House of Commons Hansard #104 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.

Topics

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Sault Ste. Marie
Ontario

Liberal

Ron Irwin Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here today with the hope that this member would ask the question.

I just finished watching this member on television. We have to deal with poverty, with schools, with roads, with social assistance, with economic development, and this member's idea of equality is to send $10,000 to each Indian in this country. I just heard him on television. That is his policy which I have waited three years to hear. If we do that, then who is going to deal with the poverty? Who is going to build the hospitals? If that is his idea of equality, then the Reform Party should go out there and talk to a few Indians.

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Yorkton—Melville, SK

Mr. Speaker, this morning on television the minister of Indian affairs could not answer this simple question: Are aboriginal people equal?

Will the minister promise Canadians that none of the royal commission's recommendations will be implemented unless they can pass the test of equality?

Aboriginal Affairs
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Sault Ste. Marie
Ontario

Liberal

Ron Irwin Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, for this hon. member I will answer that question.

The idea of the Reform Party on Indians and equality is to keep them poor, keep them uneducated and keep them on the reserves. I have heard the idea of the Reform Party for three years. It thinks Indians live in paradise. The member who is grinning stood in this House and said that he knows that aboriginal men burn their wives with cigarettes. That is ignorance. I do not think anybody in this country accepts that.

When the leader of the Reform says that Canadians are not hearing the message of the Reform, they are hearing it and they do not like it. That is why Reform is sinking.

Capital Gains
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked the Minister of Finance a question. However, either my explanations were not sufficiently clear, or the minister was a bit mixed up, so I would like to try again.

There has been partial inclusion of capital gains since 1987; 75 per cent of the capital gain is taxed at the corporate tax rate; 25 per cent of this capital gain, which is income like any other income, is completely tax exempt. This 25 per cent is placed in a capital dividend account and paid to shareholders, not reinvested.

Since there is general agreement in Quebec, and in Canada, that this partial inclusion of capital gains must be eliminated, that it is costing $400 to $500 million a year that other taxpayers must pay, will the minister undertake to eliminate it?

Capital Gains
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is exactly the same one I gave earlier. It is part of the refundable tax credit. Capital gains exemptions make it possible for our companies to raise capital and benefit Canadian shareholders. This is an advantage they have over a company that must borrow money and pay interest, for example, or an American company that must raise capital in the United States, but is looking for Canadian investors.

What we want to do is encourage investment in Canada. That is part of a sound system. If we make changes here, other changes will have to be made somewhere else. The fundamental question is how we are going to help Canadian companies increase their equity. That is part of the system.

Capital Gains
Oral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, when a Quebecer or a Canadian earns a dollar, the whole dollar is taxed, all of it, at a rate that can go as high as, or higher than, 40 per cent. When a rich shareholder, a rich corporation holding shares that appreciate in value year after year, is taxed, it is taxed on only three quarters of the amount at a reduced rate, not the full 100 per cent.

How is it justified that 25 per cent of this capital gain is handed back in this ineffective and unproductive manner to the richest holders of Canadian capital, who do not reinvest in the economy, when the rest of the population must pay the full amount?

Capital Gains
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard
Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the member does not seem to understand that we have an equity problem in Canada. We are having difficulties in Canada compared to other countries. Our SMEs, our Canadian companies, are having trouble raising money to establish an equity base they can use for lending, investing and creating jobs.

There are exemptions for political reasons, for creating jobs or investing in the future. This is what we are talking about. It is part of a sound system. We can change it, but if we do, there will be repercussions elsewhere.

Furthermore, there are many incentives in Quebec, and at the summit the government decided to keep them for exactly the same reason: to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

Research And Development
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Bethel Edmonton East, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

The R and D stakeholders that I met across western Canada as part of the Prime Minister's task force on commercializing government science research made it absolutely clear that effective, public-private R and D partnerships in strategic sectors of our economy are critical to enhancing Canada's competitiveness, to bringing our products to market and to creating jobs.

How will the investment announced yesterday benefit Canadians in British Columbia, in the west and throughout the country with Ballard Power Systems, the environmental technology company in Burnaby?

Research And Development
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Portage—Interlake
Manitoba

Liberal

Jon Gerrard Secretary of State (Science

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

The government believes in developing new technologies in Canada and building the industries of the future in these new technologies. One of these new technologies is fuel cells which produce electricity in an environmentally friendly way from hydrogen and oxygen. Ballard Power Systems is a company which holds 83 world leading patents in this area, providing an advantage to Canada.

The investment yesterday of $30 million through Technology Partnerships Canada in Ballard Power Systems provides an example of how the government is working in partnership with the private sector to create jobs and industries in Canada.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have pulled a CF-18 flip-flop. In opposition they criticized the tendering process. When they are in power they have a chance to right a wrong and they refuse to do it. Like the Tories they awarded Bombardier an untendered $216 million contract. John Turner opposed it. Brian Tobin opposed it. The current foreign affairs minister opposed it. The current health minister opposed it.

How can the Minister of National Defence justify this shameful Liberal flip-flop giving Bombardier an untendered $216 million contract?

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst
New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the extension of the contract for the maintenance of the CF-18s was done in June.

However, there is one thing about which I want to make certain. As we pursue this line of questioning, which is interesting, I want to make certain that I understand the position of my friends in the Reform Party.

Very recently three contracts for Hercules were awarded to CAE of Edmonton, Alberta, totalling $108 million. It was done on the same basis. Very recently Computing Devices Canada was awarded a contract for the land forces communications system on the same basis. It is worth $90 million.

I want to know if it is a question of cherry picking, a question of principle or do they know the difference between the two.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Reform

Jim Hart Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC

The principle, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. It is value for money. It is taxpayers' money.

The only way to ensure that Canadians get value for money is to put contracts out to tender. If Bombardier is the best, it will win. Even the Tories put the contract out to tender before they rigged it.

The minister keeps talking about keeping the costs down. If the minister cares about keeping the costs down, then why did his department fail to conduct a review of the contract before handing it to Bombardier? They did not even review the contract.

Government Contracts
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst
New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, a very thorough review of the situation is required when a contract like this is extended. It was the third or fourth contract extension since the original competed contract was awarded.

The important thing is that even the hon. member in conducting a review himself or anyone who was interested, would know that Canadair is the only company in Canada at this time equipped to do this kind of work.

There are a number of directed contracts. What I want the hon. member to do is to make sure he addresses the question of the Hercules contract in Edmonton and also the contract that I referred to earlier for CAE. Is it just a question of trying to pick the divisive kind of elements which the hon. member likes to raise from time to time? Is it a question of principle or is speaking of principles in matters like this with the Reform Party like talking to an alley cat about a marriage licence?

Francophones Outside Quebec
Oral Question Period

November 21st, 1996 / 2:45 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the official languages committee, the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated that there was no assimilation of francophones outside Quebec, despite all of the statistical evidence to the contrary.

If assimilation does not exist, as the minister claims, what explanation is there for the fact that, since the adoption of the Official Languages Act in 1969, the percentage of francophones now using English in the home has risen from 15 to 24 per cent in Ottawa, from 55 to 65 per cent in Hamilton, from 17 to 30 per cent in Sudbury, and from 42 to 52 per cent in Winnipeg and St. Boniface?

Francophones Outside Quebec
Oral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

Hamilton East
Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member refuses to consider is that, at the present time, our young francophone and anglophone Canadians are the most bilingual generation in the history of Canada.

It is equally true-another fact he denied yesterday-that, according to Statistics Canada, up to 99 per cent of francophones outside Quebec who wish to study in French are able to do so, precisely because of the constitutional and official languages policies.

Yes, the statistics were based on francophones outside Quebec, despite the hon. member's false allegation that they included francophones in Quebec.