Debates of Oct. 24th, 1996

Taxation

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the retail council is concerned, we have made it very clear that we are prepared to work with the retail council. We will sit with the council to make the transition as painless as possible. There is no doubt there are going to be changes. The government has said it will be very flexible in the administration of those changes.

As far as tax inclusive pricing is concerned, public polling has been done in the last while which shows overwhelmingly that Canadians want tax inclusive pricing. They do not want the sticker shock. They want to know what the final price is.

Why is it that the Reform Party, which claims to be a populace party, wants to take actions which are not in the best interests of Canadian consumers?

The hon. member for Beaver River wants to talk about reality checks. Let us look at reality checks. The day that the famous Reform Party program was revealed by the hon. member on the CBC what was basically said was that it was going to eliminate taxes for people making over $150,000 and the member was caught speechless. The provincial premiers said that it would devastate their cuts.

Montreal Economy

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Liberal Party published a red book that talked about the economic recovery of greater Montreal. The Liberals promised to create a joint action committee for the development of the greater Montreal area.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, members must not anticipate an order of the day, particularly when the same question is involved. I will hear the question, but the preamble comes a bit close.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an opposition day about the red book, but about Montreal.

I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether she can tell us what became of the promise in this party's electoral platform to create a joint action committee for the development of the greater Montreal area.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleague, we seem to be having a debate. I see that the minister has risen, and I will allow him to reply, but I would prefer that we not have debate at this point.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks before the last election, we put out an electoral platform entitled: "For the economic recovery of greater Montreal".

If you look at this electoral platform, the majority of the promises made by the government have been kept. And what we did for Montreal was essentially to have all the departments involved in the economic recovery of Montreal take a horizontal approach.

We followed our vision, and today we see the concrete results. Here are a few: Bell Helicopter, in the aerospace industry, Ericsson, Biochem Pharma, Merck Frosst, Spar, SR Telecom, Harris, the Institut-

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, I hope this will not be about Montreal again. Perhaps members could look a bit beyond.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

By all means, Mr. Speaker, let us look beyond.

In other words, what the Secretary of State for Montreal and beyond has just told us is that they did not keep this promise. That is clearly what he told us: "We kept a number of promises, but not that one". Let us try again. Maybe something was done way back of beyond.

They promised a recovery in housing, thanks to a redevelopment program that will be of particular benefit to older neighbourhoods and beyond, Mr. Speaker.

Knowing that the Prime Minister has said that he wants to get out of the housing sector, which comes under provincial jurisdiction, perhaps he can tell us today whether he will be turning over to Quebec the money he promised to invest in Montreal and beyond, or whether, once again, this was just so much hot air?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, now they are talking about greater Montreal or the surrounding area.

I am pleased to say in this House, in this democratic forum, that between 1986 and 1993, Quebec received in the order of 29 per cent of all federal funds set aside for public housing. In 1995, through the efforts of our government, Quebec received 32.2 per cent of federal funds set aside for social reform.

Discussions were entered into with all the provinces. They are proceeding well with the province of Quebec, obviously, but there is not yet any concrete result. But Quebec is receiving its full share of the pie, and then some, as far as public housing goes.

Bombardier

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the red book promised integrity. At a recent fundraiser in Toronto the Prime Minister said: "I am not going to buy votes with the Canadian people in the next election".

But he has done just that: an $87 million interest free loan to Bombardier, a company that had a profit of $167 million for the six months ending July 31 of this year.

Will the Prime Minister or his spokesman admit to the jobless people of Canada that the interest free loan to Bombardier was pure and simple pork barrelling and that a profitable company like Bombardier should not receive corporate welfare?

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Reform Party did not look into this matter before it asked the question.

The whole matter of the moneys involved, the $87 million, deals with an investment approach. There is an investment by the federal government which requires full repayment and upon profits being made, a sharing of the profits in question. But then again, that is not a matter that the Reform Party is used to seeing generally in the repayment of moneys on matters like this.

The federal government is not involved in the business of giving grants. We simply give moneys in an investment and then require repayment. That is what has happened.

It is strange that Reform Party members continuously harp on matters such as this but never mention investments that are made in western Canada, in particular in British Columbia and Alberta. They never mention $9 million to Paprican, never. They never mention the benefits that the oil industry is receiving in Alberta that will create 40,000 permanent jobs. They concentrate only on Quebec.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer the hon. secretary to the fresh start book. He will see that precisely what we are going to do is eliminate grants and subsidies and do away with regional granting agencies.

Let me give the spokesperson for the Prime Minister some facts. Once Canadians have paid the interest on the so-called loan to Bombardier, the cost will be about $150 million, not $87 million. It is estimated that 1,000 jobs will be created on this, $150,000 per job. If the money had been left to the taxpayer, some 5,000 jobs could have been created.

How does the spokesperson for the Prime Minister explain that to the jobless people of Canada?

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting again that Reformers concentrate on this matter when we have a company that is a world class manufacturer of airplanes. They concentrate on matters like this.

The hon. member mentioned elimination of grants in their programs. They talk about the elimination of regional agencies as well. They would eliminate all the work that has been created in areas such as western Canada by organizations like western diversification, Hitachi in Saskatoon and other industries. They are trying to do that. That is unfair to regions that are developing.

Unemployment Insurance

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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

Before the Liberals came to office, the previous government made major cuts to unemployment insurance. In Montreal, these cuts amounted to over $800 million over four years. The Liberals, who were then in opposition, strongly condemned these cuts to unemployment insurance. Some members who are now ministers even took part in a 1993 demonstration in Montreal in bitter cold temperatures.

What did they do after coming to power? Their successive reforms to unemployment insurance will deprive Quebec of benefits totalling $900 million this year and $1.2 billion by the year 2001.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his government's past and future cuts to unemployment insurance will exceed $900 million this year-I am adding the 1994 reform to the EI reform-and $1.2 billion in 2001?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the last calculation was a little tricky, but I will try to understand it.

I can assure you that the shift from unemployment to employment insurance reflects the new economy we referred to earlier. The hon. member for Mercier should realize that, instead of the passive measures favoured in the past, by the year 2000-which you mentioned-we will have reinvested $2.7 billion in active measures so that Canadians can receive the training they need to join the labour force.

Thanks to this EI reform, an additional 500,000 Canadians will now be eligible to receive benefits, that is to say, 500,000 Canadians who were not previously covered by unemployment insurance will now qualify. These people include part time workers and women from Montreal's east end, which you know very well, my hon. friend from Mercier.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, you must always address the Chair.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable for the minister to have trouble with his figures, when this is what he should focus on.

If he is not aware that the successive cuts made in Quebec in 1994, 1995 and 1996 will exceed $900 million this year and amount to $1.2 billion in 2001, I wonder what he is doing in that job.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is important to set the record straight and look at the facts. In 1994, Quebec received close to 25 per cent of federal spending in some areas and accounted for 21 per cent of federal revenues.

Can they not look at the whole picture instead of focusing on one particular area? It is important to look at our overall policies and not make judgments based on one particular case. Quebecers receive a very large share of total federal spending. As far as employment insurance is concerned, they have not been penalized any more than other Canadians, quite the contrary. All Canadians are now participating in an active employment system which values work. Quebecers, like all Canadians, benefit from a system that values work and, generally speaking, Quebecers benefit greatly from federal spending.

Human Rights

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

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

Last fall the government passed Bill C-64 which strengthened the Employment Equity Act by extending its coverage and giving the human rights commission a mandate to ensure its compliance. As it comes into effect today, could the minister advise the House how this legislation adds to the basic human rights of Canadians?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to inform the hon. member and the House that Bill C-64, the new Employment Equity Act, does indeed come into force as of today. This is another red book promise kept.

Designations have now been finalized following Canada-wide consultation with groups representing employers, labour and designated groups.

I am proud of the commitment made by the government with respect to workplace equity and equality. This commitment starts today, reinforcing the government's message that every citizen is welcome in the workplace.

Government Expenses

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the scrap heap of broken red book promises is one about a Liberal government restoring public confidence and trust in government.

Yet the youth minister, the member for the Western Arctic, has charged thousands of dollars on government credit cards for personal expenses and holidays and then signed the forms which claim that these expenses were incurred on official business.

When the Prime Minister does nothing about things like this, what message is he sending to Canadians, especially youth whom this member is supposed to represent? How does this inaction do anything to restore Canadian confidence and trust in government?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, government travel cards, of course, according to Treasury Board rules, should be used only for expenditures that have to do with official government business.

Whenever they are used for other purposes, which may happen in some circumstances, it is clear that all the expenditures not for official government business must be fully reimbursed.

In the present case there is no doubt that all the personal expenditures have been fully reimbursed. We consider the matter closed.

Professional Services

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

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

In its red book, the Liberal Party made the following promise, and I quote: "To reduce the $4.1 billion consulting and professional services budget of the federal government by 15 per cent". But according to the public accounts for 1995-96, the Liberal government spent more than $4.4 billion on these services, or nearly $1 billion more than promised.

Does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, instead of cutting $600 million from this budget, she actually increased it by $300 million, thereby breaking another election promise?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, within months of our taking office, it became very clear that the previous government had left its fiscal house in much worse shape than we had expected, with the deficit having actually risen to $45 billion.

Under the circumstances, we had no choice but to take much more drastic measures than those contemplated in the red book regarding professional services contracts. We immediately realized that a program review had to be put in place to look not only at reducing professional services by 15 per cent but also at ways of realignign many government programs.

By implementing a better idea than the one announced in the red book, we were able to save not only $1 billion but $9.2 billion.

Research And Development

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the red book is full of broken promises on the subject of jobs and research and development that they will support in Canada.

We have, among these broken promises, the situation in Chalk River where we have a cyclotron research project in danger of closing down. We have a situation in Whiteshell Laboratories, Manitoba in danger of closing down for the same reason, lack of support from the government.

My question for the Minister of Natural Resources is what are you doing, what will you do to redeem the Liberal promises-