Debates of Dec. 13th, 1996

Prime Minister

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

'Twas the night of the Town Hall and all through the House, All the Liberals cringed as Canadians groused. The Prime Minister stammered, then denied his own words, As he tried to defend the absurdly absurd.

"I never did say that," he said to the crowd, While the lady who asked him was gasping out loud. "I never said kill, or abolish or scrap", And the people who listened thought he had snapped.

"I have some advice" said the leader with pluck, "If you don't have a job, you can rely on blind luck." Then he screwed up his anger and foamed at the lips, As he blamed it on God, and on tapes and on slips.

Then out in the country there arose such a clatter, The Prime Minister's handlers asked: "What is the matter?" They pulled down the blinds, turned the lights way down low, Then sprang to the TV to replay the show.

And what to their wondering eyes should appear, But the truth, which is something they've never held dear. So they slumped in their chairs and they watched the assembled, Endure the sight of a Prime Minister as he boldly dissembled.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is as Prime Minister does.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. On average over four people are killed every day as a result of alcohol related vehicle accidents. That is why I would like to pay tribute today to the hardworking people at Mothers Against Drunk Driving, sometimes known as MADD.

MADD's mission is to stop drunk driving and support victims of violent crime. The local MADD chapters transform individual experiences of both concerned citizens and victims into activism for the public good. These committed volunteers are brought together in pursuit of their shared goal: preventing further casualties.

One of these committed workers is Mrs. Joan Hemsworth, a special constituent of mine who is working hard to establish a MADD chapter in Perth county. I salute her for her efforts to bring the good work of MADD to Perth county. I encourage my constituents to lend their support to Joan for this worthy clause.

To all Canadians this holiday, I urge you not to drink and drive.

Goods And Services Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had to face some sharp criticism this week, not just in the House, but also during a television broadcast, in the course of which he was questioned by members of the public. They reminded the Prime Minister that, during the last election campaign, he had promised to scrap the GST, something he denied. But the Prime Minister was seen and heard on Toronto's CFRB in August 1993 saying, and I quote: "Yes, I will scrap the GST".

Will the Deputy Prime Minister finally admit that the Prime Minister made such a statement, so that we are not forced to conclude that some look-alike played a dirty trick on him, because we all know that the Prime Minister definitely did not tell a lie?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is quoting from an interview given by the Prime Minister on CFRB on August 26. I would like to put the quotation in context by giving it in its entirety.

"Yes, I will abolish it, but I need the money. It is taking $15 billion and I will have to collect another $15 billion. So you go and sit down in a very civilized way and say to the provinces that the poor small businesses have items with federal tax, other items with provincial tax, or both, or sometimes none. So we have to clean up that mess and produce $15 billion".

I think the member should at least be honest enough to quote the Prime Minister in context.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most honest people are the ones capable of supplying their own answers to questions put to them, instead of relying on a finance minister who admitted to having made an honest mistake.

The Prime Minister did not conduct the last election campaign on his own. He did it with a team, which was elected with a majority, except in Quebec. The Minister of Finance admitted that it was an honest mistake; the Deputy Prime Minister resigned because she thought she had understood, along with many other people, that the Prime Minister had promised to scrap the GST, and this was the Minister of Finance's understanding as well, because he said it was an honest mistake. If that was not his understanding, there is an inconsistency, because he said it was a mistake. So, this whole business is certainly confusing.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain that the Minister of Finance said that it was an honest mistake, that she resigned, that everyone understood the same thing, except the Prime Minister, who claims he did not say, or did not think he said that? We would like to understand these three versions, his version, her version and the version of the gentleman who is not answering this morning.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that, when I made the statement here in the House, I did so for the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an even bigger problem.

I am pleased to hear the Minister of Finance, who speaks on behalf of the government, being so honest, but those of us who took Politics 101 always understood that the Prime Minister was part of the government. He is therefore speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister if he is speaking on behalf of the government. He is therefore saying, on behalf of the Prime Minister: "It was an honest mistake". That is not what the Prime Minister is saying. The more versions we hear, the less we understand. You need a strong

ego to be in politics. Every politician knows this, but what you really need most is a very large amount of humility.

Would the Finance Minister promise to advise the Prime Minister to show a little more humility, and above all, to have the wisdom to admit his mistake, honest or not?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat.

Here in this House-and the Prime Minister happened to be here- I was speaking for the government. When a minister speaks in the House, he does so for the government. I gave the circumstances, and I made the statement.

Once again, I think that we should look at what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign, even in the interview cited by the member. The Prime Minister said, in English:

We will look at other alternatives. All sorts of systems are being proposed. We wanted to take the time to sit down with the provinces. That is what we did. We wanted to listen to business people. That is what we did. We wanted to listen to citizens. That is what the Prime Minister said and that is what we did.

That is what we did. The House finance committee took two and a half years to look at 20 options. In the end, they heard from small and medium size businesses, those that create the most jobs, and we did what they wanted to do, which was to institute a process for creating a harmonized tax, which is much simpler and more effective when it comes to job creation.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do indeed have a big problem, as my colleague, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie has pointed out, because the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are both members of the same government, claim to speak on behalf of the government, but are not saying the same things. We are in trouble here, it makes no sense.

During the 1993 campaign, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "We will scrap the GST". Yet this week he informs us that "scrap", when translated into French, becomes "harmoniser"-harmonize.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he explain to us why it will cost the federal government $1 billion to scrap the GST in the maritimes, when harmonizing it in Quebec cost him nothing?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that, when fundamental changes occur in a province or in a region of the country, it is the responsibility, the duty, of the federal government to help that province or region to adjust. We have, moreover, done just that on many occasions for Quebec. We have done so on many occasions for the western provinces.

We made an offer to the provinces which would have sustained a loss of revenue as a result of harmonization. We offered to help those provinces. The ones eligible were the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The provinces which were not eligible under the criteria were Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. The three Atlantic provinces accepted the offer.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it really takes a lot of courage for the Minister of Finance to defend the totally undefendable position of the Prime Minister. He has my total admiration.

In another vein, we were speaking of the provinces just now. According to Quebec Minister of Finance Bernard Landry, Quebec would be entitled to $2 billion in compensation for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal GST.

Will the Minister of Finance respond favourably to Quebec's demand for compensation, or will he give Quebecers proof that they are left footing the bill for a bad campaign promise?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have already responded to the hon. member's question, and I have already responded to Mr. Landry: we have offered compensation to the provinces which sustained losses. Quebec did not. Ontario will not. The same goes for Alberta and British Columbia.

I do not think the hon. member would want me to offer compensation to provinces which did not sustain a loss. That would make no sense.

Taxation

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this dancing gives new meaning to the words revenue neutral. I cannot believe what I am hearing today.

"Scrap, kill and abolish the GST". That is what the Prime Minister promised Canadians in the last election. That is he promised the House Commons in May 1994 and that is what he promised his own caucus evidently. We have the tapes and the tapes do not lie. Now we have the eye witness account and proof from the member for York South-Weston.

I ask this question once again because we still do not have an answer. Will the Prime Minister admit that he broke it and he blew it? Fess up.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, every time I heard the Prime Minister deal with the question of the

GST, he put it within the context of a government that was unable to give up $15 billion in revenue.

The Prime Minister made it very clear it was crucial to sit down with the provinces and come up with a simplified system that would work. What the Prime Minister said was what this government did.

It put in place a House of Commons finance committee that went across the country for two and one-half years. It looked at 20 alternatives. At the end of the piece those who were creating jobs, the small and medium size business community, said to us: "We would like to see a harmonized tax. We want to see one tax auditor, one set of tax forms".

This government wants to create jobs, unlike the myth on the other side. Basically that is what the small and medium sized business community did and gave us a tax system that is going to work.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been proved time and time again that the tax system is not working. This minister has a nerve to try to blame this on the provinces. It is just unbelievable.

This morning this same finance minister admitted to the Press Club that the Liberals may have promised more than they could actually deliver.

The finance minister has apologized twice now. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has apologized once. What is the problem here? Can the Prime Minister not admit that he has some shortcomings? There is no great shame in that. Just say sorry.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian people would like to know this. Members of the Reform Party were part of the finance committee that went across the country. They said they supported the harmonized tax. In fact Reform members said they would go beyond the harmonized tax and would tax food and drugs. We said we would not do that.

How can the Reform Party stand up in the House and criticize the harmonized sales tax when it is part and parcel of its policies?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minority report said quite clearly that Reform would balance the budget first. That is the first sentence in that report. That is the only way that we can offer Canadians tax relief, by balancing the budget first. Any government that brags about overspending $28 billion can hardly be proud of its accomplishments.

The Prime Minister is the only person in this country who really believes that he did not promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. Life must be pretty nice for the Prime Minister in his imaginary world. It truly is a magic kingdom.

The finance minister has admitted that he has made a mistake. The Deputy Prime Minister also did that. Why can the Prime

Minister not just swallow his pride and spit out his foot and simply say sorry?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as are most other industrial countries, Canada is going through fundamental economic change as a result of the technological evolution. As a result of the interdependence of global trade, as a country we are doing very well.

The House of Commons ought to be debating the fundamental issues of the day, yet what do we hear day after day? Reform Party members stand up, totally disconnected from the reality of the Canadian people and engage in personal attacks. They attack minister after minister, member after member, because they are unable to deal with the issues that concern Canadians.

Canadians want to talk about unemployment and how they can get back to work. What Canadians want to talk about is the preservation of their social programs. When will the Reform Party wake up and smell the roses and understand that Canadians want the House to deal with their problems?

Canadian Space Agency

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the space agency.

Obviously things are out of kilter at the space agency. The vice-president and financial comptroller was let go for doing his job, because he criticized the dubious practices of senior management of one of Canada's major research institutes. The minister is taking the word only of those primarily involved, those who are the subject of the allegations, in his inquiry where he concluded that nothing happened.

How can the minister responsible for the space agency claim that he fully investigated the allegations made by Mr. Rinaldi, the former vice-president and financial comptroller, when he did not even take the time to meet this person, who was dismissed for refusing to countenance fraud.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the question is based on false allegations. In any case, public servants throughout the Government of Canada have lost their jobs because of budget cuts.

Some of them, no doubt, consider it unfair that they lost their jobs. Some, including Mr. Rinaldi, have lodged a complaint against the government. The court will decide if he is right or not. I am not prepared to meet with every public servant who wants to make a complaint.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister responsible for the space agency would do well to consult his former colleague at national defence, because his scenario is strikingly similar to what he did, to the cover up, and it could end up in the same place.

Mr. Rinaldi was definitely dismissed. A year and a half ago, he filed a grievance. What did the government do? And why is Mr. Rinaldi in court? Because the government is dragging him to court to contest the arbitrator's jurisdiction. It will be a year and a half when the federal court finally decides on the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator. There are neverthess limits to misleading the public, Mr. Minister. You are pretending arrogantly you do not understand-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The hon. member knows full well she must address her remarks to the Chair.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know where arrogance leads, do we not? How can the minister go on protecting his former adviser, who has now become the president of the space agency, when, if he assumed his responsibilities, he would call for an outside inquiry to bring to light all these serious allegations regarding the president of the space agency and his executive vice-president, Mr. Desfossés?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let us understand what the Bloc is asking here.

As I recall over a number of days of questions, it has asked for a public inquiry on three issues. Bloc members complain that a secretary tore up hand written notes after she had transcribed them on a typewriter.

They complain that Mr. Evans submitted a travel expense claim of $116 when he travelled by automobile from Saint-Hubert to Ottawa, although the amount was never paid to him.

They complain of an amount of just over $500 which was paid to a former employee of the space agency who later became employed as a political assistant in my office. When the issue was raised it was debatable. Therefore, the individual in question, out of an abundance of caution, repaid the money without any pressure other than the question having been raised.

These are the issues on which they wish to have a public inquiry. What is really happening here is that these people are using the House of Commons as a place in which to prosecute a claim which ought to be dealt with by the civil courts.

I do not know why they think an issue that could be raised in the courts is a one-sided issue. For my part I am quite anxious to hear the evidence presented in court and to see what the courts decide. However, in terms of the allegations that have been brought forward, there is no substance based on which I could take any other action than let the courts decide. I would encourage them to do likewise.

Taxation

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about GST, HST or BST, although the government might be talking about a lot of BS. The real issue here is the truth. The fundamental issue, in answer to the finance minister, is a broken promise. Maybe the Prime Minister should go visit a bank machine. It seemed to have done the trick for the Deputy Prime Minister. She admitted that the government had broken its GST promise.

The finance minister admitted in April and again this morning at the press club that the government had made a mistake with its GST promise.

I ask the government why the Prime Minister does not join with his colleagues and admit that he made a mistake when he promised Canadians he would abolish the GST?