would ask a more general question. However it deals directly with what we are discussing today, that is section 745.
If the member can rephrase the question so that it is acceptable, I will permit it.
Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not I can do that. Therefore I will withdraw my question.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 15 and a half years ago Clifford Olson was convicted in the most horrible crime imaginable-
The Speaker: Because I do not know where the preamble is leading, may I ask the hon. member to please put her question and I will decide whether it is in order.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, does the justice minister believe it is fair and just to innocent victims, parents, relatives and friends for murderers to be allowed to plead for early release after serving only 15 years of their sentence?
The Speaker: Go ahead.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
As the hon. member will be aware, the Minister of Justice has brought forward significant changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code.
The Speaker: Order. I find myself in a quandary. I found the question to be acceptable but now I get into the response and it deals precisely with what we are dealing with today.
If I cannot accept a question for that reason then I surely cannot accept an answer. I am really in a dilemma. Those questions would be quite in order on virtually any other day.
I will pass and go to the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata.
On February 14, the Quebec finance minister wrote the Minister of Human Resources Development, seeking financial support from the federal government for UBI SOFT, a multimedia product project. Although time is of the essence in this matter, the minister still has not written back.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us whether or not his government plans to financially support UBI SOFT, an innovative project that could generate more than 550 high technology jobs in the Montreal area?
(1445)
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 hon. member may or may not be aware of the fact that there have been discussions between FORD-Q, Human Resources Development Canada and Quebec government officials regarding UBI SOFT.
Before getting involved in this project, we must determine whether it is worthwhile and whether the jobs that will be created are long term jobs and justify the request submitted to both governments. I think that even the Government of Quebec would want to know that much.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer, but while the letter from the Quebec minister was sent to the Minister of Human Resources Development and our question was directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development, we have the Minister of Industry answering.
Given how important this matter is, the number of jobs at stake in Quebec, and the fact that UBI SOFT is growing impatient and thinking of setting up operations in China if Canada does not show interest, could the minister give us the assurance that there is someone, somewhere, in his government who will at least indicate
what Ottawa's intentions are in this respect, so that the Quebec government can get UBI SOFT to wait a little longer?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to remind all members that we, on this side of the House, are a government team. When a project deals with industrial matters, it is only natural that the Minister of Industry offer his views.
Since one aspect of this matter is of interest to the Department of Human Resources Development, and considering that I indeed received a letter from the Government of Quebec, we did act with due diligence.
Mrs. Picard: Answer.
Mr. Pettigrew: Of course, we will answer. We already met with Quebec government officials and local stakeholders last week and we have agreed to work together with the Quebec government and the Federal Office of Regional Development in this matter. The three parties involved met last week.
We want to assess this very important issue together, but it raises all sorts of questions, precisely because it is so important.
Daily we see the plight of women throughout the world who are living in poverty with their children, in abject poverty and in horrible conditions.
Saturday marked International Women's Day. What is our government doing to improve the standard of living of women and their children to ensure a brighter future?
Hon. Don Boudria (Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the world leaders on issues related to women in developing countries. We support projects throughout the world to assist women.
From Sri Lanka to Namibia to Bolivia we have established mother and child health institutions. In Africa, the Canadian International Development Agency has a number of projects. In Nicaragua more than 5,000 women were able to become land owners thanks to a program supported by our government.
Canadians can be proud of the work we do in international development, particularly the work we do to assist women in other parts of the world.
Does the Prime Minister really have the nerve to run on his jobs record?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at the situation in 1993 when we took office. Taxes were rising. The deficit was increasing. Interest rates were on the increase. Total insecurity was reigning throughout the land.
Let us take a look at the situation today. The deficit is down. Interest rates are down. There have been no personal tax increases in the last budget and $2 billion worth of selective tax decreases.
We see a set of economic indicators that can match those of anybody in the world. We see that virtually every economist in the country is predicting 300,000 new jobs will be created this year.
No other country can ascertain that record and the fact is that will happen.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that may go over well down at the yacht club, but for a guy who does not have a job on Main Street it is pretty hard to swallow. There are 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, two million to three million underemployed and 800,000 who are moonlighting just to make ends meet. That is the Liberal job record.
(1450)
What is the Liberals' answer to this crisis? It is a 73 per cent hike in payroll taxes that their own bureaucrats say will kill jobs.
With an unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent and with 1.5 million people unemployed, why is the government hiking a guaranteed job killer by 73 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anybody wants to take a look at the debates in the House over the last three years, when the government has been bringing in job programs, whether it be cleaning up the nation's finances, short term job programs such as the infrastructure or longer term programs such as investing in education and R and D, they will see one thing, that the Reform Party has opposed every job creation measure brought in by the government.
If the member is sincere in his statement that he does not want to see the 9.9 per cent increase in Canada pension plan premiums, why has he brought forth a proposal that would increase those
premiums by 13 per cent? Why does he not lay the numbers out and tell Canadians what he and his party are really after?
For a little over two years now, in a relentless effort to abide by the new rules of the WTO, the federal government has been slashing its various farm support programs. For instance, dairy subsidies will be completely abolished as of August 1, 1997, without any financial compensation.
Can the minister tell us how our farmers will benefit from the fact that the U.S. government is planning to cut its overall farm support by 23 per cent over a period of seven years, while Canada will cut its support by 21 per cent but over only three years?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's preface made reference to the implications of world trade agreements with respect to Canadian dairy policy. While there are some implications of world trade agreements for Canadian dairy policy, the particular connection that he draws in terms of the dairy subsidy is not a connection at all.
The reductions in the dairy subsidy that have been announced are taking place over a seven-year period, two years of which have already gone by and five years of which are yet to come. We consulted with the dairy industry very closely in terms of the best possible way in which to manage the issue. The phase down approach we have adopted is quite consistent with the advice we received.
As the dairy industry deals with the reductions in subsidies I am hopeful there will be good co-operation between the producers and the processors in terms of how pricing issues and a variety of other issues are handled within the framework of a long term dairy policy.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Minister of Agriculture that we are talking here about the total reductions expected. Overall, Canada will reduce its subsidies by 21 per cent over three years, while our neighbours south of the border will take almost twice as long, seven years in fact, to cut their subsidies by 23 per cent.
Since the level of farm support in Canada is now among the lowest in the world, except for Australia and New Zealand, can the minister at least approve the dairy producers' request to postpone the next reduction in dairy subsidies from August 1, 1997 until February 1, 1998, as this would give them another six months to adjust to the austerity measures taken by the Liberal government?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to that question. The latter point was about a change in the timing for the period during which the phase down of the dairy subsidy would occur.
(1455 )
That request was put to me a number of weeks ago by the dairy farmers of Canada, I understand with the support of the National Dairy Council. That request is under active consideration as we speak. I hope to be in a position to respond to the dairy industry within the next short while.
On the other point, the comparison between the Canadian situation and the American situation, I point out to the hon. member one fundamental distinction. In the United States there is essentially an open market system with respect to the dairy industry. In Canada we have a supply management system which was instituted by a Liberal government and not three months ago was thoroughly, totally and successfully defended by the government before the NAFTA commission.
If private sector employers could get their act together to adjust their pension plans, why couldn't the government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Superannuation Act for the public service is not negotiable.
A committee of people have for the last few years been looking at ways to amend it. A way to amend it to deal with the increase in CPP premiums is part of the discussions which should be concluded within the next few months.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting answer. If the act is not negotiable I wonder how the government intends to change it.
The government just like its Tory predecessors has been talking forever about overhauling the federal public service pension plan. For years it has lacked the political will to tackle the issue.
How does the government intend to convince public servants that an increase in premiums is justified when the government is benefiting from using the $24 billion surplus presently in the account?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the way in which the pension plan is accounted for is according to the rules of the Canadian chamber of actuaries and accountants.
Not only that, but it is done with the approval and support of the auditor general. Would the member want us to start breaking the rules just to satisfy his biases?
The people of my riding of Elgin-Norfolk are horrified by recent images of child labour in the developing world.
Could the secretary of state tell us what were the results of a recent international conference on child labour and, furthermore, what Canada is doing in general to deal with the issue of child labour?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending a conference in Amsterdam a few weeks ago that dealt with the most serious abuses of child labour worldwide.
Canada, along with the Dutch government, the International Labour Organization and other members of the international community, is working to put together a convention in 1999 which will ban the worst cases of child labour abuse.
Examples of this are the exploitation of children in hazardous work including military service, the sexual exploitation of children, and the exploitation of children when they work in indentured and slave labour.
Legislation has been brought into the House this past session which would make it possible for Canada to bring to court Canadian citizens involved in sexual tourism abroad to face the same charges they would face if the situation had occurred in Canada.
As well a subcommittee on sustainable development has brought in a report with several recommendations and we look forward to responding to those valuable recommendations.
On Friday the secretary of state responsible for women's issues said the Liberal government had over three and a half years strengthened employment equity for women by targeting women as a key group for employment, creating opportunities for women in construction and addressing women's jobs in a comprehensive and holistic way.
(1500 )
Today the Minister of Finance says he is proud of his jobs' record as it pertains to women. How does the Acting Prime Minister explain the so-called economic priorities to employ more women with the fact that 44,000 women saw their full time jobs disappear last month?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the public service, it is incorrect to say that women are being discriminated against in terms of numbers. The percentage of availability of women in the workforce is 47 per cent. For this year our report indicates that women make up 48.7 per cent of the public service, more than their actual number in the labour force.
In the public service in the last few years of downsizing we have been careful to maintain the number of women to at least what they were as a percentage of the total labour force and we have more than succeeded.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Before I hear the point or order I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
[Translation]
Is the question of privilege related to something which happened during oral question period?
[English]
I will take the question of privilege first.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Colleagues, the Prime Minister is not here right now. I did not hear him say that, but I will review the blues and, if necessary, I will get back to the House.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope it is in the blues, the Leader of the Opposition and I asked the Prime Minister on three occasions to repeat what he had said, and he did. You might want to ask the Prime Minister himself.
The Speaker: As I told the member, I will review the case. I will look at the blues and the video tapes to see what happened. If necessary, I will get back to the House.
The Speaker: I explained to the hon. member for Crowfoot the decisions that were taken today and the dilemma I was having because of the specific nature of his question. At that point-
Mr. Benoit: What about the tobacco bill? What about that? What about fairness?
(1505 )
The Speaker: I hope I did not hear the words ``what about fairness'' because if I did, and if they were directed to me, then that is another matter altogether. However, I am going to let that pass.
I permitted the hon. member to rephrase his question and he withdrew. He decided not to go on with his question. I proceeded to another member from the same party. I thought the preamble to the question was going down the same road, but I permitted the question to go ahead. I thought the question was marginal but permissible. But then I got into the answer and the answer dealt directly with that subject matter which is going on today.
I want to give members as much room as I possibly can in formulating questions at all times and I want to give the government as much room as possible to answer the questions that are put because I think they are important.
However, if we are dealing with that precise subject matter and it is not general enough, in my view, then I would hope that members in turn would be fair enough to accept my decision that the question is out of order. I judged the questions to be out of order and that decision stands.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The Speaker: If this is on another point of order, I will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. Is this another point of order? It is.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in trying to formulate when an answer from the government side makes us out of order, you can see the dilemma this places us in.
When we were discussing the tobacco bill last week, the government answered in terms of amendments proposed for the bill being discussed that day in the House, specific amendments, and that was okay. But now when we have asked questions and the answer comes back in such a manner that you, Mr. Speaker, consider that answer out of order, then it rules everything we are doing out of-
The Speaker: Now members see the dilemma into which the Chair is put. Now you see the dilemma that the Speaker is put into because if the question-
Mr. Strahl: You let them go with seven questions in a row on the tobacco bill. Two days in a row they had seven questions in a row.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: At best you are putting your Speaker virtually in an untenable position. I would invite hon. members to discuss this with me if they like in my Chambers, but this is surely not the place.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): What's the point?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would like to let this point rest right now and we will proceed from here.