On the subject of linguistic school boards in Quebec, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs insists he now supports the Quebec government's request. So far, however, his own government has refused to start the procedure for adopting the constitutional amendment as requested.
Why has the minister, although he says he agrees with the amendment requested by the Quebec National Assembly, not tabled a notice of motion that would make it possible to start the debate in the House? What is he waiting for?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to support the amendment we received from the National Assembly which will help modernize the Quebec school system in a way that has found support among all groups in Quebec society.
We received this proposal barely 48 hours ago. We intend to proceed without delay, with due respect for parliamentary procedure.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a straightforward question. I imagine when his students asked him questions, he had some answers. Why does he have no answers now that he is in the House? What kind of teacher is he?
I will repeat my question. He decided that hearings would be held. We agreed. However, he must first table a motion in the House. Let us stop being hypocrites, here.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): I know I am not supposed to say that, but I said it.
Last Monday, they came to ask us when we would be ready to proceed. We said: ``The Government of Quebec will proceed Tuesday, we will be ready Wednesday''. At the time, they were talking about going ahead on Monday.
The minister knows as well as I do-perhaps he does not because he told us the other day he was not very knowledgeable on the rules of procedure-but in any case, when does he intend to table this notice of motion? Ask the House leader, but when are you going to table your notice of motion?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the acting opposition House leader forgot that her party and the Reform Party agreed that on Monday we would, I hope, pass the anti-gang bill. Did she change her mind? Does she want to renege on her commitment?
(1120)
Because of a previous agreement we cannot start with the resolution on Monday, but as we say in Parliament, the hon. member may rest assured that we intend to start consideration of the resolution as soon as possible after Monday.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the hon. member and his career as
a parliamentarian, first of all, I am not the acting House leader but, as far as I know, the official House leader.
Second, we agreed on an agenda until next Thursday. Does this mean that the House will adjourn on Thursday? Does this mean the government has no intention of tabling the motion? Is that what it means?
In one of those end-of-session deals, we also suggested an approach that would meet both the government's objectives and ours. With the unanimous consent of the House, we asked the government to proceed today with debate on the motion so that Monday, the constitutional amendment could be referred to the Senate and then to the joint committee for 48 hours of hearings, and after that the amendment would come back to the House so we could vote on it before the House adjourns. Is the government prepared to accept this deal in its entirety, yes or no?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government waited at least two years to table its own resolution, and the National Assembly took three weeks to adopt the resolution after it was tabled. Why should the hon. member expect us to consider this very important constitutional motion within a shorter time frame than the National Assembly?
Second, the hon. member does not like the word ``acting'' connected to her position, and I apologize for the fact that I forgot she is leader of the acting official opposition. I may remind her that we are all here in an acting capacity, to a certain extent, and this is especially true of the present official opposition party.
My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
As we speak, a family from Belgium seeking to immigrate to Quebec is in prison. The father, the mother and the three children aged 9, 13 and 14 are at the Laval detention centre. The entire situation is based on a bureaucratic mess arising from misunderstanding, and false and erroneous information.
It appears that Mr. Truzewicz is being held on account of a robbery committed 18 years ago in Belgium. He however has shown that it was not he who committed the robbery, but someone using his car.
Is the minister prepared to examine this matter immediately so that Mr. Truzewicz and his family are accorded fairer treatment? A little understanding, please.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I looked into this matter personally, but the Quebec privacy act precludes my commenting publicly on the facts of this case, and I think we should protect people's privacy as a matter of course.
If I have anything to say to the family today, it is to suggest that they comply with Canada's laws. That is the best approach, if they want to return some day.
(1125)
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what is not a matter of course is our treating these people as if they were criminals, when they are not. This family is being treated like criminals. The parents and the three children have been thrown into prison.
Until the situation is clarified, could the minister arrange to release these people who are accused of nothing so that we can at least stop aggravating the situation these innocent people are facing?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to stop making political points with a human situation that is difficult for all concerned.
Clearly, everyone must obey Canadian law. I would hope the Bloc members would do the same in this country.
In public the Liberals talked a really good line about not caving in to the tobacco lobby and protecting the health of our young people. They seemed concerned then but then in private the health minister could not backtrack fast enough on tobacco sponsorship. In fact he became the host of ``Let's Make A Deal'' with the tobacco lobby. Tough on tobacco, I do not know. I am not sure.
Why did the Liberals cave in to the tobacco lobby, or was it always part of the pre-election plan? Who is going to answer that one?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ignores one very basic important fact.
Bill C-71 passed from this place to the other place and passed in the other place without any amendments. The bill still maintains all its integrity. It has all its objectives which the House supported, notwithstanding the reluctance of some members opposite.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fix is in. The government has already passed the legislation and it talks about the other place. It is already talking about amending it again. It is absolutely ridiculous and it proves the Liberals are shameless.
They ought to be saying to the Canadian public that the only thing the Government of Canada cares about at the moment is the political fortune of the Liberal Party of Canada. How ironic this should be on the eve of an election.
First there was the Somalia inquiry. Then there was a $260 million payout for Pearson and Airbus, airports and Airbuses. Then came salmon, cod and now the anti-tobacco bill.
Why is the government so concerned about losing votes that it is willing to compromise its conscience?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is shameless is the poor attempt to try to score political points by distorting the facts.
The facts are still as follows. Bill C-71 went from the House to the other place and from there into the public domain with clear health objectives that remain as they were when they left this place.
We had already considered all other ramifications of the bill. Those ramifications are included in some amendments that were accepted here, for example that we would have an implementation period following which there would be consultation with all stakeholders and a review of some of those implications in the context of Health Canada's health objectives as stated in the bill.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear them talk so eloquently about the fact that they really care about young people and smoking, and then they say they are making these changes. I do not think the Canadian public cares what House it has been through. It is seeing the Liberal government caving in to the tobacco industry on labelling.
He did not mention that the Liberals were planning to cave in to the tobacco lobby after the bill was passed and amended in the fall with the arrogance of assuming that they will be here to make those changes. He did not mention the Liberals differentiated between a tobacco ad on a billboard and a tobacco ad on a race car.
Why should Canadians vote for a government that talks tough on smoking and then puts a Liberal logo on a race car?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we were to put a Liberal logo on a race car I am sure we would get all kinds of support. The hon. member knows full well that all the articles of the bill indicated that we would have restrictions on sponsorship. There was never any question of anything else.
(1130)
I might add for the member's edification that we would have an opportunity to get people to understand the objectives. There were restrictions but no bans. We said here are the health objectives and we carried those out.
The legislation went through the House with the health objectives in place, consistent with the Supreme Court decisions that generated this and consistent with all consultations we had in the field leading up to the legislation.
Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. Canadians are pleased the Canadian government could get the legislation out of the Commons, into the Senate and into the public. She should applaud it.
The Bloc Quebecois strongly urges the government to stop stalling over this issue and show respect for its 80,000 employees, who have been waiting for 12 years. Otherwise, the campaign trail might be bumpy, especially in Hull-Aylmer.
On this issue, the minister chose to make an offer via the Toronto Star rather than directly at the bargaining table. Why did he take this disrespectful approach to labour relations?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, naturally, I have no intention of negotiating in this place something that should be negotiated between the employer, namely the Treasury Board, and its employees.
On Monday April 21, we will be putting on the table an offer regarding pay equity for the public service employees' union to consider. At that time, the details of the offer will be released, I guess, by the union itself.
People will be able to see for themselves what our position is. As far as we are concerned, we want both parties to negotiate in good faith, and we would not want to prejudice either the employees' position or that of the employer by discussing the matter in this House.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board has called a meeting with PSAC for April 21 without providing an agenda for the meeting.
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm that he plans to put an offer on the table to resolve the issue, or is this just another stalling tactic because an election is coming?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, we will be putting on the table, on Monday April 21, an offer regarding pay equity. These matters have already been negotiated with the unions.
A settlement has already been reached with one of the unions, the one representing professional employees, and we hope not only that a settlement can be negotiated in good faith but also that it will be fair to both taxpayers and employees.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Pearson airport, $260 million taxpayer dollars; cancelled helicopters, $745 million taxpayer dollars; Brian Mulroney, only $2 million taxpayer dollars. He must be feeling hard done by. Canoe museums, armouries and hotels in Shawinigan.
Is there no new low the government will stoop to in its panicked rush toward an early election? Where are all those good jobs the red book promised?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Reform Party is supporting the program of a party it says it opposes, namely Brian Mulroney's Conservative Party.
Why does the Reform Party want the taxpayer to spend $5 billion to $6 billion on helicopters that do not meet Canadian requirements? Why does the Reform Party want the taxpayer to spend $600 million instead of $60 million on an airport deal that was strongly criticized by Canadians across the country?
Are Reformers turning into a new set of Mulroney Tory clones?
(1135 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the people know Liberal-Tory, same old story. We are not the ones paying out taxpayer dollars for all these things.
It is now painfully obvious to every Canadian except Liberal MPs that infrastructure programs and other big government make work projects only produce short term jobs. Real job creation will only come through smaller government, balanced budgets and across the board tax relief.
Has the Prime Minister finally learned this, or does he still believe, as he said during the CBC town hall, that if Canadians cannot find a job they should simply move to where there is work, to where his government is spending their tax dollars, to Shawinigan?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is certainly a lot more to do in terms of helping Canadians who want to work find jobs, but we have made a very good start with a very good basis.
Some 700,000 new jobs have been created since the government took office. A further program of action was outlined in the very effective budget of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. We have laid the groundwork for further progress that I am sure will be achieved.
I wonder why my hon. friend on the one hand says that things have to be done at the local level, at the community level, but he is rejecting the successful infrastructure program which was designed, worked out and supported by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
The Reform Party has just given a slap in the face to thousands of mayors and reeves across the country and they will not forget it.
Why does the industry minister not conduct a real information campaign on this issue, so as to reach people, particularly those who live in rural areas, instead of merely publishing a brochure distributed by the sellers of satellite dishes, who do not always have an interest in telling the truth to their customers?
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, we said on several occasions in this House that it is the objective of Industry Canada to ensure that all consumers are informed and that the purchasing of satellite dishes should be made with the knowledge that the technology is changing.
We recently issued a licence to Telesat Canada to provide DTH services to Canadians. I believe these new services, including LMCS and the cable broadcasting service to be introduced by telephone companies, will result in many technological changes all consumers should be informed of.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act provides that Radio-Canada's signals must reach the largest possible audience.
Given that the satellite broadcasting industry is still in its infancy, will the minister ask Radio-Canada to put off its decision to eliminate its analog signal for at least one year, so as to give consumers time to adjust to the technological changes he just mentioned?
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Why not do like the Americans you like so much?
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.): I am sorry, madam.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): The minister is not allowed to speak to me directly. He must go through the Chair.
Mr. Manley: If I can get a word in, I would advise the member to direct his question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I would say to the hon. member that it is definitely the government's objective to ensure that all Canadians can receive Radio-Canada's signals.
Given that the finance minister has claimed he has not raised personal income taxes in any of his three budgets, why is it that the after tax disposable income per family is down by $3,000 per year?
(1140 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for eight years prior to our taking office this country had a Conservative government. That was when the decline in after tax income took place. Since we have taken office it has stabilized. If one takes a look at the projections of most economists, it is that it will be going up.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find this funny. I said since 1993 this is what has happened. It has nothing to do with the Conservatives. When they were over here they blamed the Conservatives. Now that they are over there, they blame the Conservatives. Liberal-Tory same old story.
I have a concern that the finance minister is basically using the UI fund as a surtax on his deficit cutting promises. He has said that if the cuts to the Canada health and social transfer are $7.5 billion, he would cut program spending by $9 billion. Revenues in the UI fund will hit $7 billion by the end of this fiscal year and revenues from personal income taxes are up by $4 billion after only11 months, and that is from the Fiscal Monitor.
If the finance minister has not raised personal income taxes, if he claims that he has not touched personal income taxes, why are tax revenues from personal income up by $4 billion? We have the time to handle this and answer it properly, so just take your time and answer it.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of answers to the hon. member's question.
I think the hon. member would be interested in knowing that in 1966 the real net worth per household rose 2.7 per cent. What that means is that households have more assets, more money and are better off. Canadians are better off. I am sorry, 1996. When you are talking to the Reform Party you are lucky to get the century right.
Let me simply say that the reason our personal income tax revenues are up is that in the private sector there are 850,000 more Canadians working. That is why, that is the way it should be, and that is good news.
This morning we learned that the CBC is toying with the idea of privatizing Bon Matin, a news broadcast now under the responsibility of Radio-Canada's news service. This represents yet another step on the road to abandoning great Canadian cultural institutions like Telefilm Canada and the CBC to the private sector, where the rules of ethics and accountability are not the same as those found in the public sector.
Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree that her government is responsible for dismantling Canadian cultural institutions and abandoning them to the private sector?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through its protection of Canadian cultural institutions in recent budgets, I think the Canadian government has shown that it values
them greatly and that it intends to continue to protect them in the future.
Whether we are talking about Telefilm Canada, Radio-Canada or the CBC, the federal government has stated its objectives, and we intend to continue to serve the Canadian people, including the people of Quebec, in such a way as to promote the development of culture in Canada through strong and sustainable institutions.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the idea of starting to privatize the news broadcast by Radio-Canada is the direct result of Liberal cuts to the CBC. Instead of providing decent funding for the corporation, the Liberals diverted the money to the Copps fund, administered by the private sector and by Heritage Canada.
Why are the Liberals doing everything they can to weaken Radio-Canada and Telefilm Canada, instead of strengthening Canadian culture?
(1145)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when we are putting more than $1 billion annually into supporting our cultural institutions, there is no doubt that our government is showing that it wants to give effect to the principles of which we spoke and to continue to defend our cultural institutions.
As for the privatization of Bon Matin, I would like to remind the hon. member that the CBC is an autonomous agency in which we do not interfere. It is precisely because we do not want there to be any political interference that we are allowing the CBC to take decisions such as the one it may eventually take regarding Bon Matin. Opposition members would be the first to complain if there were any political interference. In this case, we are not interfering, so how can they complain?
Is there any progress by the government on reducing credit card interest rates?
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 want to thank the hon. member for his work together with other members of the House from all parties, especially the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, for their work in raising the awareness of Canadians on this issue.
What we have seen since they began to raise this issue is that consumer awareness in Canada has increased significantly of the fact that low rate cards are available, as well as new low rate cards that have come into existence; five new ones in the last few months. Now consumer awareness of these cards has increased from 30 per cent to 60 per cent, a very important contribution to the ability of consumers to make the choices that are in their best interests.
In addition, Industry Canada continues on a monthly basis to make available to the public full disclosure of information on the comparative rates and other costs associated with credit cards. As well, we have recently instituted on our web site, Strategis, the ability for consumers to use a credit card calculator. Inputting their own consumer practices, we can calculate for them which credit card is the best one for them to use.
In the last three and a half years this government has messed up every agriculture policy it has touched. It killed the Crow subsidy without having a competitive and efficient grain transportation system in place and as a result farmers have bins full of grain that cannot be moved.
Full grain bins and empty pockets have been Liberal and Tory policy for the past 130 years. How does this government expect farmers without cash to put in this year's crops?
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the last several weeks we have been asked by many people to work on this situation and to put out a committee to look at it.
We feel that is not the direction to take. We feel the minister is working with the rail companies, with the product groups in the west trying to move this question forward as quickly as possible.
There is no question that grain has moved very slowly off the prairies this year. There was an avalanche which slowed things down for a week. We understand there was a major wash-out of rail lines a week ago which caused another huge slow down.
We sympathize with all the producers in the west. There is no question we want to see this move forward as quickly as possible. We are involving all the stakeholders and we are working with them to make certain these problems are clarified and sped up.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this government has to realize if farmers had been given a marketing choice, as the Western Grain Marketing Panel recom-
mended, they would already have resolved the transportation problems.
But because the minister arrogantly refused the recommendations of his own panel, the whole exercise was a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars.
How do the minister and the government plan to compensate farmers for his arrogance and negligence?
(1150 )
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the member's question is totally wrong. In absolutely no way has the minister, in any of the judgments made, done anything to cause delays in the transportation of grain on the prairies.
The member knows very well that the cause is due to problems within the rail companies. We are working with the industry and everyone in the industry knows we have been working with them to resolve the problem.
You don't have a good-
The Speaker: I know you are going to catch me the next time around.
The hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
On February 28, in response to a letter from Quebec Minister of Cultural Affairs Louise Beaudoin, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that there was no question of Quebec artists being excluded from funding programs on political grounds.
If this is so, will the minister confirm that he has altered the objectives of his financial assistance program for touring companies by withdrawing the criteria linking departmental subsidies to the promotion of Canadian unity?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the new policies, we made it clear that decisions on individual artists would be based on each person's artistic merits. There is, therefore, no change.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer to the question. I have asked the minister whether he had changed the criteria in the law, rather than in promises. We all know what happens to promises. We were promised that the GST would be scrapped, and it was not.
If the Minister of Foreign Affairs has not changed the criteria of his program, how then can he write Minister Beaudoin saying that the political opinions of Quebec artists will not be taken into account when his department awards funding to artists?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wrote to Madam Beaudoin to ensure we cleared up the total misinformation that was put forward by members of that party suggesting that political views would be taken into account. Never at any time was that the case. It was only in the minds of the Bloc Quebecois members. They attempted to exploit it as a way of trying to drive a wedge. Never was it part of our guidelines.
All we said was that we wanted to ensure that when we promote the opportunity for Canadian artists to go abroad that it be the widest possible range of artists, young people, aboriginal people, people representing the various cultural groups. Never were political beliefs taken into account.
The Bloc Quebecois must apologize to the Canadian public for creating that kind of perception.
While it still has time, will the government commit to cutting taxes so that real jobs can be created?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we brought in over $2 billion worth of selective tax cuts, which will take effect over the next three years, for Canadians with disabilities, for students and for low income families. We brought in a series of targeted tax cuts directed where the impact will be the greatest.
Given that the government has reasonably restricted financial resources, that is the option which any reasonable government would take. The alternative recommended by the Reform Party is to bring in a broad based tax cut which would benefit the wealthy of this country. It would be paid for by cutting services which low and middle income Canadians desperately need.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is up to his old tricks of misquoting the Reform Party's policies.
(1155)
For the last 78 months the unemployment rate has been high in this country. At no other time has it been this high except during the Great Depression.
If, as he claims, they are creating jobs, how is the minister prepared to explain to the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians that his policies are working?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the numbers are very clear. There are 850,000 new jobs that have been created by the private sector since we have taken office. The hon. member says I have misquoted from their budget.
Let me quote exactly from false start: ``The federal government contributes about $3.5 billion each year to provincial welfare programs through the transfer payment known as the Canada health and social transfer. A Reform government will eliminate these payments''. That is a direct quote; 3.5 billion out of the pockets of those who need it most. That is not a misquote, that is what Reformers would do.
We are all quite aware of Canada's longstanding tradition of peacekeeping initiatives. Canada's contributions throughout the globe are second to none. One such initiative was the participation of Canadian troops in UN peacekeeping operations in Cyprus.
I would like to ask the minister today to inform the House of any new developments with respect to Canada's role in Cyprus that may help bring a just and peaceful solution.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Scarborough Centre and the members from Don Valley East and Saint-Denis who have worked actively over the last several months to develop an initiative for Canada to assist in the reconciliation of the problems in Cyprus.
I am pleased to announce today that we have established a special ambassador, Mr. Michael Bell, to be the envoy for Canada in Cyprus and to work closely with the United Nations and to work with other countries. We think it is at the right moment with the proposed admission into the European Union. We hope that Canada continues to play the constructive balanced role that we played during peacekeeping in Cyprus. Now we can provide a constructive political and diplomatic initiative. If we can do that, we can help bring peace and demilitarization to that country and to that land which so desperately needs it. I am very pleased that we have been able to make that announcement today.
One of the recommendations of the Bloc Quebecois on tax reform concerned the Governor General's salary of $97,400 on which he does not pay a cent of income tax. Of course, the Minister of Finance did nothing about this.
Although all taxpayers must do their fair share to help the Minister of Finance fight the deficit and even the Queen of England now pays income tax, what justification does the minister have for the fact that her representative in Canada, with a salary of $97,400, does not?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, accountants could go on about this at length. Is it better to pay him the salary of a Deputy Minister, around $140,000 or $150,000, so that he will have a net income of $97,000, or to pay him his salary tax free, because technically, the Crown cannot tax the Crown? That is a choice accountants have to make, and one way or another, it will not have much of an impact on the future of this country.
If we add the cost of the election to the cost of the handouts and the cost of the MP pensions for the 30 or so Liberals who are deserting a sinking ship, Canadians are probably going to be out about $1 billion for this folly.
Other than being an excuse to shower Liberal ridings with largesse, could the government please explain the purpose of the upcoming early June election.
(1200)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been no election call as yet, except perhaps in the minds of the Reform Party.
Could the Reform Party please explain why its leader is not around here and is out campaigning across the country every day? Could the Reform Party explain why it is distributing copies of its false start program all over the country?
The Speaker: We are all aware it is getting close to the end, but we should not mention who is here and who is not.
Since the government was elected the number of children living in poverty have increased while the transfer payments to provinces for social support programs and education have been slashed. The opportunity of getting out of the poverty cycle has been reduced.
Is this an example of the new Liberalism that oversees the entrenchment of a permanent underclass?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware it is obvious that child poverty is the number one issue on the minds of all Canadians.
Therefore the agreement that we made with the provinces and the new child tax credit are intended to help alleviate the concern of all Canadians. To suggest that somehow any member of Parliament on any side of the House would not see this as a major challenge is quite disgusting, to say the least.
We are trying as governments to deal with child poverty. They are not interested on all sides of the House in having any underclass in our country.
That is the NDP philosophy. That is why people do not vote for the NDP. It tries to split people into interest groups. We try to deal with Canadians overall.
The Canada infrastructure program created tens of thousands of jobs across Ontario. As we approach round two the Ontario government has proposed to exclude municipalities from the project approval process. To add insult to injury, it is rumoured that the amount of money to be allocated to the greater Toronto area is disproportionately low.
Will the President of the Treasury Board guarantee that before the program goes ahead with Ontario the municipalities will be given a meaningful role?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in early February I indicated to Minister Eves of Ontario that we were ready to have an agreement on the basis of the current guidelines.
Mr. Eves then proposed an approach where the province of Ontario selected all the projects and subsequently presented the federal partner with a list. This is a very substantial change from the current guidelines where the municipalities had the responsibility to identify and select the projects.
I cannot in good conscience agree the municipalities which pay one-third of the cost of the program would have no voice in deciding where the projects are.
It is true, according to the current list developed by Ontario that has not been fully revised by federal officials in particular, that the counties of Muskoka, Haliburton and Parry Sound received disproportionately high benefits relative to population. Coincidentally and to our great surprise, this is Minister Eves' riding.
The Speaker: I am glad you two members are getting close together.