Debates of March 18th, 1994

Goods And Services Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated very clearly that there would be no new GST, so the question of extending the GST to food and medicine is pure speculation, because we are committed to replacing the GST.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the same problem as yesterday, because that was precisely the question raised in the House yesterday. We were told that there would be no new GST, but on leaving the House, he told us that he misunderstood the question.

Now the question is very clear today: we are not talking about the GST; we are talking about a new tax. The Prime Minister told us yesterday that he misunderstood the question he was asked about the GST, that he was not talking about other taxes. That is why we are asking the question again today. I think it is very clear.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to give us an answer, because there will be no new GST, there will be no old GST, we agree on that, we understand that. But are we to understand that the government's preferred option is to tax more products, including health care, medicine and food, in some other way, perhaps a hidden tax?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of our mandate

of October 25, the government promised the full participation of the House of Commons. The hon. member knows very well that some of his colleagues are now working on how we can replace the GST.

The Prime Minister said outright that this government's policy is not to have a new GST. Now, as for what the committee studying the question will produce, I think that he should talk with his friends and colleagues who are on the committee so that they can produce a unanimous report recommending a strategy to replace the GST.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have indeed spoken with my colleagues and with my leader. On this side of the House, we are very clear. We want no tax, not the old GST, not a new GST, not an XYZ tax, no hidden, half-hidden or unhidden tax. We want no tax on medicine, food and health care. The other side's position on that is not clear.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to be as open as this side of the House and to speak out. I ask her if she does not admit that the first victims of a new tax, hidden or not, on medicine, health care and food would be low-income people, especially single parent families and seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, the member knows this matter is before the committee.

The committee agreed to a motion several weeks ago to study all aspects of the tax to make sure the tax is made more fair for all Canadians. We have opened up the discussions so that all members can question all witnesses. The committee is beginning to travel to other provinces to talk to provincial ministers about how they would like to see it integrated.

We are taking our time to make sure it is the best possible tax for all Canadians.

Conflicts Of Interest

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning, we learned that the Minister of Finance has disclosed wide-ranging business holdings and this raises a number of important questions. The Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec, cannot take part in cabinet discussions relating to shipbuilding, shipping, whether by rail or by sea, the St. Lawrence Seaway and rail and bus transportation systems.

Considering that the Minister of Finance has primary responsibility for economic policy, will the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize that her colleague's diverse holdings pose a major problem in so far as cabinet operations are concerned, since he cannot become involved in a number of major economic issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, even the Bloc Quebecois should not be so presumptuous as to suggest that a person with business holdings in Quebec has no right to be a member of the federal cabinet. That would be ridiculous.

If the hon. member wants to discuss the ethical behaviour of the Minister of Finance, he should note that in 1989, the minister was the first person to disclose the full extent of his business holdings to all Canadians. I think that there is a place in Parliament for members like myself who do not have any holdings, as well as for others who do have such holdings. This makes for a sound democracy.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to understand that we are not attacking the minister's credibility, integrity or honesty.

I am simply asking her if she is prepared to concede that the Minister of Finance could be faced with a very delicate, conflict-of-interest situation since one of the companies he owns has three lawsuits pending against the federal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister has put the dealings of his companies into a trust which is not in any way influenced by any of his actions.

To follow through on the hon. member's implication, which I find extremely distasteful, the implication is that because the finance minister has had past successful business dealings he should not be sitting in the cabinet of the Government of Canada.

It seems to me if one wants a balanced approach one needs to have people in cabinet, in caucus and in government who have some strong connections with the labour movement, with the business community and with social activists. That is what democracy is all about. For heaven's sake, I think Paul Martin is an excellent addition to a cabinet team.

Members Of Parliament

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday you encouraged this House to be more civil. The Reform Party has promised to bring civility to this place. However, as early as three years ago a member opposite was referring to our leader as the David Duke of the north. Supporters of the Liberal Party were encouraged to refer to Reformers as racists or bigots. Even when we had only one

member in this House derogatory comments were made about Reformers by members opposite when they were in opposition.

My question is direct and simple. Is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to stand in this place today and promise to persuade her colleagues that the rat pack days are over?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all the statements attributed to me were never made.

The member should know the statement I made three years ago was very specific about the nature of Reform Party policies passed at its 1990 convention. I stated that those policies were racist. In fact the party decided subsequently to withdraw those policies.

Second, I may be wrong but I thought I saw the hon. member or one of the hon. members who lays claim to the label of redneck standing and bowing in the House yesterday, happy with the fact that he personally calls himself a redneck.

If the member has a problem with the term redneck I suggest he should address his difficulties to his own colleagues in his own caucus. Obviously there are a number of them who are proud to be called rednecks.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the prevailing attitude that we are addressing.

We on this side of the House are here to do a job on behalf of Canadians and contribute to the debates on the great issues of the day.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if we can end this week with a promise to all Canadians that the personal insults hurled from the government benches will stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the wish of the people of Canada that this place get down to serious business.

I read comments attributed to the hon. member's leader in the newspaper this week where he suggests he feels compelled to introduce a code of conduct on drinking and running around. That is because he had personal knowledge that people in the energy industry used this information to influence the political positions of members of Parliament. I must say I find that position rather reprehensible and abhorrent.

I hope everyone in this House realizes that the job of this Parliament and this government is to get Canada working again and not to spend time passing slurs on members of Parliament.

[The Speaker]

I might interject there is no one in this House and there is no one in Canada who would be happier than your Speaker if we could agree on if not a code at least an agreement that we would not be going back and forth with insults of any kind.

With that in mind I call on the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is quite capable of looking after its own members. In no way are we trying to impose that on members of the other side.

I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her comments. If we are to end this week on a civil note, I would ask if the Deputy Prime Minister will ask the minister of aboriginal affairs to offer an apology to the member for Athabasca.

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

Mr. Speaker, all hon. members will agree that the real business of this House is the problem of the literally thousands of Canadians who are without work and who are looking to us for some leadership.

It seems to me there has been a fairly vigorous exchange of comments in this House. I have to tell the member that over my years in Parliament I have been called many things. Frankly, I am not going to spend the time of this House worrying about what somebody said about me yesterday, the day before, last week or last month.

I would tell the hon. member that the job of the House today is to start giving some thought to the crucial issues, for example the unemployment situation across this country.

Native Communities

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

In his annual report tabled yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner sternly denounced the treatment inflicted upon native communities in Canada.

While taking a stand in favour of self-government, he warned the government that this was not a miracle cure and urged it to put an end to the segregation and paternalism fostered by the Indian Act.

What strategy, including concrete actions, does the government intend to put in place to implement the Human Rights Commissioner's recommendations and bring an end to the economic dependency created by the Indian Act, which is at the origin of the severe social problems gripping several native communities in Canada today?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right when he says that there are no miracle cure for native communities' problems. There is not only one but several native communities in Canada, just as there are several anglophone communities.

I think that the strategy adopted by the Department of Indian Affairs, which even tried to have its name changed because this paternalistic overtone did not reflect the place, the equal place native communities must have in our society, takes that into account. As the minister mentioned earlier, he is negotiating native self-government agreements to ultimately put his department out of business.

I would say that these are the two pillars of a great policy to advance the cause of equality for all natives peoples of this country.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the government should be especially diligent seeing that the Indian Act presently in effect was sponsored by the current Prime Minister back in the early 1970s.

Does the government not realize that it can give a real positive indication of its willingness to improve the status of native people by ensuring, as promised, the prompt return to the mainland of the Innu community in Davis Inlet?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is statements like that, obviously based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts, that lead people to get the wrong impression.

The member says that the Prime Minister is author of the current policy on Indian Affairs. The Indian Act was around approximately 75 years before the current Prime Minister came to the House of Commons. To suggest that somehow he is responsible for all the problems that face the aboriginal communities is absolutely false.

The Prime Minister and the Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs are working extremely hard to move toward self-government. His personal commitment, the commitment of the Prime Minister to abolish the department of Indian and northern Affairs, is a real reflection of his understanding that we do not need paternalism in government policy. What we need is equality and that is what we are moving toward.

The Economy

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

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

Yesterday the Liberal Government of Newfoundland announced that it would balance its budget next year. In a budget distinguished by the absence of any new taxes or job creation programs, Finance Minister Winston Baker stated:

We must not make commitments today that will place an unmanageable financial burden on the taxpayers of tomorrow. We can no longer mortgage our children's future for short term political gain. That was the way of the past.

The economic challenges facing Newfoundland are certainly as serious as those of the federal government. If Newfoundland can commit to a balanced budget, why can the Government of Canada not do the same?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is very appropriate. I think we should all congratulate the Newfoundland government on its fine effort.

I point out to the hon. member that the principal reason the budget is so close to being balanced, according to its finance minister, is the generous treatment under equalization by the federal government.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saying that steps need to be taken now to quit living on borrowed money. One of the signals many Canadians are telling their elected representatives they want to see is a reform of the gold plated pension plan of members of Parliament.

When will the government respond to public outrage over a plan which gives MPs a pension for life after only six years in office?

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because it is Friday; pensions seem to be a Friday question.

The fact is that the government has committed itself to reform of the pension plan. The Prime Minister has stated unequivocally during the election, after the election, in the House and outside the House that he feels the age for receiving the pension should be reviewed. That is part of an overall review which includes the issue of double dipping.

I know the member would want to reflect on the fact that several members in her caucus are currently receiving pensions from various departments of the Government of Canada at the same time as receiving their salaries.

Obviously the pension issue is a complex issue. We will be introducing some very specific changes, but to suggest that the Government of Canada is going to solve its financial problems by a review of the pension system for 295 MPs is not a fair reflection of the fact that our financial problems are much more significant. They require some structural changes to the economy which we intend to carry out.

Unemployment

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question, which is for the Deputy Prime Minister, has to do with an everyday problem, since it concerns the tragic situation of unemployment.

The Minister of Human Resources Development was strongly criticized by a number of people representing social groups, during a discussion on the reform of social programs, in Toronto. Several participants accused the government of wanting to fight our country's economic problems on the back of the poor and the unemployed who need social programs. The Prime Minister was also criticized in New Brunswick on this issue.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, as one participant put it to the Minister of Human Resources Development, "the problem is unemployment, not unemployment insurance and not social security programs", adding that "the government tries to solve economic problems through social programs"? Does the Deputy Prime Minister share that view?