Debates of Feb. 22nd, 1995

Truck Safety

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during a one day blitz in Toronto, 73 per cent of trucks pulled over by police forces were deemed unfit for the road and immediately taken out of service.

This appalling level of truck safety poses a serious threat to the lives of Canadians. I ask the Minister of Transport to urge his provincial colleagues to ensure high levels of regulation enforcement and, if necessary, higher fines on trucking companies to prevent loss of life and injury.

This problem exemplifies the importance of maintaining strong enforced regulations for the protection of all Canadians.

Income Tax

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, 1994 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance the report that 20 Canadian millionaires had paid less than $100 each in income tax in 1991.

I believe that the number has increased each year since. Each and every Canadian has to pay his or her fair share of taxes. How can we as members of Parliament tell our constituents that they must pay their income taxes when they see wealthy Canadians taking advantage of tax loopholes?

If we are to fight the deficit on all fronts, I hope the Minister of Finance will take the opportunity available to him to close tax loopholes for the rich. We have to let the people of Canada know that one does not receive special tax privileges because of personal wealth.

City Of Mississauga

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to proudly announce a benchmark achievement by the city of Mississauga, the ninth largest city in the country and the fastest growing at half a million in population.

Mississauga led the country in 1994 in issuing almost $1 billion worth of building permits for 4,400 new residential units and 2.2 million square feet of industrial commercial floor space.

Corporate head offices continue to find Mississauga an ideal place to locate because of the attractive tax and hydro rates and the proximity to Pearson International Airport. They include Sunbeam Corporation, Siemens Electric and Mary Kay Cosmetics.

The value of these permits represents a 37 per cent total increase over the previous year and a 30 per cent increase for the industrial commercial sector.

The prosperity and phenomenal growth in Mississauga is yet one more signal that Mississaugans and Canadians are confident in the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

Quebec Referendum

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Daniel Latouche, a professor of political science, set the record straight at a hearing of the Eastern Townships commission on the future of Quebec. He unequivocally stated that there are costs associated with remaining a province, especially in this era of globalization. They must also be discussed.

A no in the referendum would mean that Quebec would not gain distinct status, different from that of the other provinces. It would also mean that the rest of Canada would continue to ignore the distinct character of Quebecers, regardless of the arrangement proposed.

We must not forget that Pierre Elliot Trudeau promised renewed federalism in exchange for a no in the 1980 referendum. His government used the opportunity to quash the legitimate hopes of Quebecers. This is what the true cost of not opting for sovereignty is.

Income Tax

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government appears to have a hearing problem. While Canadians coast to coast are saying "no new taxes", the government chooses to hear "keep on spending".

That would explain the Liberal revenue minister's statement that the government will not listen to the anti-tax protests. "Such protests", he says, "will not change the government's position on the budget".

For a month I have been circulating an anti-tax petition. Judging from the heavy response, the tax revolt is just beginning to make itself heard. It took only a month to gather anti-tax petitions with 20,000 signatures, which I will be tabling today.

Twenty thousand more Canadians from Victoria to Halifax are joining in a revolt against a government that has yet to realize that it has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

The battle over the budget is just beginning. In case the front benches have their hearing aids turned down, let me repeat the message loud and clear: no more taxes.

Mining

[Peter Thalheimer, Liberal, Timmins—Chapleau, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I had the occasion to be present for the opening of the 12th annual Mine Operators Conference, held in Timmins, Ontario in my riding.

Today I inform the House of the successful conclusion of the conference at Timmins. Mine managers, operators and technicians have presented papers, sold goods and services to each other and have increased the efficiency of mining today.

Over 350 delegates and 160 exhibits from all over Canada, the United States, Australia, Sweden, Finland and Pakistan were at the conference to trade ideas for the improvement of mining efficiency.

Mining is an important industry to Canadians. Last December the natural resource committee tabled a unanimous report calling on the government to take measures to help the mining industry and keep mining in Canada.

I would like to thank all participants at the conference and invite them back to northern Ontario to trade ideas and make Canada a better place for miners and the millions of Canadians and hundreds of communities that depend on mining.

Transfer Payments

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, since the federal-provincial finance ministers' conference, we know that Ottawa will make drastic cuts in transfer payments to the provinces while deferring the impact of these cuts until next year. The federal government is trying to pass off as renewed federalism what will amount in fact to offloading its financial responsibilities.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand that his government chose deliberately to defer the substantial cuts in transfer payments until after the Quebec referendum in order to hide from Quebecers, on the eve of the referendum, the cost of the federal government's financial withdrawal from education and health? In other words, that the federal government is holding back but will hit as soon as the referendum is over?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Leader of the Opposition that, when we formed the government last year, we agreed with theprovinces that we would not make cuts without giving them prior notice. Under the previous government, the minister would get up on the day of the budget and announce the cuts to come into effect the following day. We said and, furthermore we promised in the red book that this brutal approach would not be repeated.

Therefore, if the Minister of Finance must cut transfers to the provinces, we will keep our promise and give the provinces fair notice before taking action.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not admit that the block funding formula contemplated by his government, that is, consolidating all federal contributions to health and education programs into a single payment, is not a transfer of jurisdiction but a transfer of costs to the provinces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance must assume his responsibilities, and we intend to make substantial cuts in all public administration sectors. It is not a matter of punishing anyone. On the contrary, we want to treat everyone equally. In any case, we do not know if there will be a referendum in 1995. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition can come to an agreement with Mr. Parizeau. After the date of the referendum is announced, you will know whether or not we acted with the referendum in mind.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister claim to offer flexible federalism when, in fact, while continuing to withdraw financial support for health and education programs, he tries to put the provinces in a straitjacket by forcing them to apply national standards to services that the federal government will stop funding?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when we passed the national health legislation establishing medicare for all Canadians, it was approved by everybody. Everybody agreed.

We do not have control over its administration. It is a provincial matter. When the programs were established we said we would help the provinces for a number of years but that once the programs were well established we might withdraw. That was the policy discussed at that time.

As far as Canada's national health system is concerned, it is very important that we keep it because Canada has the best system. In fact a few minutes ago the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the very good health system that Canada has.

Overlap And Duplication

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are getting clearer and clearer. Last week, in this House, the Prime Minister presented his vision of a federal Canada, for the first time.

He said, in talking about the elimination of duplication, and I quote: "Duplication comes from Quebec deciding to have its own ministry of revenue collect personal income tax, unlike the other provinces. . . Duplication often comes from the other side".

My question is for the Prime Minister. Are we to understand from the revealing example he chose to give us that, in his vision of federalism, Quebec would be just like the other provinces and that, for example, he wants to take over from Quebec in collecting personal income tax?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member that, on the contrary, we gave the province the responsibility of collecting the federal sales tax, the GST. Why could the provincial government not do the same for the federal government with regard to income tax?

As regards income tax, in the case of Ontario, only one line has been added to the tax return, and there is no provincial tax inspector for Ontario taxpayers. If Quebec wants to continue to have two systems, that is fine with me. I am making them an offer to help them save money. The minister responsible for harmonizing programs in Canada is successfully reaching agreements with the provinces in many areas. The only province that is not interested in discussing the elimination of duplication is the province of Quebec.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that his so called plan for decentralization to the provinces is not eliminating any duplication, since the federal government never intended withdrawing from areas of provincial jurisdiction, and, in each province, there will always be two departments of health and two departments of human resources all paid for by taxpayers' money?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are making offers to the provinces right now. I was speaking with the Premier of British Columbia a few minutes ago. We were discussing the possibility of harmonizing certain existing programs.

The other provinces are co-operating in trying to eliminate duplication. What is unfortunate is that only Quebec systematically wants to maintain duplication.

The Budget

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance attacked Reform's plan to balance the budget in three years.

The minister made unfounded comments about its impacts in a futile attempt to divert public attention away from the shortcomings of his own budget targets. Under the Liberal fiscal plan, over $100 billion will be added to the federal debt. Interest payments will amount to about one-third of the federal budget by the end of this Parliament.

Will the Prime Minister explain to seniors and to other Canadians what paying $50 billion a year in interest will do to the social programs on which they depend?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the leader of the third party mentioned old age pensioners. His document said he wanted to cut $3 billion from that program. Reform has to realize that new people come on the payroll every year because other people reach the age of 65. The leader of the Reform Party cannot stop that.

It costs almost $1 billion more every year. If he wants to cut $3 billion from what we have today, he will have to exclude the people who come on the payroll in the next two years. He will have to pay them another $2 billion or cut another $2 billion. The hon. member made a little mistake in one day of $2 billion.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister avoids the hard question of how the government is going to live paying $50 billion a year in interest. At the end of the day under the federal Liberal plan, the deficit will still be $25 billion a year, the debt will be over $600 billion and the government will have even less money than it has today to fund social programs.

Why does the government not screw up its courage and simply tell Canadians that the real threat to social programs is its inability to control the deficit and the debt?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is the first time in a long time, and I have a lot of witnesses on this side of the House, that a government has presented a budget, as we did last February, and has met every target it set.

It is very easy to make promises you know you cannot keep. When I saw the budget prepared by the Reform Party this week, somebody said that it was back to the future. It has nothing to do with the reality of today. On the old age pension program alone, the Reform Party made a mistake of $2 billion.

We will meet our target. We will be at 3 per cent of GDP next year. It is the first time a government in Canada has met its target and we will meet it. Do not worry about it.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has a red book that is symbolic of the red ink that flows from its policies.

Last fall the finance minister presented a grey book which is symbolic of these grey compromises between spending cuts and tax increases. Now it is abundantly clear that the government lacks what it takes to balance a budget, just like Mulroney and Wilson in 1984.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the colour scheme for the budget that his minister will deliver next Monday will be pale yellow?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member only has to wait until Monday. I hope he will support all the cuts we will be proposing.

I would like to have his commitment right now that his party will support all the cuts we will make. It would be easy because they would turn around and say: "You should not do this or that". It is going to be a tough budget. I hope Reform Party members will be able to do in this House what they love to say outside it.

Federal Public Service

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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

The government plans to cut 45,000 employees from the federal public service over three years and, to this end, intends to move unilaterally to introduce legislation eliminating job security for public servants.

Can the minister responsible for the public service explain why his government has chosen to push aside the proposals made by the largest union representing nearly 70 per cent of federal public servants, without having first exhausted every possible alternative through free collective bargaining?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has done excellent work on this issue. For weeks now, there have been discussions with every union affected. Sixteen unions out of 17 have found these proposals reasonable. And even in the union which opposes them, we are told opinion is greatly divided. People understand very well that what the President of the Treasury Board has offered as a solution is totally reasonable and logical, given the difficult circumstances facing the government at this time.