Debates of Sept. 19th, 1994

Election Of The Parti Québécois

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of politics is that you lose your naïvety, and when you stop being naïve, you understand the ulterior motives of a government that, in fact, is no longer trying to hide its determination to use this overhaul of the social safety net to save money and divert resources away from the pittance the needy are receiving now. They even admitted that the basic objective was to save money so that the Minister of Finance can balance his accounts, which are a disaster.

I want to ask the Prime Minister very sincerely, based on a concern for co-operation, as he himself said, whether we should take him seriously when he tells Quebecers that he wants to co-operate with the new government on job creation, and I want to ask him whether he realizes that he should first promise to transfer to Quebec full jurisdiction over manpower training, which would save a lot of wear and tear on the neediest members of our society. Is the government's real position not that this is just one of Quebec's whims?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the way government and federalism works, the central government is allowed to take money from people who are well off, including people who work in fields where there are jobs, and use it to help those who do not have that opportunity and who need training.

In our country, unemployment levels vary, and we take money from the people who work to give it to people who do not work. This has no connection with language but is directly connected to the need to help people who are unemployed to get more training so that they can have the dignity of work. That is the purpose of this reform, and we will discuss with the provinces how it should be managed, but we must not create a situation where the federal government is completely out of the picture and the principle of redistribution of wealth is eliminated in this

country. That would have a very adverse effect on the poorer provinces and regions of this country.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, serious allegations have been made during the summer putting in question the integrity of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, better known as CSIS.

CSIS has allegedly used an informant to set up a Canadian racist group. The same informant is also alleged to have infiltrated the entourage of the Reform Party leader.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Given the seriousness of the situation, does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable for CSIS to infiltrate a democratically formed political party, collect information on the CBC and the Canadian Jewish Congress, and contribute to the foundation of a Canadian racist group?

Does the Prime Minister consider that this is right?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about what so far simply are allegations, some of which have been categorically denied by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

All of these allegations are being looked into by the Security Intelligence Review Committee which is an independent body created by this Parliament and operates at arm's length both from the government and from CSIS. I think we should wait to see its report. In the light of that report we will be prepared to take any necessary action on the basis of these allegations, if and when they are proven.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General not agree that the best way, in fact the only way, to shed all the light on CSIS's alleged actions would be to set up a royal commission with real powers so that we can find out exactly what CSIS did?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to observe that we are dealing with allegations about things that may have happened before this government took office.

The second point I want to make is that the Security Intelligence Review Committee in my view is something like a permanent royal commission with a permanent mandate to review the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Security Intelligence Review Committee is set up by order in council. It has full authority to question people, to examine documents, to do all the things a royal commission would do but focused on the activities, alleged or otherwise, of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

In my view this Parliament in creating the Security Intelligence Review Committee has in effect responded to what the hon. member is talking about. We have the equivalent of a royal commission looking into the allegations in question.

The Economy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister responded to the first question by the Leader of the Opposition which affects the national unity issue by saying things he has said 100 times before.

Given the circumstances, surely a better and more vigorous response would have been for the Prime Minister to declare his intention to make Canada as attractive as possible to all Canadians by balancing the budget, by offering tax relief, and by changing social programs to make them both affordable and more decentralized. These are the hallmarks of good government, not the half measures that are being introduced in the House.

What new and bolder steps is the Prime Minister going to take in the cause of national unity to balance the budget, cut taxes and fix our social safety net?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Reform Party on his promotion to the front row.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

I am very glad the member for Calgary West had the humility to change seats with the member for Calgary Southwest.

The member is right. The best way to keep the unity of the country is to have a good economy. That is exactly what we are working on at this time. When he looks at the results he will see that 265,000 new jobs were created since we have been in government and we have known a 6.4 per cent growth in the last quarter.

If we were to follow the Reform Party economic recipe we would immediately create a huge recession in Canada. If we were to take $40 billion out of the economy in one shot there would be twice as many unemployed as at this time. We do not want to go to the right wing doctrinaire solution or to the left wing doctrinaire solution. We will go the proper Liberal way, the balanced way.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's reply will not strengthen support for the federal system because the standards of his government are too low and his timetable is too long.

Producing a social program discussion paper is not good enough when the public wants action. Fixing our deficit target at 3 per cent of GDP is not good enough when our national debt is at 71 per cent of GDP. National unity will not be achieved unless the Prime Minister sets higher standards for his ministers and a shorter timetable.

Will the Prime Minister commit to raising his government's standards with respect to social reform and fiscal reform and accelerating his timetable for bringing in those reforms?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we were very prudent when we ran in the last election. We put everything in writing in the red book. So far it is working very well and we do not intend to change our goals.

Three per cent of GDP for the level of deficit in relation to GDP is a very ambitious goal. It is the one selected by all countries in Europe as the normal goal for European countries and none of them at the moment has achieved that.

We will achieve it. As we said and as promised, at the end of the third year of our mandate we will be at 3 per cent of GDP. It is written in the red book; it will be done.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fear that history is repeating itself. Members that have been around the House and have observed it for a long time know governments that get elected, have a mandate and do not use it to make fundamental changes in the first year, ones that squander their political mandate on half measures, never end up getting the job done.

Why does the Prime Minister not use his political capital to make major fiscal and social reforms now instead of frittering it away on political half measures?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have to consult with the provinces in order to achieve reform. The son of a former premier who, I might say in passing, accepted a seat in the Senate says that we should not consult with the provinces. What kind of country does he want Canada to be?

We will have to consult with the provinces. We will do that. There will be measures in the House and reform will be achieved, but we prefer to do it with the collaboration of the provinces. The minister has spent a lot of time with ministers so far. The document will be tabled in the first week of October.

We will have other discussions with the public through the House of Commons. Legislation will come next year and you will be satisfied.

[The Speaker]

I know it has been a long summer but you have forgotten me again.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, Jacques Courtois, appeared before the Sub-Committee on National Security. When committee members asked Mr. Courtois about the allegations relating to the infiltration of the Reform Party, he refused to answer, saying that at CSIS he had learned to never say yes or no. That is a fine example of the transparency awaiting the parliamentary sub-committee responsible for shedding light on these allegations.

My question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. Does he consider as acceptable Mr. Courtois's deliberate refusal to answer the parliamentary sub-committee's questions relating to the allegations involving CSIS?

[The Speaker]

As a general rule the questions asked in committee are the work of the committee. Perhaps, if the question could be rephrased to make it a more general question directed to the Solicitor General, it would be acceptable.

The question relates directly to the work of the committee and I would rule it out of order. I would ask the hon. member to rephrase the question.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question: Can the Solicitor General of Canada assure this House that this matter will be clarified once and for all and that the review committee will give clear and precise answers to the questions we asked during committee meetings?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House I am not in a position to comment on proceedings in a committee before the committee has reported.

However I want to say that under the law adopted by Parliament the Security Intelligence Review Committee has been set up as a body independent of CSIS, independent of the government, and I think independent of parliamentary committees. Its duties are spelled out in the act passed by Parliament.

We should not jump to conclusions about the way the Security Intelligence Review Committee is going to do its work. It has promised to have a report by the month of October. We should pass judgment on its work only after we have seen it and had a chance to assess it.

I for one want to deal fully with the findings of the report so that if there is anything demonstrated by way of problems we can take corrective action even though the matters in question arose before we took office.

[The Speaker]

Supplementary question. I would ask the hon. member to formulate his question so that it concerns the department and its activities instead of the committees.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously on the same wavelength as Jacques Courtois as he does not answer yes or no, even in this House. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister. By answering this way, does the minister not lend a little support to CSIS's way of operating and prevent the Sub-Committee on National Security from doing its job in this matter?

[The Speaker]

If the minister wants to answer the question, he can do so but he does not have to.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assist the hon. member by giving him a categorical and clear answer. Yes, I will carry out the responsibility imposed on me by the CSIS act as passed by Parliament. I have no authority however to direct the chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee about the way he and his committee do their work. I am sure they are very conscious of the responsibility they have undertaken in accepting appointments to the committee. I am sure they are capable of following the proceedings of the House.

In light of that I look forward to their report so that we can deal with whatever they conclude in a way that serves the best interest of the country.

The Economy

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his last budget the Minister of Finance announced that Canada's debt would increase by 20 per cent or $97 billion over the next three years. He has planned to do that. Such an increase is the highest in the history of Canada for any three-year period.

Now the news is that even this target will not be met and that the debt at the end of three years will be $10 billion to $16 billion above the $97 billion already planned.

What will the Minister of Finance and his government do about this frightening problem of a runaway deficit?

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

Mr. Speaker, before answering I should like to congratulate my colleague on having been named one of the two co-critics. If it takes two I am a critic on ten. In all sincerity I should like to congratulate him on his appointment.

Certainly I congratulate him on the fact that he has moved to the front benches. I must say I find it amazing, knowing this particular member, that he has moved a little closer to the centre of the political spectrum.

The answer to the question is that the assumption upon which it is based is simply not well founded. The accumulation of past deficits and the fact of compound interest, as the member knows full well, have led to the tremendous increase in debt. Indeed had the party opposite, heaven forbid, been in office we would have had this compound interest effecting this tremendous increase in the debt. I hope the member understands that.

In any event the member asked what the government was going to do. Let me simply cite the Prime Minister yesterday. We are going to hit our targets.