Jean Chrétien

[Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what my minister is trying to do now is to reach an agreement with the provinces. They asked for time to study in more detail the best ways to help people go back to work and that is our priority. We want people to return to work and have the dignity of doing a job and the satisfaction of supporting their family. That is why the Department of Human Resources Development is negotiating and discussing with the provinces now, because like them, we have programs and we prefer to find a solution that will suit the provinces and the federal government.

We want people to be able to retrain and to prepare themselves so that they can earn their living honourably.

[Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, April 26th, 1994]

Since it is most unusual to have people who completely lost their livelihood, in co-operation with the provincial Government of Newfoundland, we have tried to set up a program that could help these people find something else to do with their lives.

Since we know that half the fishermen will not be able to go back to fishing, they need to adjust to the labour market; that is why we prepared such a comprehensive plan and we want those who cannot return to work in the fisheries to be able to work elsewhere and they will be trained in educational institutions in the provinces concerned.

[International Trade, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since 80 per cent of our trade is with the U.S., it is not surprising that we encounter a few problems from time to time.

As for milk and the products controlled by marketing boards, we think our position is well protected by GATT.

Regarding the situation of Western farmers, our fight is not over yet-

They have 90 days. I talked to the President of the United States on Friday before he made his announcement to tell him that we were not happy with that and that the problem had to be revisited. He told me that over the period of 90 days there would be some time to discuss with the administration. I hope we will come to a reasonable level of export to the United States.

We are doing our best, but the problems in relation to the size of our trade with the United States are not very numerous at this time.

[International Trade, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when the GATT agreement was signed, we said that the move towards tariffs was inevitable, but that very high tariffs would be protected by GATT, and our position has not changed.

We do not want it to be attacked, and our legal advisers tell us that there is no danger. The GATT rules will apply in the coming years, even if the Americans do not like it.

[Theme Park, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just said that I do not have to talk to anybody. They will look at all the projects.

When the minister responsible cut my program by half I did not even protest. Maybe I should have. When the private sector provides $12 million to a project, is it willing to lose $12 million? I do not think so.

I think they have looked into it. The site was the first hydroelectric project in North America. It was the first aluminium project in America. Rather than celebrating in our country only wars of the past, it is good to celebrate some of the firsts in North America. If it happens to be in Shawinigan I think I have no choice but to support it.

[Theme Park, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a project that has been in the mill for many years. A lot of people have worked on it. The request at the beginning was bigger and it was reduced.

When the private sector put up $12 million and the provincial government $4 million, the federal government put up $4 million. Even if it had been an infrastructure program, according to the criteria it would have been one-third. This is only 20 per cent.

It was approved by the provincial government and it was in the mill. When I was in the opposition I asked some questions about it. Eventually when I became the Prime Minister the contribution was cut in half. I will not talk too much because the people in Shawinigan wil be mad at me.

[Trade, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is an accusation that has no grounds. If we had selected Edmonton it probably would have been unfair to Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal. However there was a problem with Edmonton in that air connections were not the best. It was negative. We had to decide the month before; we had to select. We had to decide if we were to cut Edmonton or Calgary.

It was decided that it was unfortunately better, probably because you never said thank you, not to cut in Edmonton and cut more in Calgary. It was not pleasant. Why did you not complain at that time and say that we should have cut in Edmonton-

[Trade, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if I recall, the report was not translated until the Monday but a copy in English had been available before. There was a minimum of five cities that qualified. Every one of the cities had some advantages or disadvantages and the minister recommended the city of Montreal.

We cannot go everywhere. I do not know why people make such a fuss about it. One factor that was not in the criteria but always impressed me a lot was that of the five cities Montreal was the one with the highest unemployment level. That was not one of the criteria. There were five cities that were basically equal. Eventually we had to decide. The minister made that recommendation and we accepted it.

We could have decided in November to name one city. We gave the opportunity to a lot of cities to make application but we could select only one. Montreal was selected based on the criteria of cities that were equal. For me, anyway, the fact that Montreal had the highest level of unemployment was an important factor.

[Government Expenditures, April 25th, 1994]

It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy the opposition. When I decide to do something it blames me because I am moving too fast.

In this case I respect the good judgment of members of Parliament who have been elected and who work hard in their committee duties. They know that we cannot look at everything at the same time. But when we look at something the opposition wants to look at something else.

I will let my members decide. I know they have good judgment and I know that they are not afraid to look at all the expenditures of the government. They are like me, if they can give some good direction to the government about cuts they will be happy with that. At the same time they know they have to respect the rules of the committee. If the members opposite are never satisfied it will be very difficult to satisfy them. They have to be there and give the list that they have prepared, apparently, but which they never made public.

[Government Expenditures, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the committees have work to do and they do the best they can. They have received a mandate from this House and, if the Opposition members want to submit a list of the programs they would like this government to cut, they can do so here, in this House. We will gladly accept it. However, with the Opposition, it is always the same old story when we ask them to identify the programs they would like us to cut. When we proceed to make cuts, they say we are targeting the wrong program. But they never let us know where they want the cuts to be made. When they themselves know, perhaps then they will tell us. Why all the fuss? Send me a letter! Deliver it to me here, in the House. What could be simpler!