Debates of March 15th, 1994

Job Creation

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we did it when we reduced the level of contribution for unemployment benefits. We have cut $300 million in this program which will permit small and medium sized businesses to create jobs. At the same time we said that we have to invest money in research and development. Just yesterday one of his colleagues was asking for even more money to be invested in that field.

Our approach is that we want jobs created by the private sector. In fact, there is no plan for increasing the public sector. Building roads and bridges is not wasting money. It is important and is adding to the productivity of the nation. Any nation that

has a very good infrastructure can compete better than other nations that have to move around in a horse and buggy.

Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned with dismay that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is playing with the future of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean as if he were playing poker. He will certainly come out a loser. In any case, his partner, the Minister of National Defence is clearly not in agreement with him. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said: "According to the agreement I saw with my own eyes, all operating costs, including taxes, would be paid by the province since it would have access to the installations free of charge and would have the possibility of using the Collège for educational purposes." He further said: "The property is worth $41 million, we are offering it for $1 a year".

Given this declaration of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, should we understand that the government is preparing not to give, but to lease the Collège militaire to the province and wants to keep a tight control over its installations while transferring all the costs to the government of Quebec?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, at this time, the government intends to lease the facilities and the land of the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean for the amount of $1 a year. That in itself constitutes an important contribution.

The provincial government will have the possibility of transforming the buildings in order to create a university or a post-graduate school of some kind. In such a case, evidently the provincial government will be the one using the facilities for activities of its choice and it will therefore have to pay the operating costs for the courses given there.

The federal government's contribution will be the facilities' value, the provincial government's contribution will be the operating costs for the courses that will be given there.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree that the compromise made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs serves only one purpose, to help the government get rid of parts of its commitments to bilingualism just for one dollar?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the opposition is so concerned about bilingualism. I want to congratulate them. It is about time they address this issue.

We, on this side, are concerned with the whole situation. The only problem I have to deal with is an agreement with the province about the future use of the facilities at the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.

Bilingualism and the use of French in the armed forces are commitments we fulfilled in the past and which we will continue to discharge, according to my colleague, the minister of National Defence.

Small Business

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

As we heard earlier, the government is considering a human resources tax credit to subsidize hiring. As a small businessman I can assure the Prime Minister that business people do not want more government subsidies to stimulate employment and do not want to be told how to run their businesses.

The Prime Minister has stated repeatedly that he is counting on small business to create the majority of jobs so desperately needed by 1.5 million unemployed Canadians.

Why then does he not listen to what small business people are telling him about job creation: "Get out of our pockets, get off our backs and get out of our way so we can create the real jobs in the new economy".

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would look at the budget papers he would see that we have taken a lot of initiatives to help small and medium sized businesses. We talked not only about the reduction of unemployment insurance premiums, but about helping them to get more credit from the banks, to get credit for innovations to help them in exports, and they all welcomed that.

I say to everybody that the government is here to help, not to hurt. That is exactly what this government is trying to do with small and medium sized business at this time.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister has been a politician for 25 years, I have been a businessman. While I can take lessons from him on how the MP pension plan works, perhaps he might listen to a word or two about people who have worked in the real world for 25 years.

Government programs to help small business are more likely to impede rather than to help private sector job creation. Why then is the government considering another such impediment, a subsidy that will interfere with the business decisions, ultimately raise taxes and further impede private sector job creation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member is taking that line. We have not announced anything like that. We are discussing better ways to help small and medium size businesses in Canada.

The president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said it was a good budget and that he liked our approach. Therefore, you should listen to what John Bulloch had to say about the budget.

[The Speaker]

Of course all the questions and all the answers should be directed to your Speaker.

Indian Affairs

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.

Yesterday, we learned that the Kahnawake band council had issued an eviction notice to about 143 families that had been living on that reserve for several years. Among the arguments used to justify that decision, there is the lack of space and even genetic purity.

As a trustee of aboriginal rights, does the federal government support this eviction notice, which is unacceptable and which totally contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was advised about this problem early this morning. It is causing me a lot of concern.

The information I have is that in 1973 the Kahnawake band council used section 81(1)(h) of the Indian Act which governs the use of buildings on reserves to establish bylaws regarding the residency of band members and other persons on a reserve.

My understanding is there is a case before the courts relating to this matter and it would be inappropriate to comment further. Through this legal process I hope what the hon. member is concerned about can be defined exactly. That is whether or not this contravenes the charter of rights.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that he cannot give us an opinion on such a shameful decision that was taken yesterday? And does he intend to intervene, as the minister responsible and also personally, to put an end to this disgraceful and discriminatory operation, instead of hiding behind legalistic rhetoric which in no way reflects the reality that some men and women are faced with on the Kahnawake territory, several of them being aboriginal people expelled by their peers?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the rhetoric and the volume I would be severely criticized if I commented on a case that is before the courts.

I have a certain faith in the jurisprudence of this country notwithstanding my friend's feeling and I am prepared to wait until the court has dealt with it.

Interest Rates

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

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

[The Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member will remember that we do not mention when anyone is here or is not here. Perhaps he could just put his question.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Prime Minister regardless of who is in the House.

Last week the Minister of Finance said on page 2042 of Hansard that the interest rate assumptions in the budget are interest rates which at the present time are higher than those in existence. That statement was completely false. We know for example that long term rates today are over a point above what they were predicted to be in the budget.

The Prime Minister today has professed a great interest in private sector job creation. Will he admit that these errors in arithmetic will mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs and private sector job creation funds?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has presented a budget which was well received by the Canadian people and by the financial community. There are always variations in interest rates and neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Finance are in the habit of commenting on the financial market fluctuations.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we observed a very negative response to this budget in the private sector.

For example, let us look at interest rates. Since the tabling of the budget, in the last six weeks interest rates have risen 35 basis points. The bank rate went up 9 points today. We have had a three-quarter per cent raise in six-month government bond rates and over a full percentage point in long term rates.

Will the Prime Minister admit that not only will this cost the country in terms of job creation it will also endanger the public debt charge cost to taxpayers. It is also important to note that already it is costing Canadians millions of dollars in higher mortgage payments.

[David Walker, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

The hon. member knows this was discussed with officials last week in committee. The outlines in the budget were done very conservatively. These types of considerations were taken into account to ensure that our budget would in fact be a very successful document.

Publishing Industry

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

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

Despite our repeated questions over the past week concerning Ginn Publishing the government refuses to cast any light on its reason for selling the Canadian interest in the publishing company to the American giant Paramount.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to reveal the identity of that person who by a simple, verbal agreement consented to the takeover of Ginn Publishing by American interests?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, there is no refusal to acknowledge who was responsible for that. It was a decision of the previous government. It was a legally binding decision that we were forced to finish up. It was left on our platter when we took over as the government.

There is no secret as to who is responsible. It is the previous government.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the Liberals, the so-called great defenders of the Canadian identity-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, they applaud to be called so. That is their problem. They are showing their true colours.

Could the Prime Minister not find the courage to act as he did in the case of Pearson International Airport in order to ensure that our cultural industries remain Canadian owned? Simply cancel the deal.