Debates of Oct. 21st, 1996

Employment Insurance

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that every hour counts. So does every dollar. The government will collect between $1 billion and $1.5 billion before it pays out any benefits with this new tax.

Taxing part time employment results in increased labour costs and with any kind of logic the net result is fewer jobs.

Given the government has a $5 billion surplus in the UI fund, why will the government not give an immediate 28 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in the UI tax rate as recommended by the Reform Party and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business so that businesses can help stimulate the economy, help stimulate job creation and help business create those jobs that the government promised?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the Reform Party's suggestion, it would appear it is going to pay for its premium reduction by eliminating a great deal of the benefit that arises from the program.

These are the questions one should really address: Is it true that the Reform Party would eliminate sickness benefits? Is it true that the Reform Party would eliminate maternity benefits? Is it true that what the Reform Party would do with unemployment insurance is to put Canadians out on their own and effectively pay for that premium cut by cutting off those Canadians who are most in need of the help it provides?

Official Languages

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Commission nationale des parents francophones released a study on the funding of official languages programs. This study shows that the federal government clearly favours the anglophone minority in Quebec at the expense of the francophone minority in Canada.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that, according to her own figures, 1 million francophones outside Quebec receive only 36 per cent of the budget allocated to the official languages teaching program, compared to 64 per cent for the 636,000 anglophones in Quebec?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that the hon. member, who learned such good French in his hometown of Penetanguishene, now admits that there are 1 million francophones outside Quebec, that they are not paraplegics in wheelchairs in any way, shape or form, and that they are not about to disappear.

Second, I am also happy to admit that, since the inception of the bilingualism and biculturalism commission, the federal government has invested $5 billion in this area. Ever since we came to office and even today, for every dollar spent on providing services to anglophones in Quebec, two dollars are spent on francophones in the rest of Canada.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, saying that the minister is "like" a snowblower is not the same as saying she "is" a snowblower. When I spoke about francophones outside Quebec, I did not mean that they were paraplegics in wheelchairs, but that, compared to anglophones, they are put at

somewhat of a disadvantage by this government, especially since the minister cannot even answer such a simple question.

So I ask the question again, because she probably wants to correct such a deplorable situation in this so-called bilingual country.

Can she do it? She suggested some action plans at a press conference. So I am asking her, since we know what federal action plans to save francophones are worth, if the federal government has ways of forcing the provinces to better fulfil their constitutional obligations to francophones?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a specific answer. At this time, for every dollar spent on minority schools in Quebec, two dollars are spent outside.

The figures quoted by the Comité national des parents francophones reflect the fact that there used to be many more English language school boards in Quebec because that province's education policies supported minorities, which was not the case in some other provinces in the 1980s.

Today, thanks to federal policies, there is a French language school board in every province, except Ontario. That is why the figures show the way things should have been in the early 1980s, but unfortunately were not.

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister announced his fiscal policy for the near future. Higher taxes will be used to balance the budget. Higher tax revenues will be used to increase spending. It is obvious that the Prime Minister only listens to old fashioned Liberals who get their jollies out of spending other people's money.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why does he fail to grasp that Canadians have a fundamental right to keep the money they earn and to spend it in the way they like rather than having it spent for them by the Liberal caucus?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it when I read somewhere last week that the Reform Party is going to spend money. Remember they said they were to spend more money for-

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

We are putting back what you took away.

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

Fine, I do not disagree with that.

We said that the goal of this government is to stay the course and to go to zero cash requirements and zero deficit as quickly as possible. We are not there yet and already the Reform Party is trying to spend the money we are saving.

I said that when we are at zero there are problems in our society that have to be managed where the federal government has to play a role. We are not there just to have an across the board tax cut; that when a person pays $100,000 of tax he will receive $10,000 of benefits is not the way we will do things. We will target our tax cuts and spending to make sure that those in society who have less can have the chance that they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has clearly defined the battleground for the next election. There is one group of people that will want to increase spending of the people's money. There is another party which will give it back to the people who have earned it.

Trevor McLean, a small business owner in my riding in a recent letter said: "Over-regulation and overtaxing small business have a multiple negative impact on our economy-. They cause enormous disincentives for jobs, business failure and investment".

Why does the Minister of Finance listen only to bureaucrats and in his economic update offers no hope to small business and the desperate unemployed Canadians who would find jobs if taxes and regulations were cut?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has listened to the vast majority of economists in this country. They have said very clearly that a tax cut at this particular time would be inappropriate. They have said that a broad base tax cut at this time would not only be inappropriate but would undoubtedly lead to higher taxes later.

I simply ask Reformers to listen to what John McCallum of the Royal Bank said last week. He said that as a result of the actions of this government we are going to see a steadily declining debt to GDP ratio. We are going to give this country the possibility of having tax cuts which the Reform Party is unable to provide.

The vast majority of legitimate economists in this country have simply said that what the Reform Party is suggesting is the road to financial ruin and we will not accept it.

Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Canada recently negotiated behind closed doors a free trade agreement with Israel. Given that the Israeli swimwear industry imports its fabric from Europe without paying duty, unlike our companies, this treaty may kill the top of the line swimwear

industry, which is located primarily in Quebec, thus costing hundreds of jobs.

Despite the fact that the official opposition raised this important problem last May, and in light of the present discontent of the swimwear industry, how can the minister explain that he has done nothing to protect this up and coming industry with its job creation potential?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations with the industry through the Sector Advisory Group on International Trade as well as directly with the industry itself. In preparation of the free trade agreement with Israel a lot of consultation went on. As a result of that, we responded and said we would give a two and a half year phase out period.

The problem the swimwear industry has is that it has to pay a 19 per cent duty on European fabrics. We have now given the industry the opportunity to address this issue before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to try and even up the playing field so that within the two and a half years it will be in a position where it will be able to compete fairly. The industry has accepted that so that we do have a level playing field and we are trying to protect jobs in that industry.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister says he has consulted, I would like to quote him Claude Gilbert's reaction: "When I learned by accident that Ottawa was negotiating with Israel, I was terrified". There was no consultation.

In order to resolve this situation, which may well increase unemployment, primarily in Quebec, will the minister promise today to negotiate access to the European textile market at the earliest opportunity, and in the meantime to impose equivalent tariffs on Israeli products in this sector?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I just said we have protected the industry for the next two and a half years by allowing for a phase out. I might also add that all of our other industries will receive immediate access to the Israeli market with absolutely no tariffs at all which is a good advantage for them.

We are protecting that industry by giving it the opportunity to sort this matter out with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The industry knows what is involved and knows what to do. There were consultations. We will certainly want to assist it to make sure that we preserve jobs in Canada. Overall this agreement has to preserve and enhance the job opportunities for Canadian industries.

Status Of Women

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are honoured to have with us the award recipients of the 1996 Governor General's Persons Case Awards.

Can the secretary of state please tell us why, after all the accomplishments women have made and for which they have been recognized, do we still need such an award?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, this award recognizes a very important day in 1927, a time when five women from Alberta challenged the fact that women could not go to the Senate because they were not considered to be persons. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against them. They went to London where it was ruled that women were in fact persons.

We must continue to look at our past if we are going to move forward in the future. Every year five women who have done a great deal to advance equality for women are honoured. This year these women happen to be in the House. I understand that the Speaker has recognized them. They are great women. They have faced many challenges and we must continue to view them as role models in the future.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs advertised a Liberal fundraising dinner on privy council office letterhead and sent it out at government expense. First he admitted it was wrong and promised to pay back the money. Then he took it all back and reversed his position.

I have written to the Treasury Board and asked its director of ethics to make a ruling on this, but perhaps the Prime Minister would stand up in the House and comment on the actions of his minister. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the actions of his minister contravene his secret ethics guidelines?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what the minister did was to advise the press that he was going to make a speech somewhere. It is exactly what the Reform leader, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and others do every week. The press gallery is informed of where we are going. Sometimes they are happy to come, sometimes they are not happy to come, but at least they want to be informed.

It was not a letter asking people for contributions. It was to say to our friends in the press that the minister was making a speech that night. If they accepted the invitation, I am sure they would have listened to a nice speech and they would have learned a lot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess we could all debate that.

We can see the problems that arise when the Prime Minister does not make his ethics guidelines public. The Minister of National Defence only responded after an access to information request made his dilemma public. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is confused. His staff is confused. The department is being used for political purposes. Meanwhile the public is kept completely in the dark.

Will the Prime Minister please table the ethics guidelines which he says he has, or are they another imaginary friend that the Prime Minister says he has but which we do not know for sure?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, all the facts have been made public. He did what is absolutely normal.

The facts are in front of the public. If the member thinks that the minister broke the guidelines, he should tell his leader that he broke the guidelines. Members of Parliament, including ministers, use their letterhead to inform the press of their whereabouts.

I suppose the hon. member might have done it once in a while. I do not think he does it very often because he knows that if he invites members of the press to listen to him, they will not come.

Asbestos

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

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

For more than three months, the Liberal government has been showing its irresponsibility by refusing any further involvement in the business of France's banning asbestos. All stakeholders agree that the Canadian government must put more muscle into its response to France on this.

France and Canada both being signatories to the Geneva Convention, including ILO directive 162 on the safe use of asbestos, can the Prime Minister indicate what measures have been taken by his government to remind France of its commitments to the ILO?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have personally written to the Prime Minister of France, and this very morning two of my ministers have met with a delegation here in Ottawa to discuss this problem.

Through the Ministers of International Trade, Foreign Affairs and Health, the Minister of Labour is making representations to the French authorities, and I am convinced that the latter will, once they have an objective view of the situation, acknowledge, as the international labour organizations do, that it is possible to use asbestos safely. We do so in Canada, and I do not see why it would not be possible in France.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is busting its britches because it is spending $500,000, whereas Quebec has already committed more than $2.7 million, and the previous federal government had even spent nearly $13 million to help the asbestos industry in the late 1980s.

Is the Liberal government waiting until asbestos is banned everywhere in Europe and some 2,000 Quebec jobs have vanished before it takes any serious steps to save this industry?