Debates of Feb. 16th, 1995

Finance

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago Moody's bond rating service announced it will review Canada's foreign debt rating and also Canada's AAA domestic rating. Moody's is not only sending the government a wake-up call, it is ringing the alarm bell.

Will the Minister of Finance finally acknowledge that the markets are rejecting his deficit reduction targets as inadequate and that Canada's debt and deficit situation is much more serious than he or the Prime Minister has led us to believe?

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

Mr. Speaker, Moody's certainly could have waited until the government brought down its budget.

When the government brings down that budget the financial markets will see very clearly this government has kept faith with what it said in its pre-election campaign and in the last budget.

We have repeatedly said that we will fulfil our obligations, we will live up to our commitments, we will hit our targets. In terms of this year's deficit, I am here to tell you we have done a hell of a lot better.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the members opposite just do not get it. When one of the world's largest bond rating agencies will not wait two weeks to get the minister's budget, it is telling him that his targets are not only unbelievable, they are unacceptable to the money markets. That is the message they are trying to send to the minister.

Will the minister simply accept the fact that his deficit reduction targets are inadequate and commit to eliminating the deficit within the life of this Parliament, which is what the money markets are asking?

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

Mr. Speaker, last year in the months that followed the budget the leader of the third party kept standing up and saying that we would never hit our targets, that they were too tough, that we would never get there, that the sky was about to fall, that Chicken Little had a lot of trouble.

Why at least does the leader of the Reform Party not have the decency to stand up today and congratulate the government for having done what he said we never could do?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the minister on hitting that target would be like congratulating a high jumper for getting over the bar when it is at three feet.

We are wondering whether the minister and the government ever learn anything from the experiences of others. The government and this minister are going down exactly the same fiscal path as the NDP Government of Ontario. First it denies the situation is serious, then a half-hearted attempt at tax increases to deal with it, then in the final analysis come to cut spending after it is too late.

Is it really the minister's ambition to become known as the Bob Rae of federal politics?

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

Mr. Speaker, last October the government provided a very accurate analysis of this country's financial situation. It was an analysis praised by the financial markets. It was an analysis praised by the great majority of economists. It was an analysis praised by those of the Reform Party who understand economics, who basically said it was an accurate analysis. Is he about to now deny that which his colleagues said?

Let me tell the House something. I know it is hard for this member to accept some good news. This country is leading the G-7 in growth, leading the G-7 in employment, leading the G-7 in controlling inflation.

For the love of heaven let me say today, manufacturing shipments in this country were up 1.6 per cent in December and 12-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Federalism

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

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

The government's pre-budget public relations exercise, including the speech made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is an attempt to convince Quebecers that the government is about to decentralize the federal regime.

Does the Prime Minister agree that true decentralization requires a transfer of tax resources, including tax points, so that the provinces can take over from the federal government?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be in a position where someone else would collect taxes on my behalf, so that I would not have to do it myself. Tax collection is a part of political responsibility. If they want us to decentralize, fine. However, they were happy to let us collect taxes, and take the blame for it, and then get the money from us. In the context of responsible government, it would be better if everyone collected his own taxes. The situation would be clearer for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are asking, namely that the federal government withdraw from these tax fields. We will do the job ourselves.

Does the Prime Minister agree that this renewed Canada, which he is predicting, is nothing more than an attempt to hide the fact that the federal government continues to dump the costs of social programs on the provinces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the Bloc members are in disarray because they realize that our flexible federalism approach is working very well. If they knew a bit about history, they would know that, a few years ago, the federal government collected over 60 per cent of the taxes in this country, while incurring close to 60 per cent of the expenditures.

Now, the figures are reversed. Indeed, the provinces, which used to collect 40 per cent of all taxes, now spend and collect 60 per cent of the money. The federal government is currently collecting 40 per cent, a proportion which is diminishing. Thus, the situation changed considerably over the last ten years, even without any constitutional amendment.

Canada Ports Corporation

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the age old problem of patronage under the former Tory government is well known. Now it is coming back to haunt the new masters of patronage, the Liberal government.

Most recently Canada Ports Corporation chairman Arnold Masters has reportedly abused his expense account, billed an unreasonable amount of work and doctored the minutes of the corporation's board of directors.

Now it has been revealed that nearly 50 top executives of shipping companies from Vancouver to Halifax have written to the Minister of Transport calling for Masters' immediate resignation.

When will the Minister of Transport take action on these abuses, take the advice of the Canadian shipping industry and demand the resignation of Arnold Masters?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is a serious matter.

Because we try to pay attention to the advice that is given by members of the third party in the House, in situations such as this one where serious allegations have been made and there is a call for drastic action we want to take some time to make sure we do the right thing.

The hon. member would know, as many of his colleagues have said on another matter that has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in the House, a person does not want to act rashly in these matters.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already claimed to be waiting on a report from the transport committee's study of marine policy before he takes any action.

The purpose of that study is to consult with users to determine how they want their port system changed to make it more viable. Those users have spoken and they have spoken loudly against Arnold Masters.

With this kind of unified opposition, when is the Minister of Transport going to act?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicated, the appointment of the gentleman in question was made by the previous government. He has been in office for several years and had acted as a director prior to that. We understand the importance of making sure that the operations of Canada Ports are done efficiently.

There have been questions raised by the hon. member and others at hearings of the Standing Committee on Transport. We are going to review the matter very seriously, but I want to emphasize that the Standing Committee on Transport, mandated by the House to look into the whole area of the operation of Canada Ports, is meeting across the country right now and will have an opportunity to hear from these people who signed their names to a letter. They can make their allegations directly before the committee.

Perhaps, if the hon. member has any other information that he wishes to make known to the Canadian public, he might want to step outside and make whatever allegations he wishes to make.

Health

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

Pointing to the massiveness of the system, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Ottawa would work to eliminate overlap and duplication. It would therefore be devoting its efforts to areas under its jurisdiction. Under the constitution, health is a provincial matter.

To demonstrate his good faith, does the Prime Minister intend, as logic would dictate, to abolish the national forum on health that he chairs?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, health is a complex issue, and we have a responsibility in this area. We set up a national health service in Canada, which all Canadians and a large majority of Quebecers continue to support. It guarantees free health services to all Canadians and ensures that there will not be two categories of hospitals in Canada and Quebec-one for the rich, and one for the poor.

We wanted to ensure dignity, in Canada, for all who are sick. This is why the federal government stepped in. Canada's health system has set an example for the world, and the Americans would like to have it right now.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the Prime Minister that his "new" Canada in health matters simply means that Ottawa will force the provinces to meet ever more stringent national standards while cutting transfer payments to them and leaving them with the financial burden?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we decided to try to improve the systems. As I was saying earlier, we have succeeded in signing agreements with all

the provinces to eliminate duplication. The only government that does not want to sign an agreement with us in an attempt to identify areas of duplication which could be eliminated is the government of Quebec, because it wants to use the status quo for its purposes. I just hope they will hold a referendum soon, ask an honest question, so that the blackmail business will be over with.

Canada Communication Group

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Communication Group has been recommended for privatization, yet unbelievably the President of the Treasury Board has extended the workforce adjustment directive giving the employees of CCG guaranteed job protection. This is the very same workforce adjustment directive the minister is attempting to eliminate from other federal employees.

Why would the minister extend a policy that guarantees these federal employees job protection when the recommendation is to get rid of the agency?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, we have said before in the House that we are going through a downsizing. Part of that downsizing will require that different programs and services are curtailed or completely removed from what we provide to Canadians. That is part of getting our deficit reduction targets met.

In the course of doing that it will be necessary to downsize the public service, but we will be treating our employees in a fair and equitable fashion in doing that, whether they are part of that agency or any other part of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question was: Why give them the protection of the workforce adjustment agreement when we are trying to downsize the government?

Will the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that he will rescind the most recent extension of the workforce adjustment agreement and that there will be no further extensions of the policy, as he admits, while we are downsizing the government?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, as it applies to the particular agency the hon. member is mentioning, I would have to repeat what I am saying in terms of the public service overall.

Regional Development

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech to the Chambre of Commerce of Metropolitan Quebec, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and minister responsible for Quebec stated that the government must concentrate less on regional development and focus instead on helping small business.

Can the Minister of Finance, minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, confirm his government's intention to withdraw from regional development and focus exclusively on helping small business?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the best way to go about regional development is to help small business. That is truly where most new jobs are created. I am not the only one to say so, so do local authorities in Quebec, as well as the provincial government, the parent company.