Debates of Jan. 24th, 1994

The Senate

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the premier of Alberta is completely convinced that we need an elected Senate, he should convince his colleagues.

If the leader of the Reform Party is convinced that we need an elected Senate in Canada, why did he vote against the change to do that which was in the Charlottetown accord?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister well knows that the objections of the Reform Party and other members to the Charlottetown accord and its provisions for Senate reform were not objections to election to the Senate but to an ineffective Senate which that provided.

In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister made a commitment to restoring integrity and public trust in the institutions of government and enhancing the credibility of Parliament.

If the Prime Minister is not prepared to trust the judgment of the public in the selection of senators by what means other than by changing the Constitution does he propose to restore public trust in that institution and to enhance its credibility?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to gain the trust of the Canadian people is very simple.

It is not to vote against a constitutional proposition to have senators elected and then, on the first occasion the leader has a chance in this House of Commons, ask to do what he voted against only 12 or 15 months ago.

National Defence

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Unlike the previous one, my question, Mr. Speaker, is not about constitutional change, but rather about the application of the present Constitution by the government.

Last Friday, a Canadian forces helicopter on a rescue mission was shot at while flying over the Kanesatake reserve. Since this incident could have had extremely serious consequences, is the Prime Minister prepared to change his attitude and to take steps to ensure that the law is respected and the firearms smuggling now going on between the United States and Canada is stopped?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I should inform the House that last Friday a national defence beacon went off in the Oka area.

A Labrador helicopter and a Hercules plane came from Trenton as part of the search and rescue operations. The helicopter, clearly marked "search and rescue" and coloured yellow, landed at Oka where it was confronted by members of the reserve who said that they had been shooting at the helicopter and to get off the territory. This was a normal search and rescue operation.

I should say that la Sûreté du Québec is wondering why a national defence beacon went off in that area when it obviously appears there is no plane missing. That is a question that is under investigation by la Sûreté du Québec.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the responsibility of the government to stop the horrible smuggling of firearms between the United States and Canada.

I will put my question to the Prime Minister once again, as he is supposed to be responsible for his government. When does he intend to act to put an end to the smuggling which has led to a number of incidents and, instead of calling an emergency debate to discuss cruise missiles, would he agree to a debate on the Kanesatake problem?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian army acted properly in this matter. There was some concern about loss of life. They flew over the area and landed as they had the right to. Therefore, there was no incident.

Some people claimed to have fired some shots, but there is no evidence that this in fact occurred. The army landed-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Look, surely no one used a slingshot. If gunshots had been fired at the helicopter, some marks would have been found, but none was. The army did not break the law, they landed as they were authorized to do.

Registered Retirement Savings Plan

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

This past weekend the minister met with several prominent economists, business people and ordinary Canadians to discuss the issue of deficit reduction. The vast majority of participants believe that the key to deficit reduction is through spending reductions rather than tax increases. Yet the government continues to float ideas about increasing tax revenues by limiting RRSP contributions.

My question for the minister is this. Will he treat the deficit problem as a spending problem and immediately set targets to reduce and limit spending or does the minister regard this as a revenue problem? Will he then tell the Canadian public what his

real plans are to increase their taxes and how much this will cost individual Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the member objects to a discussion of ideas in this pre-budget period. I find that quite surprising because I have found that these consultations have worked very well.

The bulk of the discussions have in fact been directed toward numerous approaches to reduction in the deficit, certainly cutting spending, conceivably increasing government revenues and most clearly by creating jobs. That is certainly the way we in this government look at the situation.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week and again just now the Minister of Finance refused to tell this House that there would be no increase in taxation. Canadians therefore have no choice but to believe that taxes will be increased in this upcoming budget.

Will the minister tell the House today whether he plans to raise tax revenues by changing the income tax regulations regarding RRSPs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question referring to my refusal to divulge the budget now indicates perhaps that he is new to this House. The Minister of Finance reveals the budget when he reveals the budget and not ahead of time.

Job Training

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. All of Quebec, beginning with their Premier, is scandalized by the federal government's refusal to begin negotiations on job training before reform of the income security system has been completed. In Quebec, industry, labour and government came to an agreement a long time ago and put the Quebec labour force development agency in charge of managing training, using the same model as the one found in the Liberal Party's red book.

Here is my question: would the Minister of Human Resources Development not agree that, all things considered, nothing serious is stopping them from making a deal right away with Quebec on job training?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I met with Mr. Bourbeau from the Government of Quebec before Christmas to discuss this issue.

We talked about training issues as well as more general aspects relating to reform. I am also hoping to meet with his successor, Mr. Marcil, next week to discuss this and any other subject Mr. Marcil and Mr. Johnson may want to bring up.

I will gladly report to the House the outcome of that meeting, but for the time being, no decision has been made and we are still discussing with the Government of Quebec as well as with all other governments.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Nothing has been decided. A decision must urgently be made because we have an emergency in Quebec, where 26,000 people are waiting to get training and this may be their last chance.

We have learned that for the first time in history, Quebec has won the poverty award. The Liberal Party ran on an employment platform, and when you have jobs for a slogan, you have no time to lose.

My question is as follows: does the Minister not agree that the only explanation for such an unacceptable and costly delay is this government's resolve to impose a Canadian solution rather than the one suggested by Quebec?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we share very much the concern about unemployment, so much so that the Canadian people gave us a very strong mandate last October to do something about it.

That is the reason we said in the throne speech that we will be bringing in programs that will help young people get employment. We have a major program of apprenticeship training that will be announced and brought forward to this House very shortly.

Most important, I think the hon. member would recognize as does a broad consensus of Canadians that we will never be able to effectively tackle the embedded structural problems of unemployment until we make some fundamental changes in the system.

It is not working now. It is not working effectively. To do that we cannot simply fractionalize a program. We cannot take one piece out called training and give it away in perpetuity. We must look at the broad context.

Fortunately at the first ministers meeting all the provincial governments including Quebec agreed that must be the priority for all Canadians and that is to make fundamental changes to our systems of employment training and our systems of social security so we can have a broad-based attack on the fundamental issues that concern Canadians.

Member For Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister exactly when he was made aware of the comments made by the candidate for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville and how the decision was made to withhold that information from the public.

[The Speaker]

We basically had that question asked. I will permit the Prime Minister to answer, but this is not in the administrative responsibility of the government.

We had a statement this morning. Perhaps if the hon. member could rephrase her question it would be acceptable.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to bring a different focus to the question and I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister to respond please. I will bring a supplementary on this point at this moment if you wish.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is proper to continue to ask this question. There was a statement by the member in this House. There is a rule here that when a member explains it is his fault, it is not for the Liberal Party to decide if this gentleman should or should not be a member of the caucus.

We decided that everybody can make a mistake. He has apologized. There was no charge laid against him, no foundation. I explained earlier in French that some members are sometimes subject to actions in court and they still keep their seats in the House of Commons or even in their caucus. It depends on the nature of the offences and in this case there was none.

To reply to the specific question, I read it Friday morning in the Toronto Sun . However, I do not want to run away from my responsibilities. The party organization had been made aware of that after the candidate had been nominated. Since there was no criminal action they decided this was a man who had won the confidence of the party members in his riding. He had no record and he was acceptable.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I am bringing a different focus to this particular issue.

I acknowledge the comments made this morning by the member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. It is not the member but his actions that are in question and this leads to the broader issue.

Since the electors of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville did not have all the information they needed to make their decision-

[The Speaker]

Order. Unless the hon. member has another question we will go to the next questioner.

Tax Shelters

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend in Montreal I attended a pre-budget conference that was a sham as it was clear that the participants, including former Liberal advisers and other advocates of the welfare state, had been carefuly selected by the Minister of Finance first to justify the need to slash social programs and second to attack RRSPs and the capital gains exemption on the first $100,000, which are the only measures benefiting the middle class smothered by excessive taxes.

Not a word was said by either the finance minister or any of the participants about the real tax breaks enjoyed by the wealthiest.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Has he decided that, in addition to singling out the poorest, he would completely smother the middle class by attacking RRSPs and capital gains exemptions?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, all the relevant details will be disclosed in the upcoming budget. Until then, I think it is really worth discussing what might be in this budget, because the process must be open.

The hon. member was commenting about the conference participants, who were chosen by the Institute for Research on Public Policy and not by the government. That said, I saw Pierre Paquette of the CNTU, Henri Massé of the FTQ, Nancy Neamtam of RESO, Richard Langlois of the CEQ, as well as FRAPRU representatives. If the hon. member who was in attendance does not know them, I will happy to introduce him next time.