Debates of Nov. 20th, 1996

Taxation

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, far from insisting, what we are doing is co-operating with the provincial governments of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland whose major purpose is to make sure that employment is created in their own provinces. That is why the three premiers are going across Canada, across North America, explaining what has happened, the tremendous reduction in taxes for their small and medium size businesses.

That is not the issue. The real issue is why is this member of Parliament so against Atlantic Canada's benefiting itself? Why is this member of Parliament so against small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada being able to compete? What kind of vision does the Reform Party have when it cannot understand the legitimate ambitions and desires of an important part of the country?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the finance minister can be so callous about the loss of 79 jobs in Atlantic Canada. However, this is just the beginning. This one company alone says that at least another 71 jobs are on the line, and this comes after repeated warnings to the finance minister from the Canadian Real Estate Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and even Nova Scotia finance officials. They are saying that these changes will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will kill even more jobs.

Will the finance minister please set his pride aside for a moment, for the sake of saving some jobs in Atlantic Canada, and kill this legislation before it kills even more jobs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The Reform Party recommended harmonization. The Reform Party at the finance committee came out full score in favour of harmonization. Why is the hon. member standing up here now and arguing against harmonization? There can be only one reason. It is an abysmal lack of knowledge of Atlantic Canada. It is the fact that he does not understand the ability and the desire of Atlantic Canadians to take control of their own future. That is the problem.

The Reform Party supported harmonization but it is against it for Atlantic Canada. What are its real motives?

Singer Company

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: "-we have been in touch with counsel for the retired Singer employees, and our lawyers are reviewing with them the implications of these contracts".

Based on our information, it appears that, at the time the minister made this statement yesterday, no one from his department had yet

contacted, either by telephone or by letter, the lawyers for the retired employees, or their spokesperson.

How can the minister state that his department is having discussions with the lawyers representing these retired employees when, according to them, they have not heard anything from the department?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was given information to the contrary. I was told that, by the end of the week, I would receive a report from our lawyers regarding this issue. I will be pleased to inform the hon. member accordingly.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the excerpt I just quoted is taken directly from the Hansard . Those are the words said by the minister yesterday. He clearly told us that his lawyers had contacted those of Singer, which is not the case. I even phoned the lawyers for the retired employees 30 minutes ago, and they still have not heard anything.

I have some advice for the minister: if he wants his actions to reflect his words, he should immediately go to the telephone located in the lobby, contact Mr. Desautels and deal with the issue because the people involved have been waiting for years for a settlement. Mr. Desautels can be reached at [phone].

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

Mr. Speaker, I said exactly the same thing a moment ago. I do not see why the hon. member claims I changed my tune since yesterday.

I said that I was told the department's lawyers had had discussions regarding this very important issue, which we care about. Following these discussions, they are to report to me by the end of the week. I will then be pleased to report to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. member.

Public Transit

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Next Monday the national capital region faces a public transit strike that is going to cause chaos on the roads, disrupt the economy and hurt workers, students, the elderly and people with disabilities. Will the minister act to appoint a federal mediator to try to resolve this dispute and avoid a bus strike?

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

Mr. Speaker, about two hours ago I received a request from the company and the union to appoint a mediator. I will be appointing a mediator later this afternoon.

I have also been informed that negotiations with the new mediator can start early tomorrow morning. I urge both parties to take advantage of the mediator and get back to the negotiation table and solve this dispute so that citizens can have normal, good transportation service in the capital region.

Tobacco Legislation

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister with big fanfare said that there would be a big announcement made tomorrow at a national press conference.

Suddenly that national press conference has been cancelled. I would like to ask the minister why.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, all the details are not finalized.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the tobacco legislation has been long awaited. Too many kids have started smoking in the meantime. There is a vacuum. Reform has waited for that legislation and we are now ready to move.

The minister said: "Judge me by my legislation, not by my oration". Reform is ready. We will go through the legislation in a fast track. When can we expect it?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am that the hon. member stood in his place and gave support to the government to bring in tobacco legislation.

However, I do wish to share with the hon. member and with members of the House that the hon. member did say that Reformers see the answer to reducing tobacco consumption in education, not in legislation.

If this is a change of the mindset of the Reform Party I want to say congratulations. I am glad it has seen the light.

Mining Industry

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The mining industry in Canada and Quebec, like so many other industries, is still affected by overlap and duplication between the federal government and the provinces. In its throne speech, the Liberal government made a commitment to withdraw swiftly from this sector. But with the introduction yesterday of its policy on minerals and metals, the government has clearly reneged on its commitment.

Why is it taking so long for the government to withdraw from the mining sector, as this contributes to greater uncertainty and reduces Canada's chances of attracting investments?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We are a government that acknowledges that primary jurisdiction over mining rests with the provinces. However, we are also a government that acknowledges the increasing globalization of the mining industry and consequently there is a role for the federal government as it relates to the mining industry.

Industry respects that, most provinces and environmental stakeholders respect that position.

The issue of regulatory reform was specifically raised, avoiding regulatory overlap and duplication. I was very pleased to receive the final report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, of which the hon. member is a member. My department and I will be reviewing that report. The hon. member knows that we responded to the interim report. We are working with departments such as fisheries and oceans, my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and others.

Our goal is shared by the hon. member, to ensure an efficient regulatory regime for this important sector of our economy.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources tabled a report supported by the Liberal majority, which calls for the elimination of overlap in mining regulations.

What is the minister waiting for to implement the recommendations of her own Liberal colleagues and meet her government's commitment to the mining industry?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member that we are not waiting for anything. We have been working for the past number of months and in fact years with our colleagues in key departments such as fisheries and oceans, transport, environment. We have been working with the provinces to ensure that we have the necessary regulatory regime but one that does not contain within it expensive and inefficient overlap and duplication.

I must say that my department works closely with the province of Quebec and its mining department. We have a very positive relationship with my colleagues in the province of Quebec and we will continue to build on that relationship to ensure the kind of regulatory regime in this country that will attract foreign investment and will attract jobs in the mining sector.

Distinct Society

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

Mr. Speaker, the intergovernmental affairs minister has announced that he will soon be off again trying to sell Canadians on the idea of entrenching the distinct society clause.

He must know that rather than drawing Canadians together with his efforts he is either unwittingly or otherwise actually playing the politics of division. People in Canada do not want this distinct society and they do not want it from coast to coast.

Given the recent poll results that show that even Liberals do not support the idea of distinct society, will the minister put concrete proposals on the table that benefit all provinces rather than pushing the distinct society clause when it has no receptive audience in Canada?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, today the support for the distinct society clause is about 40 per cent in polls. It is lower in this poll because it was connected with a kind of question that looks like a threat: "If you don't recognize Quebec, then Quebec may leave". Instead of increasing support, it decreased it.

I urge the hon. member to look at the recognition of Quebec on its own merit, why it is good, why it is bad. I think it is good. It is good for our country. It is good for Canadian values. It would not endanger the charter of rights and freedoms. It would not endanger equality between citizens. It would be a great thing to recognize Quebec distinctiveness as a fundamental characteristic of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, this idea was wrong in the Meech Lake accord, it was wrong in the Charlottetown accord, it was wrong when the Prime Minister promised it last year, it was wrong when the government pushed it through the House of Commons, it was wrong when it was adopted as policy at the Liberal convention. The Tories of course followed suit but they just do not get it.

Canadians say realign the powers of the federation if need be, put other proposals that affect all the provinces on the table if need be; it is a good idea, but this distinct society idea is dead. It will not sell.

Will the minister put proposals on the table that treat all provinces and Canadians equally and that bring us together as a

country rather than pushing the distinct society clause which, I am warning him, is driving people apart?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear. This government has said that we do not want to make a change in the Constitution if it is not supported by Canadians.

So we will try to convince Canadians that in order to reconcile Quebecers and other Canadians it would be a fair and good thing to recognize that in this anglophone North America there is a province of Canada that is francophone and this is an asset for Canada.

If it were the province of the hon. member that was francophone we would recognize this province without any problem and we would be proud of it.

Mining

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The Canadian mining industry contributes over $23 billion to the Canadian economy annually and employs more than 340,000 people who work to develop our mineral resources in an environmentally sustainable manner.

The minerals and metals policy was announced yesterday. Can the minister please explain to the House how this new policy will affect economic growth and job creation in the Canadian mining industry?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it was the Liberal Party and only the Liberal Party that during the last election campaign acknowledged the importance of the mining sector to the Canadian economy and promised a new minerals and metals policy within the federal government.

Yesterday it was with great pleasure that I announced this new minerals and metals policy. Let me reassure all my friends on the other side of the House that this policy delivers on an important red book commitment which is to affirm and reaffirm the primary role of the provinces as it relates to jurisdiction over mining.

In addition, it acknowledges the increasing globalization of this industry and the importance of ensuring that we continue to attract foreign investment, that we continue to have access to foreign markets on fair terms and that we produce the science and technology that permits this industry to continue to be such an important contributor to the economy.

That is what this policy is about and it is one that I think we should all be very proud of.

Interest Rates

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

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

Credit card debt now accounts for 20 per cent of record levels of personal debt which stands at 90 per cent of family disposable income in Canada. On top of that, bankruptcies are up 20 per cent from last year. The Bank of Canada prime rate is at 3.25 per cent while bank credit cards, oil company cards, department store cards charge usury rates, some as high as 28.8 per cent.

Will the Minister of Finance consider bringing back the Usury Act that used to outlaw this kind of immoral interest rate policy which was repealed by the Trudeau government, or what does the government intend to do about this kind of legalized robbery?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the best ways to deal with matters such as credit cards and interest rates on credit cards is by the consumers to indicate whether or not they wish to accommodate such an industry.

When interest rates were high, generally consumers in other areas did not borrow money and did not make purchases, and recently we had it in the housing industry. When interest rates were reduced through the very fine policy of our finance minister, then consumers gained confidence and started to buy houses.

The same can apply in the credit card industry. It is best to leave it to the marketplace. Already there are changes by some of the lending institutions where in certain cases they are instituting credit cards with lower rates. It is best to leave it for the marketplace and Canadian consumers. If the consumers do not like the policy and the high interest rates, they do not have to use the cards.