Debates of April 25th, 1994

Social Program Reform

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

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

After referring to the unemployed as beer drinkers, the leader of the government also announced in Toronto that he would proceed with his reform of social programs, in spite of opposition and reticence from the provinces, which he qualified as turf wars, although, except in the case of unemployment insurance, these programs are a provincial responsibility.

In spite of his reputation as a constitutional bulldozer, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that by forcing his reform of social programs on the provinces he is acting irresponsibly, since this strategy will merely lead to sterile confrontations and unnecessary duplication?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said that, like all governments, this government has a mandate to work on creating jobs, not to indulge in squabbles, constitutional or otherwise, that would adversely affect the economic climate in this country. In fact, in recent months we proved that we were able to conclude agreements with provincial governments. We signed an infrastructure agreement with the Government of Quebec, which is working very well, and also with the

other provincial governments; we managed to deal with the Sainte-Marguerite River project; and we have concluded similar arrangements.

Obviously, we cannot deal with all the problems, especially the more difficult ones, and especially when the Opposition is looking for a bone to pick and keeps trying to talk about the Constitution and jurisdictional matters instead of focussing on job creation. We were elected to create jobs, and that is why we are going to introduce reforms in our own jurisdiction that will create more jobs. We hope the provinces will be willing to do likewise, so that both levels of government will benefit and, above all, so that workers will get what they want: jobs that will provide them with an honest living.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree that his government has already started "bulldozing" the provinces in the area of social programs, first through the training component of the federal adjustment plan for fishermen, and second, through its youth strategy, in both cases increasing the overlap he denies exists.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Regarding our strategy for the fishermen, the Government of Newfoundland, where 85 per cent of the target population comes from, has praised the reform which was developed in consultation with it and other governments.

As for youth job creation, that is a priority for this government. The federal government has always had such programs. It had them under the Conservative government when the Leader of the Opposition was a member and a minister on the government side. My point is that, today, the hon. member is hardly in a position to blame us for doing what he did himself, and we make no apologies for doing everything we can to create jobs, especially for young people.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister following the callous approach he took in Quebec prior to the forced patriation of 1981, when he refuses to have an open and public discussion of these reforms of social programs with his provincial counterparts, as requested by Mr. Bob Rae of Ontario?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has had several meetings with his colleagues and was supposed to have another one last Monday. The provincial governments said they were not ready, and the minister postponed the meeting. That is exactly how we want to proceed. At the request of several provinces, the minister cancelled the meeting he was prepared to call at that time. We can hardly do more than talk to the provinces and, if they want us to postpone the talks, we say yes. Eventually, governments will have to agree, because the unemployed cannot wait while we squabble over constitutional matters. They want jobs, and we will do everything to satisfy them in that respect.

Government Expenditures

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 13 last, in response to a question from my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote: "- I am sure that all committee chairs will be very pleased to consider all recommendations for spending cuts and that will make the hon. members very happy. I asked our party to do so, because we want our members to be involved. There is no problem, then".

Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. What explanation can the Prime Minister give for the fact that Liberal members have so far disregarded his undertaking and have systematically refused to carry out a comprehensive review of government expenditures, as the Prime Minister had promised?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the committees have work to do and they do the best they can. They have received a mandate from this House and, if the Opposition members want to submit a list of the programs they would like this government to cut, they can do so here, in this House. We will gladly accept it. However, with the Opposition, it is always the same old story when we ask them to identify the programs they would like us to cut. When we proceed to make cuts, they say we are targeting the wrong program. But they never let us know where they want the cuts to be made. When they themselves know, perhaps then they will tell us. Why all the fuss? Send me a letter! Deliver it to me here, in the House. What could be simpler!

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to write a letter to the Prime Minister. I will send him as many letters as he wants, if that is what it takes. However, I was under the impression that he had made a commitment in this House that the committees would, on his orders, proceed to review government spending as requested. Is the Prime Minister leading his members? Does he have any leadership? Can he give us some assurance that his own members will do what he said? After all, he was the one who gave us his word.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to satisfy the opposition. When I decide to do something it blames me because I am moving too fast.

In this case I respect the good judgment of members of Parliament who have been elected and who work hard in their committee duties. They know that we cannot look at everything at the same time. But when we look at something the opposition wants to look at something else.

I will let my members decide. I know they have good judgment and I know that they are not afraid to look at all the expenditures of the government. They are like me, if they can give some good direction to the government about cuts they will be happy with that. At the same time they know they have to respect the rules of the committee. If the members opposite are never satisfied it will be very difficult to satisfy them. They have to be there and give the list that they have prepared, apparently, but which they never made public.

Pearson International Airport

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

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

This government was elected on a promise of jobs and infrastructure. Pearson airport is arguably the single most important piece of infrastructure in Canada and a huge creator of jobs.

All five regional chairpersons in the metro area agree that future growth and jobs are at risk. The review on Pearson by Mr. Robert Nixon recommended the same thing, that immediate construction begin.

Can the minister explain why he continues to ignore local leaders and the Nixon report by delaying action on this important project?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend that I am not disregarding the advice from important political leaders in the greater metropolitan Toronto area.

I have met with the chairman of metro Toronto, Alan Tonks, with the mayor of Toronto and with the minister of transport for Ontario. We are carefully considering the future of Pearson airport because, as my hon. friend says, it is an important economic development tool for all of Canada, not just southeastern Ontario.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must realize that Pearson expansion is not a local issue. In an earlier question he indicated it was being held up by some Toronto MPs.

It is an issue of national importance. National development and jobs across Canada are at stake. Perhaps the real question here is why has the minister abrogated his national responsibilities regarding Pearson? Why has he passed the matter off to a select group of Toronto members who will clearly have local rather than national interests at heart?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect I do not consider it the role of the minister to abrogate the responsibilities of members of Parliament from any region of the country to determine how they wish to analyse a matter of great interest to them.

I do want to assure my hon. friend that we are looking at the situation at Pearson very closely. We are working very hard at trying to resolve it, but we are respecting our national obligations in making sure that the solution proposed for Pearson International Airport is consistent with what we will be setting in place to operate other airports across the country in the national airport system.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this project benefits all of Canada for economic and safety reasons. Pearson has been studied to death. When will this government take action on Pearson's job creating potential? Thousands are waiting.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question, as the hon. member puts it. Pearson International Airport is a very important airport for Toronto, for Ontario and for all of Canada.

As I have indicated many times both in this place and outside the House, we will be moving expeditiously to do the right thing at Pearson in consultation with a wide spectrum of interested parties. We will make that decision known very soon.

Hibernia Project

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we learned last week that the Hibernia project will run $1 billion over budget. This megaproject, the profitability of which is unsure, has become a real money pit into which Ottawa blindly continues to pump Canadian taxpayers' money by the millions.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How can the government continue to pump more and more public money into this project without knowing how large the cost overrun will be and how far this huge farce will go?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. friend for his question.

Let me say as was stated last week in the House that estimates of cost overruns are at a preliminary stage at this point. The owners, including the government, have requested a report which will outline the exact nature of expected cost overruns.

At that point the owners will be doing everything in their power to ensure that whatever cost effective measures can be taken will be taken.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer. It was a skating exercise, and I must say the minister skates very poorly. Unlike Patrick Roy, she must be suffering from a very acute case of appendicitis.

How can her government justify wasting the hundreds of millions of dollars she just referred to-but she does not know exactly how much yet-when this government is about to make cuts across the board in our social programs?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that with a project of this size cost overruns are to be expected.

We are doing that which any responsible owner would do in conjunction with other owners to get a handle on the exact amount of cost overruns. Once we know that we will take whatever steps we can to ensure cost efficiency.

Let me assure the House that the responsibility of the Government of Canada as equity owner-we own 8.5 per cent of the project-for cost overruns will be limited to that 8.5 per cent.

Trade

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns remarks made in the House by the Minister of the Environment on January 24.

At that time she said with regard to the selection of a site for the environmental secretariat of NAFTA:

The selection will be made based on the environmental performance of those cities.

She also said:

The selection would be made with no politics involved.

On Friday the same minister told the House that the reality was that politics was about making difficult decisions in the best interest of the country.

Since the independent consultant's report was submitted on one day and the decision to award the secretariat to Montreal was made the very next day, what actual criteria came into play? Was it environmental? Was it political? Or, was it federal pork barrelling?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if I recall, the report was not translated until the Monday but a copy in English had been available before. There was a minimum of five cities that qualified. Every one of the cities had some advantages or disadvantages and the minister recommended the city of Montreal.

We cannot go everywhere. I do not know why people make such a fuss about it. One factor that was not in the criteria but always impressed me a lot was that of the five cities Montreal was the one with the highest unemployment level. That was not one of the criteria. There were five cities that were basically equal. Eventually we had to decide. The minister made that recommendation and we accepted it.

We could have decided in November to name one city. We gave the opportunity to a lot of cities to make application but we could select only one. Montreal was selected based on the criteria of cities that were equal. For me, anyway, the fact that Montreal had the highest level of unemployment was an important factor.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason many people are making such a fuss over this is that many Canadians feel they were led down the garden path in the selection criteria for this environmental secretariat. Had the decision been made to award it either to Montreal or Toronto and that had been done up front, it would not have been a problem.

In any event, the Deputy Prime Minister also told the House on January 24: "Montrealers like all Canadians want a process free of politics which is precisely what the federal government is providing".

This is why my question is so important. When will the government stop insulting Quebecers by offering such transparent bribes when what Montrealers, like all Canadians, really want and expect from the government is a government free of political expediency and a government that would put principle ahead of politics?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is an accusation that has no grounds. If we had selected Edmonton it probably would have been unfair to Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg and Montreal. However there was a problem with Edmonton in that air connections were not the best. It was negative. We had to decide the month before; we had to select. We had to decide if we were to cut Edmonton or Calgary.

It was decided that it was unfortunately better, probably because you never said thank you, not to cut in Edmonton and cut more in Calgary. It was not pleasant. Why did you not complain at that time and say that we should have cut in Edmonton-

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would remind all hon. members to address the Chair.