Debates of Dec. 7th, 1995

Malvern Remedial Project

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week in my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River we are completing the last of the work on the Malvern Remedial Project.

This is an initiative to restore a residential area where soil had been contaminated by low level radioactive material dumped during the second world war. Although the problem was discovered in 1980, it has taken 15 years for all levels of government and the community to achieve their goal of removing the contaminants and restoring this neighbourhood of family homes.

We want to recognize and thank the Minister of Natural Resources and the leadership of her officials, the province of Ontario for sharing the cost and purchasing the real estate required, AECL for its expertise, the city of Scarborough, the local advisory committee chaired by Mr. John Brickenden, elected representatives at the municipal, regional and provincial assemblies and, last but not least, the Ontario and Canadian taxpayers who underwrote the costs.

The Malvern/McLure neighbourhood says thank you for this successful initiative. We hope the Malvern Remedial Project can be a successful example of community and government working together to correct environmental mistakes of the past.

Ministers Of Finance

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it may come as a surprise to our beloved finance minister to learn that last Friday in my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt there were no less than four individuals passing themselves off as the Minister of Finance of Canada.

The culprits are students from the University of Saskatchewan participating in an annual term project, the brainchild of Professor Marv Painter of the college of commerce, whereby undergraduate commerce and MBA students produce a federal budget.

This year 138 students made up the four teams which presented their government initiatives regarding economic and social policy, taxation, government spending, deficits and debt.

In support of their budget proposals, each group determined the source of revenues, allocation of expenditures and future estimates of GDP growth, interest rates, inflation and so on.

As one of a group of 50 invited to hear the budget speeches, I was very impressed with the effort put into this project and the vigour with which the students attacked this thorny fiscal challenge.

My congratulations to Professor Marv Painter and finance ministers Michelle Cocks, Roger Miller, Curtis McKenzie and Judy Karwacki, and the other students on a job well done.

Quebec Culture

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebecers from all political affiliations were stunned to hear the Prime Minister, a Quebecer himself, say that there is no such thing as a Quebec culture. Rather, there is a French and an English culture which he calls the Canadian culture.

The Prime Minister's simplistic vision, which denies the very basis of his motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, shows that his roots in the Quebec society and culture do not run very deep. Given the comments made by her leader, it is surprising to see that the current labour minister, a former cultural affairs minister in the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, has nothing to say on the matter.

Her silence must be a heavy burden on her conscience since, as the proverb says: "Silence is a form of consent".

Quebec

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem agreeing that Quebec and Quebecers are or constitute a distinct society. My problem is with entrenching it in the Constitution. That for me and for many Canadians creates a problem. Why should Parliament resurrect an idea that Canadians voted down in the Meech and Charlottetown accords?

I believe in the equality of all Canadians, that each province, each region and the aboriginal peoples are all distinctive in their own way. But the question of what it means to be distinct has no concrete answer at this time.

Some say it does not mean anything but simply recognizes an historical fact. Some say it means the courts when they are looking at Quebec's laws will interpret them in light of the distinctiveness of Quebec. Therefore it is an interpretative part of the Constitution.

This would be something no other province would have. If we believe in equality, then we do not believe in special powers.

Please, let us not go through this again. Let us get on with rebuilding Confederation with new ideas. Let us look at what the Reform Party has to propose for the future of our country.

Maritime Union

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, recently we have had some strange echoes from the past in regard to maritime union. Let us hear what the past of maritime union has been.

In his thesis on maritime union, John M. Wilkinson posed the question:

Was there ever in any one, or all three, of the maritime provinces any general or popular movement in favour of their union, as distinct from those inaugurated by official classes, such as politicians or those actuated by profit?

The answer is that, unless the situation has changed, popular support for maritime union has been virtually non-existent. Even the legislators who in the 1860s agreed to a conference to consider such a union did it without enthusiasm and certainly not in response to the express wishes of their constituents.

Because of its lack of interest in maritime union, Prince Edward Island has been called the reluctant province. History indicates, however, that it has been different only in degree. It has been somewhat more reluctant than reluctant Nova Scotia and reluctant New Brunswick.

Let me assure the House this situation has not changed. A recent poll on Prince Edward Island put opposition to maritime union at 70 per cent-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton.

Seymour Schulich

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week a North York investor, Mr. Seymour Schulich, donated $15 million to York University's school of business. His gift will pay for a series of undergraduate and graduate scholarships and up to five endowed chairs to study specific areas of business.

He said he believes every affluent Canadian has an obligation to give something back to the country.

He also suggested the federal government encourage more private donations by providing the same kind of tax breaks offered to American philanthropists, who get tax breaks four times larger than Canadians.

I take this opportunity to commend Mr. Schulich for his generosity and to suggest the government consider his advice very carefully.

Hospitals, schools, libraries and other public institutions can use all the donations they can get.

National Unity

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in every province, Canadians are wondering what they can do to help keep Canada united.

All residents of Brome-Missisquoi, the Carons in Frelighsburg, the Gaudets, the Barabés in Farnham, the Bergerons and the Landrevilles in Magog want to see proposals for change on the table very shortly.

The demand for change is strong in Quebec. And in this connection, Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury who, last Sunday, organized a forum for Canadian unity in Fredericton. This kind of forum which brings together people from all political parties is a way to promote discussion on the changes that are necessary.

I urge all members of this House, whatever their political affiliation, all those who believe in the Canada of the future, to work hard to keep Canada together. As for our differences regarding the administration of this country, we will have plenty of time to express them during the next election campaign. Canada counts.

Old Age Security

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after doing a hatchet job on the unemployment insurance system and offloading most of the government's spending cuts on the provinces by reducing their transfer payments, the Minister of Finance is now zeroing on his third target: old age security pensions.

Yesterday the minister announced that he would soon be meeting with his provincial counterparts to consider the future of OAS in Canada. These discussions were to be preceded by the tabling of a federal policy paper. The tabling of this document, originally scheduled for 1994, was later postponed until this fall. However, nothing has been tabled so far, and federal cutbacks are to take effect in 1997.

The minister should at least have the courage to be open about his policies and table without delay a document which senior citizens have been waiting for all this time.

Interparliamentary Union

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday my nomination for a place on the executive of the Interparliamentary Union, commonly known as the junketeer travel club, was denied even though it was acknowledged by the Chair as being in order.

At the same meeting prior to the election procedure and in order to deny my nomination, the constitution of the IPU was changed to allow executive positions only for those who "undertake to promote the aims and objectives of the said interparliamentary organization". This will be a difficult task given that the IPU has no aims or objectives.

The IPU is funded by the House and yet it has muzzled free speech, ignored its own constitution and trashed democracy.

My rights as a parliamentarian have been compromised. The reputation of the House has been sullied and I request that all parliamentarians condemn the actions of the IPU and direct the procedure and House affairs committee to investigate this abuse of process.

Even the communists played with more finesse than the IPU.

Pierre Bourgault

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled the other day to read in Le journal de Montréal how Pierre Bourgault, a staunch separatist and confidant of Mr. Parizeau, branded a group of Canadians as racists.

It seems after a Canadian victory on October 30 the separatist had to blame somebody. Therefore Mr. Bourgault stated: "The Jews, Italians and Greeks are racists". Mr. Bourgault further states: "We are not asking them to be sovereignists, we are asking them to be Quebecers". They are proud Quebecers and they are also proud Canadians.

The separatists have now been completely unmasked and their hidden agenda is secret no longer.

He further made reference to the member for Bourassa. When the Bloc member and all other immigrants, myself included, arrived on these friendly shores, who welcomed us? It was Canada. Who gave us citizenship? It was Canada. It was Canada that gave us the opportunity to share in the Canadian dream.

The vote on October 30 was not an ethnic vote. It was a Canadian vote, a vote for unity, a vote for home, a vote for Canada.

Edmunston Diocese

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Sunday, December 10, will mark the end of a

series of events to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Diocese of Edmunston.

During the past year, a group of volunteers in the diocese, under the able leadership of Jean Pilot, organized a variety of activities for the young and not so young. Thanks to these activities, this event was celebrated with enthusiasm and style.

The final day of the 50th anniversary celebrations will be marked by a solemn high mass at the Immaculate Conception Cathedral in Edmunston, followed by a Christmas concert.

The motto of the Diocese of Edmunston, "Son amour s'étend d'âge en âge", illustrates the optimism and sense of sharing that prevails over any differences that exist in our community.

I want to take this opportunity to wish my constituents a day filled with joy and happiness.

Unemployment Insurance Fund

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

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

In his economic update yesterday, before the finance committee, the minister finally admitted that his government is putting the unemployment insurance fund surplus into the consolidated revenue fund, along with the other federal revenues and expenditures, and will continue to do so, rather than in a distinct reserve fund as the Minister of Labour claims. This admission leads to another, that his deficit for the current year is being lowered artificially with the U.I. account surplus.

Under these circumstances, will the Minister of Finance admit that, because he is taking five billion dollars out of the U.I. account this year, the real federal deficit for the current year is therefore not $32.7 billion but $37.7 billion?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought not to confuse annual surpluses and cumulative surpluses.

To give an example, in 1993 when we became the government, the cumulative deficit of the unemployment insurance fund was $6 billion. In 1994, there was an annual surplus of $2.3 billion, which brought the cumulative deficit to $3.6 billion. In 1995, the annual surplus was approximately five billion dollars. This is the five billion the hon. member is referring to.

It will bring the cumulative surplus to only $1.4 billion. The two things must not be confused. We now have a surplus, not of $5 billion, but of $1.4 billion.

Our goal was not to reduce the deficit but to bolster the U.I. fund, which we have done, being good managers.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a good manager knows the contents of his budget.

Although I respect the minister, he is entitled to his shortcomings as much as anyone. He has certainly forgotten that next year he himself has projected taking $5 billion from the U.I. fund during the year. He is entitled to a mistake, so we will give him another chance.

Will this minister, good manager that he is, admit that to bring his deficit, the federal deficit, down to $17 billion in 1997-98, as he has indicated to us, he will need to keep on dipping into the U.I. fund year after year?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Roberval. I clearly understand where the confusion lies. What he is really recommending is an accounting process which was in place prior to 1986.

I would simply like to state that prior to 1986 the government did follow the procedure recommended by the hon. member and by the Bloc finance critic. But the auditor general came out with the following opinion in 1986. "In my opinion"-I am quoting the auditor general here-"the unemployment fund operations ought to be consolidated with the government financial statements, with employer and employee contributions added on the reported receipts side, and benefits and administrative costs included with reported expenditures".

Since this had not been done in 1986, the auditor general expressed reservations on the government's financial statements. That year, the government changed to the accounting process we are currently using. I would therefore suggest to the hon. member, if he does not like the way the government is accounting, and if he thinks he is better at figures than the auditor general-and perhaps he is-that he talk to the auditor general.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Two strikes against him now, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has neglected to point out that, at the time the auditor general made that recommendation, the federal government was contributing to the unemployment insurance fund. That is no longer the case. Two strikes, no hits.

I will give him a third chance. Given the government's reticence to really streamline the federal machine and review all of its finances, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that, if he does

not divert the sizeable U.I. fund surpluses into his budget, he will be totally incapable of reaching his budget targets in coming years?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is capable of convincing the auditor general that we ought to change the accounting method because contributions now come only from employers and employees, we are prepared to examine the situation.

I understand the hon. member's questions but he is constantly quoting the auditor general as if he were quoting the Deity. Sometimes we have to accept that God does things that are not to our liking. Only the Pope is infallible.

Instead of making forecasts, let me point out what we have done to date. The government's operating balance has risen from a $4 billion deficit in 1993-94 to a $17.6 billion surplus this year, a $21.6 billion improvement. Within that amount, there was a $6 billion improvement in the U.I. fund deficit. This means that, looking at the cuts, the reorganization of public finances, less than 30 per cent has come from the unemployment insurance fund, and 70 per cent from government activities, cuts and other steps.

Old Age Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first off remind the Minister of Finance that the Canadian Institute of Actuaries and almost all employer organizations, including the Conseil du patronat du Québec, are today calling for a separate account for unemployment insurance, separate from the government's revenue and expenditure budget. He seems to have forgotten it at the moment. He is talking about 1988; he should be looking at 1995.

The Minister of Finance has made the unemployed carry a major portion of his cuts to program expenditures and he is now saying that, to reach his new deficit reduction targets by 1997-98, he has to make additional cuts of several billion dollars.

With the Minister of Finance clearly indicating yesterday his intention to go after old age pensions, are we to understand that, as of next year, the brunt of the additional cuts will fall on current and future recipients of old age pensions?

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

Mr. Speaker, first, there is a separate account for unemployment insurance, now employment insurance. So there already is one. However, even with the separate account, the auditor general is insisting it be included with our figures.

Second, unemployment insurance premiums have been reduced by a billion and a quarter dollars, as announced by the Minister of Human Resources. This is a huge reduction, which will contribute to job creation.

Third, as regards the old age pensions, I said the exact opposite to what the member is saying. I said that the statements the Prime Minister has already made regarding old age pensions will certainly be foremost in our minds when we draw up the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, we put the question to the Minister of Finance and he says that the unemployment insurance surplus is part of the consolidated fund; the next day he says it is not. We do not know which way is up.

I will put the question to him another way. We are giving him his fourth and fifth chances today. Since his government has just grabbed the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund and dramatically limited access to it, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge that he is preparing to do the same thing to the old age pensions, that is, in addition to cutting them, he will make benefits harder to obtain?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is possible to have a separate account and still have consolidated funds.

I understand the member's problem. He is an economist, and economists have a hard time understanding accounting. Perhaps the member for Roberval will explain it to him.

Furthermore, we were very clear on the pension funds. Our aim is to leave seniors untouched and to protect the system so it will be there for young people.

The Deficit

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

Mr. Speaker, innumerable ordinary Canadians, business leaders, think tanks, economists and the IMF insist that setting interim targets for the deficit is not enough. They have urged the Minister of Finance to set targets for the complete elimination of the deficit within this government's mandate. I am baffled that the finance minister blinked and missed the easy opportunity to do so.

Only relatively small additional cuts are needed to satisfy these Canadians. The interim targets he chose increase the uncertainty about the government's resolve and prevent getting into the virtual cycle of more growth, even faster deficit elimination and lower interest rates.

Why has the minister chosen to subject Canadians to essential surgery but not enough to get rid of the malignant tumour?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best way to answer the hon. member's question is to cite an economist of great reputation whom I am sure the hon. member knows, Carl Weinberg from High Frequency Economics.

In referring both to the IMF and to the kind of measures recommended by the hon. member, he says that the hon. member's advice is geared toward a country that cannot meet its bills or obligations, that is facing all kinds of international actions to try to withdraw money from it. He then goes on to say, showing far greater confidence than the members of the Reform Party, that Canada "is not in that case and therefore should not be subject to those kinds of measures. I think those measures would succeed in bringing the deficit down but with catastrophic economic consequences. I do not think it is warranted to take that kind of extreme action". That is his opinion, that is our opinion, and it is an intelligent opinion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the many economists and business leaders who testified in front of the finance committee will know they are stupid and do not know what they are talking about.

I am somewhat surprised that the minister did not bring up this strawman comment that to do more would mean slash and burn. I am shocked that on other occasions the minister has attempted to portray all deficit cutting as slash and burn.

We know of the minister's love for hyperbole and the risk it brings, but the minister knows he is knocking a strawman. The IMF, his own advisers and Reform have offered plans that would eliminate the deficit by cutting fat and unaffordable transfer programs. Frank McKenna, Clyde Wells and other Liberal friends of his have shown how to do it.

Why does the minister not follow the consensus advice and examples available to him and make the cuts needed to preserve Canada's social safety net and enable Canadians to get back to work?