Debates of Oct. 17th, 1994

Economic Policy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, top heads got the chance to answer the question.

The finance minister also knows that given the current economic situation, any suspicion at all of federal tax increases will further damage private sector expansion and job creation.

Will the finance minister show some leadership today by giving an unequivocal guarantee right now that tax increases are not the option for solving the deficit problem?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the absolute hypocrisy of the Reform Party that on the one hand tells Canadians that it wants to take $15 billion out of the pockets of senior citizens as well as health care, education and other programs and on the other hand wants to tie the hands of the Minister of Finance in advance of a budget that is going to have a number of difficult choices.

The Minister of Finance and this side of the House want a full public discussion on all aspects of a federal budget and we want the debate to begin.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last Friday, in Toronto, during the Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, he proposed a national sales tax of 12 per cent on goods and services, to replace the GST that his party had promised to abolish. That proposal was rejected by Ontario, Quebec, B.C. and Alberta.

Given the opposition of several provinces to such a national sales tax of 12 per cent, does the Minister of Finance not recognize that his proposal is doomed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that our discussions on Friday in Toronto were quite fruitful. Several provinces supported our proposal. I could add that two other proposals are

on the table, one from Ontario and one from Manitoba. Quebec has been very constructive.

Indeed, far from rejecting our proposal offhand, Quebec said there were some problems, but that something could perhaps be worked out based on our proposal. Everything went very well. It might be that the headquarters in Quebec City are more constructive than the branch plant here.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the Minister of Finance that the position taken by the Government of Quebec is the same as the position of the Bloc Quebecois in the Finance Committee report.

Could the Minister of Finance tell us what other scenario he intends to propose to the provinces in order to fulfil his commitment to abolish the GST before January 1996?

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

Mr. Speaker, our commitment during the campaign, which was stated in the red book and that the hon. member should read again, is very clear. We said that the GST would have to be replaced with a taxation system which would be fairer for consumers, harmonized with the provinces and set up in the shortest possible timeframe. However it is far more important to do it well than to do it before a set deadline.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's lilac book today committed the government to the previously announced and easily achievable deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP in two years. However he did not provide a time frame for the total elimination of the deficit by saying simply: "Our ultimate goal is the elimination of the budget deficit".

This is not enough. The world financial community is anxious. Will the minister commit the government to a definite time frame for the complete elimination of the deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if lilac is the right colour; perhaps the opposition critic is looking at it through rose coloured glasses. That actually came from the Deputy Prime Minister, not bad.

The position I took in committee this morning is entirely consistent and in fact finds its birthplace within the red book. In the red book we said unequivocally that we were going to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 and that our ultimate goal was to balance the books, to eliminate the deficit. That is the position we took in the red book. That is the position I took this morning in the purple book.

Our goal is to set milestones so that Canadians can judge what the government is doing. We are not going to set targets out there. We are going to hit our 3 per cent target. Canadians better understand that and the Leader of the Opposition better understand that as well.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have heard these vague promises about some time in the future they will balance the budget, just rely on them, for too long.

Financial experts agree the deficit cannot be eliminated without reform and cuts to the social program. The lilac book does not make that point and the financial community is anxious, especially if Deputy Prime Minister is answering the question.

Will the minister stop tiptoeing through the lilacs and promise major cuts in social program spending?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because the previous government kept setting targets too far down the way of no great significance and then kept missing them that we as a government decided that we would set up very clear milestones-that is what Canadians asked us to do in the consultations last year-within a relatively short time period so that we would keep everybody's focus on that and then we would hit our targets.

It is very important for the credibility of government that we do not set out a multitude of targets but that the government focuses on one issue and that it does what it says, and that is what we are going to do.

National Defence

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The Liberal government was quick to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract and has maintained on numerous occasions that it would wait for the next white book to announce its intention to buy on-board helicopters for the navy fleet. On August 12, the minister even said that no decision would be taken regarding the purchase of any equipment for the Canadian Forces as long as the defence policy review was still under way.

How can the minister explain his about-turn and the fact that he has announced his intention to buy on-board helicopters when the defence policy review is still under way?

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

Mr. Speaker, when we rolled out the new tactical helicopter on Friday at Mirabel there was a press conference where obviously my comments were somewhat misconstrued. We have not changed our position.

We cancelled the HE-101 not because of the fact that it was not a good helicopter but that it was too expensive and too rich for our needs. We now have a defence review under way and the government is absolutely adamant that there will be no decision taken. Cabinet will not be seized of the issue until the defence review takes place. The hon. member is a member of that defence committee. No decision will take place until we know the priorities the defence review will set down.

In dealing with our helicopter needs, we have a search and rescue capability and an airborne ship capability that have to be fulfilled. We are looking to the guidance of the parliamentary committee and consultations that I am having before we go to cabinet with a specific recommendation.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just as with the finance minister, journalists must have misinterpreted what the minister said.

Knowing that the cancellation of the EH-101 deal heavily penalized Quebec, can the defence minister promise right now that Quebec will benefit from the same level of spin-offs as with the previous contract?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions that we will have to replace the Sea Kings and the Labradors, which have a lifecycle up to the year 2000, but we would like to look at what kind of replacements will be required as soon as the defence review is out of the way.

As with all major government procurement, we try to have the industrial benefits accrue to all regions of the country. I am sure this will apply in any future defence contracts that are let.

Social Program Reform

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development when we could expect to see legislation. Now we read that the minister has reassured Atlantic premiers that proposed changes to unemployment insurance would not be implemented for five to seven years.

Why did the minister not clearly tell Canadians that with his no action plan changes would take five to seven years?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member is still reasonably new to the House, but he should understand that the timetable we have set would be for legislation in the spring of 1995 or perhaps in the fall, depending on how consultations with the provinces go. We would have new legislation in 1995.

That would mean, therefore, that any new implementation of the unemployment insurance system would take until January 1, 1996 to take effect. If there was a frequency test, as proposed in the green paper, it would take three years for that test to work its way through the system. That is what I was referring to.

I understand it may not be understood by the hon. member because he has not been through how government works before, and thank goodness he never will.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should have put his proposals in a yellow book. If he is talking about targets, everybody knows that if he does not have anything to aim at he is not going to miss.

Canadians have been waiting for six months for this no action plan and now everybody knows what it is full of: limited options, no price tags, no time lines, and no hope.

Are there any other major surprises coming on social program reform, or should Canadians just throw the discussion paper away and keep an eye on the newspapers to hear about his plans?

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member was very busy this weekend trying to protect some remnant of sanity in his own party against the members of his convention. If he had been spending time in his own constituency and out talking to Canadians, as I have been doing for the last 10 days, he would realize there is widespread interest in every part of the country in terms of having a major debate, discussion and dialogue.

Canadians are being heard. They are being listened to. They want to put their own signatures to the program. It constantly amazes me why the Reform Party is so authoritarian and anti-democratic that it does not want to have a public discussion on social policy.

National Forum On Health

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

The National Forum on Health will open on Thursday in Ottawa. The federal government and the provinces are still deadlocked as, according to a spokesperson for the Minister of Health, not one of the provinces has accepted her invitation to participate in the Forum under the terms set by the government, that is to say only in an advisory capacity.

Does the Minister of Health not recognize that, without the provinces, which where invited by Ottawa only out of courtesy, her National Forum on Health will be nothing more than a masquerade to justify interfering further in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the health forum on Thursday is to advise and help the federal government to examine long-term issues regarding the health of all Canadians. This being said, I have always worked very well with my provincial counterparts and I intend to continue to do so.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the minister and I hope to get a clear answer this time. Does the Minister of Health not realize that, if the provinces refuse to participate in her forum, it is because they will not be able to participate fully and because they have uncovered the true intentions of the federal government, namely to cut provincial transfer payments for health care?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have been working very closely with my colleagues at the provincial level, so much so that a large number of the many knowledgeable Canadians who are members of the forum have had their names put forward by the ministers of health from the provinces.

I look forward to working with the forum members but I will continue to work with the decision making body, the conference of federal-provincial ministers of health.

Social Program Reform

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Older workers in my riding who were formerly employed by Koehring-Waterous Timberjack are now in desperate need of support under the program for older workers adjustment.

Since the closing of their plant in the fall of 1992, most of these older workers have been unable to find alternate employment and many face losing their homes in order to make ends meet.

Could the minister comment on why we are experiencing these frustrating delays on the approval of this federal-provincial program and tell us what he could do to mitigate the problems?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the program for older workers is a joint program, federal and provincial. It depends on joint administration and decisions on designations.

Last March I wrote a letter to all the provinces indicating a willingness to sign a new agreement. Unfortunately the province of Ontario came back with a counter offer for a new benefit arrangement. Therefore it has yet to sign the new program for older workers adjustment. We cannot go ahead with designations until the Government of Ontario approves.

I understand it is soon to go to its cabinet and as soon as it approves the new agreement on older workers we can go ahead with designations. I urge the hon. member and others to put whatever kindly persuasion on the Ontario government they can to go ahead with these designations.

The Constitution

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister was quoted as saying: "A Prime Minister of Canada has a Constitution he must respect and there is no mechanism in the Constitution permitting the separation of any part of Canadian territory".

We know that separatism would require substantial constitutional amendment. Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs commit to the House, on behalf of the government, that it is the position of the Government of Canada that any change to the constitutional status of a province would have to be done legally and would require, under the amending formula, the consent of all provinces?