Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

The Deficit

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Clyde Wells and Frank McKenna would be delighted to be cited by the hon. member. I now look forward to the finance ministers' meeting next week.

The measures that we have taken are going to allow us to protect Canada's social fabric. If one looks at the budget that was brought in by the Reform Party, there is no doubt about how quickly it would get the deficit eliminated.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

The members of the Reform Party applaud, but let us look at what they are applauding. They are applauding the evisceration of the health care system. They are applauding the evisceration of old age pensions. They are applauding the evisceration of the program to help small business into exports.

What the Reform Party members are applauding are the basic programs that are going to enable this country to go into the next century far healthier than any other country in the G-7.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people who came to the finance committee complained about the terrible consequences of the $4 billion cuts that took place last year.

What the minister does not want to admit is that because he cut so little all those cuts were for naught. All $4 billion was eaten up by increased interest costs. That is the issue.

Furthermore, the finance minister's logic needs some help. The first premise he presented yesterday: deficit reduction leads to lower interest rates, more jobs, economic growth and tax cuts. Premise two, which is implicit in the free-

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No, Mr. Speaker, let him go. That was a good question.

[The Speaker]

I would ask hon. members, both those putting questions and those giving answers, if they could condense them. I would invite the member to please put his question.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but as a lead off questioner I thought I would get just a tiny bit more.

[An hon. member]

Even the same as the Bloc would be helpful.

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

Mr. Speaker, if lower interest rates create jobs and lower deficits create jobs, why does the minister not follow his own logic and go all the way and eliminate the deficit?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Right on.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that lower deficits lead to lower interest rates and to more jobs, but it is simply a function of balance. If we go too far, we are going to cause a great deal more long term damage.

I thought it was expressed really quite well yesterday. The leader of the Reform Party, the member will remember, made an analogy to a fiscal drunk running down the highway. That is probably not a bad analogy to the differences between our two parties. What we

are going to do is sober that drunk up. What the Reform Party does is run him over.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I should tell members we are going to shorten the questions and I am going to help you.

Quebec Culture

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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

Yesterday, the Prime Minister explained that there was no Quebec culture, but rather an English-Canadian and a French-Canadian culture. Last week, however, the Prime Minister tabled in this House a motion saying that one of the characteristics of Quebec's distinct society is its unique culture.

How can the Prime Minister reconcile the comments he made yesterday with his distinct society motion, when there is an obvious contradiction?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I never said yesterday that there was no Quebec culture. I said that Quebec culture is not necessarily limited to French, and that French culture also exists outside Quebec.

We believe so strongly in a Quebec culture that not only do we talk about it but we also tabled in the House a motion recognizing it. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata is voting against our distinct society proposal stating that Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of its French language, unique culture and civil code. This is a motion I tabled in this House to recognize Quebec culture, and Bloc members are voting against it.

I also explained that French culture is celebrated in all of Canada, and I named a number of prominent Canadians of whom francophones in both Quebec and Canada can be proud. I talked about Antonine Maillet, Gabrielle Roy, Roch Voisine, Henri Bergeron, and many others who speak French and have a French culture, even though not all of them are from Quebec. That is what the hon. member does not understand.

If she wants to recognize Quebec's unique culture, all she has to do is to support the motion that will be voted on next Monday in this House.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, it sounds like there is a Quebec culture on some days but not on others. I would like to know if Quebec culture exists on odd- or even-numbered days. We are stumbling about in the dark.

Does the obvious contradiction between the Prime Minister's comments and his motion not confirm that his motion is in fact a meaningless, empty shell that will not fool Quebecers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian House of Commons is voting in favour of a motion clearly stating that Quebec is a distinct society by virtue of its French language, culture and civil code. It is the best way of putting it. And yet Bloc members are set to vote against it-because they will rise one by one in this House to vote and be recorded as saying that they do not want to support recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. They should be ashamed of themselves.

The Economy

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Finance does not understand. The whole point of this exercise of eliminating the deficit and the debt is to lead the way toward social programs that we can sustain over the long run and also give people tax relief. That may be hard to understand if you do not pay taxes in this country, but that is what we are aiming for.

Why does the minister insist on prolonging the suffering of Canadians and denying them hope? Why does he do that with this narrow, inch at a time deficit elimination policy? Why does he refuse to completely eliminate the deficit and reduce taxes? Why does he not do his job?

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

Mr. Speaker, because I have seen the alternative.

I would ask the members of the Reform Party to take a look at the consequences of their own budget. It is impossible for the Reformers to say that what they want to do is protect old age pensions by reducing the deficit, when their means of getting there are to virtually eliminate the basic foundation for old pensions.

It is impossible for the Reform Party to say that it wants to protect health care when it would erase the transfers that go to protect health care. It is impossible for the Reform Party to say that it wants to reduce taxes when it would pursue an industrial policy that would make it impossible for the country to create jobs.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolute rubbish. The fact is interest payments on the debt are undercutting social programs, which is exactly why the government is cutting unemployment insurance and making all kinds of other adjustments.

If the Liberals had dealt with this in the first year of their mandate we would not be in the hole we are in today. The finance minister has got to start accepting some responsibility. He blew it right from the beginning.

When can Canadians expect to get some tax relief? The minister is saying, trust me. It will be sometime in the next millennium, over the hill and beyond the horizon. When exactly are we going to get some tax relief in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the most important kind of relief that this country should look to is a reduction in interest rates.

The member knows that if we were to proceed to a tax decrease right now that the net result would have an immediate impact on the budget. It would not lead to lower interest rates and might well lead to higher interest rates. In fact that is what is happening. That is what all the commentary is about now in those countries in Europe that are contemplating a tax decrease.

We are dealing in a very measured and deliberate way with a huge debt and a huge deficit which this government inherited. It inherited it from a previous government, the government that most of those people, the crypto-Tories over there, probably voted for 10 years ago.

Canadian Heritage Committee

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. For the past two weeks, the Liberal members of the heritage committee have objected to the fact that two federal cultural agencies, namely the Canada Council and Telefilm Canada, subsidize artists or productions with a bias towards the sovereignist cause.

Since the Prime Minister skirted the issue yesterday, I am putting the question to him again today. Does he endorse the position taken by government members sitting on the heritage committee, who maintain that granting agencies should now fund artists according to their political opinions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our policy on the subject is clear. The Canada Council is an independent agency that grants subsidies based on its own set of criteria. The fact of the matter is that the Quebec artistic community has always greatly benefited from the Canada Council, and everyone in the Quebec arts community is very pleased with the objectivity displayed by the Canada Council.

Members may not always be happy with the way a subsidy is granted or used. Freedom of expression is a privilege enjoyed by every Canadian.

It is like when the Canada Council buys paintings for the National Gallery; some like it, others do not. But they are at liberty to do so, and I think that nowhere in the world is the arts community afforded as much independence as in Canada.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that there is cause for concern when the head of the government seeks not only to control the information provided by a government agency but also to provide political guidance on the content of cultural productions subsidized by the Canada Council and by Telefilm Canada?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the hon. member can say something like that, because the law has not changed. The Canada Council is the same as it has always been, and our members are doing a very professional job.

I maintain that members are free to complain when they are unhappy about something, and they have indeed aired their complaints on many issues. That is what freedom of speech is all about. Members who have objections to raise should raise them. That is what they were elected to do. On the other hand, while it has to take their objections into account, the Canada Council is free to act as it sees fit.

I will not ask the members not to express discontent. Government members and opposition members alike are entitled to their opinions.