Debates of Oct. 18th, 1994

Government Finances

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing the deficit, the government is still turning a deaf ear to the various suggestions it receives from all over, including the Official Opposition. The government's only recipe is massive cuts in social programs, at the expense of the poorest people and the unemployed. To do this dirty work, the Minister of Finance is counting on his colleague in Human Resources Development.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to admit that his government is going the wrong way by attacking the poorest people and the middle class with cuts to social programs, when he should first reduce his spending, end waste and duplication and fight tax evasion?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would take the time to read the paper presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development he would see that what we are doing is taking some of the money available, not to give it to frequent claimants and so on, but we want to give them the training they need so that they will be able to have a job and have the dignity of working.

Canadians do not want the people of Canada who are unfortunately unemployed to remain on welfare or unemployment insurance. What they want is a government that will use this money to create jobs so they will have the dignity of working. That is exactly what this government will do for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, they are putting a purple colour on the Conservatives' blue book, which says that we are in the red. Does the government's inaction in the past year and its inability to attack the deficit not confirm that the federal structure is too cumbersome, paralysed, paralysing and incapable of the downsizing required to reduce the debt crisis?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have faced up to our responsibilities. We were the only political party that put in writing in a red book exactly how we would achieve our objective. The financial community thinks that it is a realistic objective; a deficit of 3 per cent of the gross national product is the level required in Europe for all countries in the European Community to qualify for the new European currency, the ecu.

Right now, I think that not one European country has been able to achieve this level, but we will get there in the third year of our mandate, as we promised in writing in our red book. If you want a copy, I can send you one; I have it here.

[The Speaker]

I am sure all hon. members will agree that we should not be using any props as we go through.

The Economy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, evidence is mounting that the cabinet is divided on the urgency and importance of reducing the deficit and the debt and this is going to cripple the government's deficit reducing efforts.

Some ministers such as the finance minister appear to recognize and demand more serious and substantive spending reductions. Other ministers such as the Deputy Prime Minister only reluctantly agree to mild spending reduction. The silence from the Prime Minister is deafening.

Will the Prime Minister show some leadership by stating right now whether he supports the Deputy Prime Minister and her free spending colleagues or whether he supports the finance minister in his deficit reduction efforts?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I support the red book.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking commitment from the Prime Minister and the government, not equivocation.

The cabinet and the Prime Minister's resolve to substantially reduce spending is still in doubt. Yesterday I directed a question to the finance minister on this subject but it was the Deputy Prime Minister who intervened. At one time they were both standing until the Deputy Prime Minister stared down the finance minister. I note also that the Canadian dollar dropped yesterday. I do not know if there was any connection.

I ask the Prime Minister, whose position on deficit reduction is the government's position: the Deputy Prime Minister's position or the finance minister's position?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is so easy to receive questions from the Reform Party that everybody wants to get up to have the privilege to reply.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

I will read from the red book. Any responsible government must have as its goal the elimination of the deficit. This is our goal.

Given the current state of the economy a realistic interim target for the Liberal government is to seek to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by the end of its third year in office and we will do it.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the money markets believe that the cabinet is divided and many Canadians do too. If the cabinet does not get its act together we are going to need another aisle in this House with the hard headed Liberals and Reformers on one side and the soft headed Liberals and the Bloc members on the other.

The other evident division in the cabinet is between those who think that tax increases are still possible and advisable and those who know that they are not.

Will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal guarantee that tax increases are not an option for deficit reduction?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of very nice members of Parliament but they want to be re-elected and they do not want to be seen with the Reform Party. That is a very good reason to keep our team together.

We are preparing the next budget at this time. It is the first time since I have been a member of Parliament, and it has been quite a few years, that there are prebudget consultations with the Canadian public. The Minister of Finance tabled documents yesterday. He is tabling more documents today and everybody will be able to have input. There will be a budget and what will be in the budget will be written after we have listened. If we are consulting it is better not to make up our minds before the end of the consultation. We do not want to laugh at people that way.

National Defence

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the extremely difficult fiscal background described by the Minister of Finance yesterday, we learn that the Canadian Army is presently taking part in an international missile firing competition in Florida.

Canadian F-18s are expected to launch missiles that cost up to $400,000 each. We are also told that over 60 members of the Canadian Forces-pilots, technicians, controllers-are taking part in this competition called Operation William Tell.

In the present context where the government is about to cut billions of dollars at the expense of the poorest of the poor and the middle class, does the Minister of National Defence not agree that he should immediately put a stop to this shameful waste?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member displays his ignorance about the role of the armed forces. That was obviously seen in the manifesto of the Bloc Quebecois in the last election when it called for a 25 per cent cut in defence expenditures and then objected to cuts when they occurred.

With respect to the William Tell exercise this is a normal exercise by the Canadian air force and it involves the firing of live missiles which cannot be done in Canada and can be done under the auspices of a bilateral training agreement we have with the United States. This is nothing abnormal, it is done quite frequently.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us put the question to the Prime Minister; he seems to have a lot to say on this matter. How can the Prime Minister of Canada tolerate such squandering at a time when our country is literally on the brink of bankruptcy, according to his Minister of Finance? Should he not be acting to stop the squandering allowed by his defence minister, with his tacit consent?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have commitments to other countries. And Canada stands to gain from European forces coming to train in Canada on a regular basis as part of these military exchange programs between allies. There is, as a matter of fact, some controversy about this in Labrador.

So, we have more foreign military training in Canada than Canadians training abroad. This cannot be a purely unilateral affair. We must co-operate with the other forces, and that is precisely what the Minister of National Defense is doing. In the case in point, he is co-operating with the Americans, but when the Belgians, the Germans or other forces come and train in Canada, in one province or the other, we all like to see them spending money in Canada. It helps the Canadian economy.

Taxation

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister presented a policy paper that in many respects, to be fair, is supportable. One of the minister's points was that increased productivity was key to economic growth. Yet just the day before the Deputy Prime Minister released a report calling for billions of dollars of new gasoline green taxes.

Would the Prime Minister state the position of the government in promoting productivity? Does the government advocate raising taxes or lowering taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I never released any such report.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that every time Canadians go to fill up their gas tanks with $25 worth of gas, it costs $12.50 in federal and provincial taxes. Yet through her rather uncharacteristic silence she has implied that even higher gasoline and carbon taxes are possible; she has implied that.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. So that it is very clear to Canadians, will the Minister of the Environment demonstrate her commitment to improving the productivity, as was stated in the paper yesterday, of Canadian business by rejecting any kind of proposed tax grab in the carbon industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just told the whole House that I never released any such report.

If the member wants to be true to the people of Canada, why does he not tell the truth and admit in the House that the Minister of the Environment in no way released any such report. Stop setting up strawmen so you can try to burn them down.

[The Speaker]

I ask my colleagues to please direct their remarks to the Chair.

Hibernia Project

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance announced in his economic statement that the government intends to end subsidies for megaprojects. While the government slashes social programs, it will sink over $250 million into the Hibernia project this year alone.

If the Prime Minister wants to be taken seriously, are we to understand that his government has now committed itself to not sinking the additional hundreds of millions of dollars required by the Hibernia project?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, several million dollars have already been spent on this project, which will be completed within two or three years. Ending the project now would make us lose all the money already invested. If we had to do it all over again, perhaps we should not have gone ahead. However, stopping now would be an enormous loss. We must complete this project because, when it starta producing oil and natural gas in three or four years, we will be able to recover if not all at least a large part of the money invested so far. We would be very ill-advised to stop now, as these investments will start paying off in two or three years.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a short memory. He should remember that his party supported the Hibernia project when they were in opposition.

How can the Prime Minister refuse to make a commitment not to invest any more public funds in this very risky venture, when there is no evidence that this project will ever be profitable?