Debates of Dec. 13th, 1995

Social Programs Financing

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, there is considerable confusion afoot, but if anyone knows what is at stake here, the Prime Minister does.

In fact, it makes all the difference in the world to have tax points that leave a government free to proceed as it wishes and will increase in value with total tax revenues, as opposed to having financial contributions which the federal government reduces at will and controls by imposing national standards. It makes all the difference in the world.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not agree that what we have here is an entirely odious strategy that consists in making the Quebec government pay an increasingly larger share if the cost of social programs, and meanwhile Ottawa collects more and more taxes from Quebec.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when we formed this government two years and some months ago, the federal government's transfers for social programs and equalization payments totalled more than $11 billion. Today, it is even more and next year it will still be more than $11 billion.

There have been no cuts. Some payments may be down, but equalization payments for the poorest provinces in Canada inevitably increased during this period. In fact, there were no cuts in transfers to the Government of Quebec or to other provinces that

receive equalization payments according to the balancing system that exists in this country.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's referendum commitments to decentralize the federal apparatus, the Minister of Finance yesterday rejected out of hand the request of the government of Quebec that it transfer the tax resources the federal government invests in health, social assistance and post-secondary education.

Since he is reneging on his referendum commitments on decentralization, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his government's hard-line approach to Quebec is a return to the tried and tested recipe to slow his decline in popularity with English Canada, which is to put Quebec in its place?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the recipe is a very old one. Transfer payments used to be simply cash payments. We subsequently gave a number of tax points. It is very important we continue to make visible transfers like these so that the people in all the provinces will see that the federal government helps pay for the social programs the provincial governments manage.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister of Finance's attitude toward the legitimate request by the Government of Quebec, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his referendum commitments to decentralize were nothing more than window dressing and the only decentralization he foresees involves sending the bills to the provinces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly that we have withdrawn from job training. As for the bills, I have to say, and I already made it quite clear earlier, that the amount of transfers the federal government makes to the provincial governments receiving equalization payments has not decreased in the past three years. Some of the cash transfers for programs were cut, but equalization payments were increased. In the case of Quebec, the amount was over $11 billion when we formed the government. It remains unchanged today and, as far as I know, it will remain unchanged next year.

Quebec Referendum

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was unable or unwilling to answer a simple question. The question was: How does the Prime Minister propose to use the federal power of peace, order and good government to ensure a fair and clear question in the next Quebec referendum.

Now the Prime Minister has had another 24 hours to reflect. The Deputy Prime Minister has whispered in his ear. He has had a chance to consult his legal advisers and the answer is probably on the front page of his briefing notes.

In the interest of national unity, will the Prime Minister now give an answer? How does the Prime Minister propose to use the federal power of peace, order and good government to ensure a fair and clear question in the next Quebec referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to read my notes. The leader of the third party should just read yesterday's Hansard .

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a clear answer appears to be beyond the capacity of the Prime Minister.

After the last referendum Canadians demanded change and some new ideas for national unity. Reformers responded to that call by putting forward proposals for changes in the federation and terms and conditions for dealing with separation.

The Prime Minister, on the other hand, has borrowed from Brian Mulroney's distinct society clause, gone back to a 1971 veto proposal and gone back to an 1867 clause in order to deal with the referendum.

Where are the new ideas, the imagination and leadership needed to keep this country together? How will distinct society, constitutional vetoes and vague references to peace, order and good government ever convince Quebecers to vote for Canada in the next referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec have voted twice to stay in Canada. We should remember that. The leader of the Reform Party seems to be very disappointed that they have chosen Canada but that is not my case. When the Leader of the Opposition tried to teach us some lessons he should know the ridiculous move he made.

I guess the party was too long yesterday. The leader of the third party does not know that 52 members of Parliament is nothing compared to 177 on this side of the House.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is doing on the national unity front makes Brian Mulroney look good, and you have to go a long way to make Brian Mulroney look good.

The Prime Minister has cobbled together a national unity package without consulting the nation, without consulting the premiers, without consulting his own caucus and without even

submitting it to parliamentary debate. He even uses closure, the most undemocratic tool of all to push parts of a national unity package through the national Parliament.

Why would anyone follow the Prime Minister's lead in the national unity area when there is no consultation, no mandate, no rationality, no democratic legitimacy behind his proposals?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

First, Mr. Speaker, we had three discussions in caucus about this matter before I went public with it. Second, I do not know if the people will follow the leader of the third party. Last week he was asking us to give a veto to the province of British Columbia and-

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

The people of B.C., not the government.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Why do you not understand about people versus government?

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

Yes, and after that he voted against his own proposition last night.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[An hon. member]

He could not even convince his own caucus to follow him.

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

I understand that his two neighbours to his left had the good sense not to look ridiculous like their leader and voted with us on the motion.

Radio Canada International

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

When questioned in the House yesterday, the heritage minister suggested that the future of Radio Canada International would be determined by the Juneau report, which will be submitted to the government on January 15. However, 20 minutes later, the director of Radio Canada International told his 125 employees that RCI would shut down in March.

Can the heritage minister clearly state that, when he was eluding our questions yesterday in the House, he did not know that, 20 minutes later, the director of Radio Canada International would announce that his service was going to shut down?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that I know what goes on at the CBC. What I said yesterday, and my answer is the same today, was that Radio Canada International is the international component of the CBC. It is part of the CBC's overall mandate.

Therefore, the future of Radio Canada International will be decided when we review the CBC's mandate, along with the recommendations made by a special committee.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister knows what goes on at the CBC, why did he tell us yesterday that the CBC's mandate would not be changed before the Juneau report is submitted, considering that 20 minutes later it was announced, without waiting for the Juneau report, that Radio Canada International would shut down?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that no decision will be made on the CBC's mandate before the Juneau report. That is clear. Similarly, we will not know the future of the CBC's budget before the next federal budget. That is precisely what I said yesterday.

Canada Pension Plan

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is trying to sell the provincial finance ministers on its freedom 67 plan, raising the age of retirement from 65 to 67.

The finance minister says that freedom 67 should be his choice. It should not be his last choice. It should not be his first choice. In fact, it should not be his choice at all. Will the minister commit right now to abandoning his freedom 67 package?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question relates to the Canada pension plan. There is a study being done by the provinces and by the federal government on the Canada pension plan which has not yet been completed. There has been no decision on that. Sixty-seven is not the issue.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank the hon. member for his very clear response on that question.

The Reform Party plan to renew the Canada pension plan will allow people to choose when they wish to retire. The Liberal freedom 67 plan will break the government's contract with seniors by cutting their pensions. Six months ago, the Liberals locked in their gold plated MP pensions and now they are poised to hammer seniors by cutting pensions, raising the age of retirement and increasing CPP taxes.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can this government justify attacking seniors' pensions when her government just locked in its own gold plated MP pension plan?