Debates of March 10th, 1994

Old Age Security

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of ambiguous statement that will revive the fears haunting the elderly today in Canada and Quebec.

Now that we have a government that attacks the universality of old age pensions, I think we should ask the Prime Minister whether we are to conclude he deliberately hid his true intentions during the election campaign.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly be no clearer than I was on the first question. It is quite possible that all three questions were prepared ahead of time, so he read them! I said we did not intend to cut old age pensions. Stop trying to scare people! I cannot be any clearer than that!

In a way, I rather enjoy seeing the Bloc Quebecois defending the Canadian status quo every day in this House. We want to introduce reforms, but they do not want us to change anything in Canada. They want us to keep Canada the way it is. We want to introduce reforms for the benefit of all Canadians, including those in Quebec.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

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

The policy of the government is becoming increasingly clear. After launching an assault on the unemployed, the government is now setting its sights on seniors. By reducing the tax credit for seniors, the government is actually increasing their tax burden by $500 million over three years. The Minister of Human Resources Development has also announced a review of social programs for seniors.

Instead of targeting the pensions of senior citizens, why does the Prime Minister not have the courage to eliminate tax shelters?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member and the leader before him, if they want to look at the intentions of the government I would suggest the first page they should turn to is page 56 of the budget wherein we commit to substantial augmentation and addition to old age security programs over the next four or five years. If they want the answer it is in the book.

We are trying to say that over the next couple of decades we will have a full doubling of Canadians who are eligible for various kinds of security. We want to ensure the next generation has the same security as this generation. To do that we have to find a way to ensure that we pay for it.

This means that much of the investment now generated out of pension plans and RRSPs must be used more effectively to generate jobs and growth in Canada today so young people can go to work and can pay for the pensions of tomorrow. That is what we are trying to do.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the Conservatives were assailed by the Liberals for wanting to eliminate the indexation of old age pensions. What has happened to the convictions of the Liberals in 1994? Now they are directly attacking the very existence of old age pensions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only person in the House who attacked the existing benefits for seniors is the Leader of the Opposition when he was a member of the previous government. He is the only person in the House to do so.

We are trying to make sure the system is strengthened and maintained for the future. We are not talking about cutting the budgets now. We are not talking about affecting universality. The budget makes that very clear.

We are talking about an open consultation with all kinds of Canadians so that we can have a full discussion about the future security of Canadians, how we use the pension funds to invest in Canada, how we make sure there is a proper CPP, and that we have a proper system of payment.

This generation of Canadians has to look at how we begin to ensure the future of Canadians is as good as the one that we provide for seniors today.

National Defence

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It is also on the social implications of the budget.

The minister has announced plans to reduce the size of Canadian forces in his department by 16,000 people. Many of us in the House regard this downsizing as a test of the capability of the government to help workers shift from employment in one sector to productive employment elsewhere.

Specifically what steps are the minister's department and the department of human resources development taking to help these 16,000 Canadians find and fill productive jobs elsewhere?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Industry, can talk about the defence conversion program; he has responsibility for that.

We are trying something very new and bold in dealing with our public servants and the military, in trying to give them a combination of moneys-we call it an enhanced buyout provision-so they can take early retirement. In some cases money is applied for retraining and other allowances that will help them make the necessary conversion the hon. member is so concerned about.

With respect to the conversion on a mass scale, that is something we are committed to as a government under the defence conversion program. I will be working along with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, to ensure this is done as we gradually downsize the armed forces.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister we are not talking here about 16,000 tanks or trucks but about 16,000 people with families.

My question is for the minister. Would he be prepared to submit to the House a registry containing the names of these 16,000 people so that Parliament can monitor how many are forced on to UI or welfare or on to dead end jobs and how many in fact make their way to jobs in the new economy the Minister of Industry is talking about?

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party has certainly an odd version of democracy where we make the private lives of individual Canadians known on the floor of the House of Commons. We do not do this with the tax system. We do not do this with health benefits, and we are not going to do it with the people concerning defence. I cannot believe the Reform Party is preaching this Orwellian view, something that we totally reject.

We respect the privacy of individuals. We are very concerned with those people who are losing their jobs. I think the statements I made following the budget underlie that.

If the hon. member looks at the severance packages that have been announced, that are now being negotiated base by base and throughout the department, I think he will see we are treating people in a most generous fashion.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister then acknowledge that what happens to these 16,000 people being laid off by his department is a fair test of the government's ability to help the unemployed in general?

In other words, if the government cannot guide 16,000 people laid off by the minister's department into a new economy, who in heaven's name would believe that it could help 1.6 million unemployed people to that destination?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not read the budget documents or listened to the speeches I have been giving.

There will be generous severance packages. We probably will have to legislate one part of it over and above the workforce adjustment provisions of the collective agreements that are now in place.

From the discussions we have had with the unions, obviously they are not happy with the numbers of people who are going to be phased out over four years. They recognize that the end is not going to come tomorrow and that this is going to be a regulated process through which everybody is going to be dealt with fairly.

I find it rather ironic the hon. member woke up two weeks after the budget to talk about the plight of these 16,500 people who will be phased out, yet for the last couple of years he has been talking about much more Draconian cuts in the public service.

Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustration experienced by the hon. member who never has any questions to ask. He would like to ask his government a few questions.

Yesterday, on the subject of the eventual closing of the military college in Saint-Jean, the Minister of National Defense said:

It is one that I opposed, the Prime Minister opposed and many people opposed. We would have liked to have done it another way rather than close this college. However, from the point of view of financial sense, it seemed to us that the best business case was to concentrate the college in Kingston.

Can the Minister of Defence assure us today that the decision to close the military college in Saint-Jean was made "only" to save money and not for political reasons?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is certainly yes.

I should explain that in looking at our proposed reductions if we had been able to cut other facilities that were surplus we would have done it. It made sense to rationalize the colleges, all the arguments that have been given here by myself and my colleagues. Naturally no one likes to phase out the jobs of 16,500 people; no one likes to have such a difficult effect on various communities. It was a tough decision that we had to wrestle with. However, in the final analysis, I put forward the list and that was in the budget. It is something that we will defend. The closing of the two colleges is regrettable, Royal Roads and CMR, but it is a decision that is final.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister also said: "-when I appear before the standing committee dealing with the estimates. I will have all the information available at that time".

People do not understand the minister's decision. In Saint-Jean, they are preparing for a big demonstration to protest the minister's decision. Why is the minister stubbornly refusing to disclose the figures at this time? Could he be fiddling with them to justify his decision?

[The Speaker]

I know that when we ask questions, we sometimes get carried away. I am sure that the hon. member could replace "fiddle" with another word.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

I will put my question more politely. Is the minister manipulating, arranging, or organizing-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

You mean "explain." The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be guided by your judgment, but the hon. member has imputed some very bad things that I am alleged to have done. In normal cases I would demand an apology, but I understand the hon. member is new to the House and perhaps we can overlook this.

All the figures will be available next Tuesday. In fact we have given figures on all of the base closings to all members that are concerned. It does not matter what party. We have been completely open. As he knows, I have organized briefings with my department, with the Reform Party and with the Bloc Quebecois. We have been totally open. We have nothing to hide.

A much more detailed discussion really is something that should be done at the committee. He can have all day. I will spend all day and all night just to satisfy the hon. member.

Employment

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

According to the minister's own numbers, government will have to spend $92,000 to create one job through its infrastructure program. On the other hand, cutting UI premiums will create private sector jobs at a cost of $50,000 per job.

My question to the minister is this: If cutting taxes creates almost twice as many jobs as spending tax dollars then why is

this government still planning to launch such an inefficient infrastructure program when it can simply cut taxes?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program was launched at the request of the municipalities across this country because they recognized that to create jobs in this country and to get people back to work we needed to keep up the infrastructure in our communities so that we could attract investment to increase our competitiveness in this increasing global economy.

The purpose behind the program was partly that and partly to get Canadians back to work. That program is being fulfilled and it is being fulfilled in partnership with municipal and provincial governments all in agreement right across this country.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Yesterday the Deputy Minister of Finance admitted that Canada's corporate and individual tax rates are the second highest in the industrialized world. Surely the minister understands that there is a direct link between high taxes and high levels of unemployment.

Does the minister have a long term plan to create jobs by seeing Canada's taxation levels reduced?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Finance spoke well at the meeting yesterday. In fact, there is no doubt about the tremendous burden of taxation which Canadians are forced to bear at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. It is certainly a major inhibition to job creation.

It is exactly for that reason that in the last budget for every $1 in revenue that is raised this government imposed $5 in expenditure cuts.

It is also for that reason that the Minister of Human Resources Development was able to announce through the budget that we were reducing unemployment insurance premiums which are in fact a tax on jobs. We have begun to attack this cancer on job creation in this country.

Publishing Industry

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Yesterday, the Minister of Industry told us that the government had given its interest in Ginn Publishing to a foreign company as part of a verbal commitment. We still do not know who concluded this verbal agreement.

Does the heritage minister know the identity of the person who gave this agreement? If he cannot reveal the name of this person to us in this House, can he at least assure us that he really knows that person's identity?