Debates of Sept. 29th, 1994

1992 Referendum

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he has found no indication of a commitment on the part of the previous government to pay Quebec for its expenses in the Charlottetown referendum and it is on that basis that the Prime Minister refuses to pay Quebec. However, in the case of Ginn Publishing, where there had been a verbal commitment, the Prime Minister did not hesitate one moment to honour that commitment, quite the contrary.

It is obvious that verbal commitments do not all have the same weight in Ottawa. The federal government prefers to honour a shameful, anonymous and unacceptable commitment rather than an honourable agreement between the Prime Minister and the Premier.

Quebecers are fed up with paying for such an expensive government system. They have had their fill of the federal excuses. You wanted proof, you have it. Now pay up.

Reform Party Of Canada

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt stated that the Reform Party brass, not the grassroots, decide what policies would be debated at our assembly.

This is absolute nonsense. The membership of the Reform Party controls every step of the policy making process. Not only does its members decide what will be on the agenda; their votes at assembly actually establish party policy.

I am very pleased at the member's conversion to the principles of democracy. After all, the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt was hand picked, or should I say anointed, by her party leader in the last election. Despite numerous protests from the riding association the Liberal Party elites refused to allow other candidates to contest the nomination.

Liberals from Saskatoon-Humboldt were denied the most basic democratic right: to choose their own candidate. The Reform Party not only allows the grassroots to participate-

Irving Whale

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Laurentides quite belatedly took up the issue of the Irving Whale wreck. I think it is now time to recall what this government and other members of Parliament have done to solve this 24-year old problem.

On the second and third of March, the Gagnon-Easter Committee held public meetings in Prince Edward Island and in the Magdalen Islands. On March 18, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Transport announced that the Government of Canada had decided to refloat that boat that has been lying in deep water for almost 8,600 days.

It took only 135 days for this government to remedy the situation. It should be stressed that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of the Environment, had refused to intervene even if he was aware of the dangers of that time bomb and despite the recommendations of the study report on the security of tankers that he had commissioned.

Our public hearings and the environmental evaluation have confirmed that the refloating option was the best solution and the safest for the environment as well as for the local population.

The Irving Whale wreck will be refloated next summer, as the government has promised to do. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, on this issue, we have faced up to our responsibilities.

Gun Control

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, gun control is part of an important package of crime prevention measures the government is serious about embarking upon.

This week I met with members of the Burlington Rifle Club, an organization located in my riding with members from several area ridings. The club's safety director, several of its members and I had a terrific discussion about ways we could improve safety in our communities and measures gun owners and gun vendors could take to help the government help our communities become safer for women, for children and for men.

The package of justice bills currently before the House, the new National Crime Prevention Council, the work of several of our ministers and more effective gun control will improve and protect the quality of life for all Canadians.

Let us all work together toward these objectives.

Justice

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with great anticipation I attended the CAVEAT convention in Hamilton, Ontario. I believed, in listening to various groups and individuals attending, I could get some new ideas and new procedures that would help address the problems in our justice system.

I heard many good suggestions, but I also heard that getting support for these good suggestions would be difficult because there are no funds to improve justice, victims' rights, restitution and safety for the citizens.

I mention this because no sooner did I hear the government had no funds for justice than I was told the government had $12 million to build a commercial building in Edmonton that would house doctors, lawyers, private associations, a bank and a restaurant, all private enterprises that could fund their own working environment.

It seems the government can spend $12 million to support associations, professions and private enterprise but has no funds to give to justice and give justice to Canadians.

We now know what is important to the government, and one thing is for sure: it is not justice.

Bill C-41

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will eventually embark on an analysis of Bill C-41. Among other things the legislation proposes changes to section 745 of the Criminal Code.

I rise in the House today to encourage members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to give serious consideration to the elimination of section 745 of the Criminal Code. Clearly the time has come to revisit the appropriateness of a legal loophole that allows first degree murderers to apply for a reduction in their parole after serving only 15 years of a so-called life sentence without parole for 25 years.

Many of my constituents, community groups, organizations, people right across this great country have said enough is enough. The status quo is unacceptable.

The choice is clear. Section 745 of the Criminal Code must be eliminated.

Registered Retirement Savings Plans

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister has been refusing for the past few days to rule out the possibility of taxing RRSPs in his next budget. Several analysts have come out against this retroactive tax penalizing middle-income taxpayers. Claude Picher, from La Presse, states that it would be very unwise of Ottawa to keep dipping into the taxpayers' pockets. He adds that it would be all the more objectionable since the first ones to be hit would be unorganized private sector employees.

Does the Minister of Finance not realize that, by hiding behind his pre-budget consultations to avoid undertaking not to tax RRSPs, he is the only one to blame for causing fear and worry amongst taxpayers in Quebec and Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I told the hon. member, who ask the same question for the third time yesterday, he is the one causing worry. I can only repeat it again, in response to the question he has already asked four times this week.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

All the Minister of Finance has to do, Mr. Speaker, to dispel worry is to say that he will not do it.

Does he not recognize that, by taxing RRSPs, he is changing the rules of the game in mid-game and taking actions which make his government seem to be cheating by completely changing the investment rules in planning-

[The Speaker]

Order! Perhaps the hon. member could be so good as to choose another word.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance recognize that, by taxing RRSPs, he is changing the rules of the game in mid-game and that taking actions associated with an irresponsible government, by disrupting the financial planning of seniors who depend on the income from their RRSPs to ensure a comfortable retirement for themselves?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member who is irresponsible when he tries to disrupt the pre-budget consultation process and in fact prevent it from taking place. I hope that he will raise these issues at the finance committee when it deals with this matter.

Social Reform

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, while the government and the Bloc are squabbling about who is going to pay $47 million for the referendum I point out that the national debt is growing by $47 million every nine hours. That is putting things in perspective.

The premier of Quebec says he will not play ball with the government's social review. We all know that the separatists have no interest in making a positive contribution to Canada. They just want out.

Will the Prime Minister commit to implementing social reform in spite of obstructive tactics of the separatists.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada intends to proceed constructively. I am sure that the members of the Bloc Quebecois when they see the basis for the social policy reforms will be working with the government to try to make positive changes for Canada.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development misrepresented the Reform position on spending reductions.

It is the government's own deficit target, your own deficit target, that calls for up to $15 billion in total spending cuts.

Will the finance minister acknowledge that reaching his deficit target of about $25 billion from a current deficit of about $40 billion that the government will have to cut up to $15 billion and is the minister going to cut spending or increase taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that government is going to have to cut its spending. We look forward to the consultations with the finance committee in order to determine exactly where Canadians stand.

We are also looking forward to hearing from the Reform Party, which has talked so much about cutting spending, and seeing if they can come up with any constructive suggestions as to where.

[An hon. member]

It is in the blue book, not the red book.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

On raising taxes or cutting spending?

The Minister of Human Resources Development has indicated that the major focus of his action plan will be child poverty. Can the Minister of Finance explain how the government can help anyone out of poverty when it is mortgaging our future by running up the deficit to the tune of $1,500 for every man, for every woman and for every child in the country?

Your deficit spending is adding to their poverty, not solving it.

[The Speaker]

I know it is a small oversight but please address the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, the nature of the problems facing the country is in no doubt because of the very large financial deficit. This country is heavily indebted and we have to come to grips with it. We did so in stage one, which was the last budget. We intend to do so very clearly in stage two, which is going to be the next budget.

The member opposite raises the question of child poverty. It is quite ironic that question is coming from a member of the Reform Party, which is prepared to acknowledge, as we do the very severe financial deficit in the country, but it has never once acknowledged the very severe human deficit which we in this side of the House intend to address.

Registered Retirement Savings Plans

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview shown on the "Téléjournal" on October 1, 1993, the Prime Minister promised not to raise taxes during the first two years of a Liberal government. The Minister of Finance, for his part, said yesterday that no option or suggestion should be ruled out in the pre-budget consultation process, including that of taxing RRSPs.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the Minister of Finance leave the door open to taxing RRSPs, when the Prime Minister, his Prime Minister, promised during the election campaign not to raise taxes in the first two years of Liberal rule?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister said is that the tax burden of Canadians must not be increased. Besides, we stated very clearly in the red book that ultimately-that is one of the reasons we must reduce the deficit-any government has a responsibility to lower the level of taxation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should read again the newspaper article in which the Prime Minister clearly said that taxes would not be raised in the first two years of a Liberal government. Not the tax burden but taxes themselves.

Does the Minister of Finance not think that he would be acting more responsibly if, instead of penalizing taxpayers by taxing RRSPs, he made a commitment right now in this House to reduce the Liberal government's huge operating expenditures and to make his friends, the friends of the wealthiest Canadians, pay by eliminating the tax loopholes they enjoy?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the last budget, he would have seen that we eliminated many tax loopholes, like the $100,000 capital gains exemption. We certainly eliminated corporate tax loopholes. Had he read the budget, he would have seen that we took very significant measures in the last budget and we intend to do the same thing in the next budget.

I hope that the hon. member-and I urge him to do so-will offer us constructive suggestions during sittings of the finance committee.

Rights Of Members

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you will know that one of the most ancient and most basic rights of Parliament is the right of free speech. Furthermore we practise this extensively to the point of tolerating 54 members of Parliament who use it for the primary purpose of breaking up the country.

According to press reports it is now the policy of the government that this right cannot be exercised when it involves government members whose moral and religious views may conflict with government policy.

Can the government categorically deny these reports and assure the House that government members, and all members, have the right to object to government policy on moral and religious bases in the House and outside of the House, whether those views are the same as those of the Minister of Justice or not?