Debates of Dec. 13th, 1996

Taxation

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the context in which the Prime Minister made his statements is very clear and a matter of record. They make it clear that the government was unable to give up the $15 billion to $18 billion of revenue.

The fundamental issue is the nature of the public debate within this House. Somebody, for whom I have an enormous amount of respect, once told me that when one enters politics and it comes down to the basic decision of what is good for the country, if there is any difference between that and what is politically right then integrity is doing what is good for the country.

My colleagues of cabinet who are here and indeed those who are in caucus know full well that at the very first cabinet meeting we had, the first thing the Prime Minister said to all of us was that in any individual instance if a choice has to be made between what is politically right and what is right for the country we will choose what is right for the country in every single instance. In cabinet, the Prime Minister has chosen to do the right thing. I will tell members right now that he is a man of great-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, a supplementary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the members opposite for that standing ovation. I appreciate it.

This is not the 1960s. The Prime Minister should quit living in the past. He should be aware that we are now in the 1990s and technology has produced something called videotapes. By now, almost every Canadian has seen those tapes. They know in what context that promise was made before and during the election campaign.

How can the Prime Minister deny the existence of the evidence? How will he continue to deny the evidence of his broken promise?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on behalf of the government and made a statement. That statement speaks for all of us.

If the hon. member wants to talk about contradictions, perhaps he would tell us why it is that in the most recent discovery of the need to create jobs in this country by the leader of the Reform Party and his party, he has been able to deny the fact that in 1993 in Penticton, the Reform Party brought down a program. At that time the leader of the Reform Party had no difficulty saying that it would cost jobs but jobs were not as important as cleaning up the deficit. How is the Reform Party going to deal with the fact that in its 1995 taxpayers' budget it said that the short term employment impact of spending and deficit reduction was negative but manageable? What kind of job loss is manageable? Is it 30,000? Is it 50,000? Is it 100,000?

How can they talk about integrity when they stand in the House of Commons and contradict every single thing they have in their own policies?

Employment Insurance

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is jubilant, every time he talks about negotiating active employment measures with the provinces and the flexibility of federalism. When confronted with the figures of his own department, which show that between 1993-94 and 1996-97, Quebec suffered major cuts totalling $160 million in funding for active measures, the minister denies this.

Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to confirm whether or not the federal government proceeded with cuts of around $160 million in all active measures in Quebec alone between 1993-94 and 1996-97?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in questions put by the hon. member. The question she asks is at this point somewhat hypothetical. The question she asks is what will be the active measures for the province of Quebec.

She knows and the House knows that we are negotiating with the province of Quebec at this moment with respect to part II of the EI legislation. Under part II of the EI legislation we will be negotiating with the province of Quebec on active measures. When that negotiation has been completed we will be able to tell her what the amount of dollars will be that will go to the province. Until that negotiation is complete I do not think she or I or anyone else knows because we are still in the negotiation process.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly did not understand the question. My question concerns all moneys spent on active employment measures between 1993-94 and 1996-97, as indicated in the department's figures.

I will to quote the Minister of Human Resources Development, who said this week: "I am always shocked by the attitude of people who like to fiddle in around with this figure or that figure".

Will the minister finally admit that his own government has been fiddling with the figures, since the additional $800 million for active measures were drawn from the unemployment insurance fund, a procedure that actually camouflages a substantial drop in the amounts formerly spent on employment measures which came directly out of the consolidated fund?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the member is having difficulty understanding the finances of the Department of Human Resources Development. It is for one reason. She is looking at the old programs that the province of Quebec used to have.

We have made significant changes in programs. Those significant changes, for example the EI legislation, have moved a lot of money over to active measures. An additional $800 million is going into active measures in the next number of years. That necessitates program shifting from one area to the other.

We have also committed $300 million for TJF. The member knows that those particular dollars have been reallocated from other funds. If she is having trouble dealing with the numbers, she

can arrange to meet with us and we will give her the numbers. The programs are different now. She is still looking at the old numbers from the old programs which have changed.

Distinct Society

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

Mr. Speaker, what we see developing here is a very disturbing trend on behalf of the Prime Minister. At the town hall meeting the other night on the national unity strategy, in order to reassure a Quebecer who is concerned about the future of Quebec in Canada, he said that if things ever got really rough he could always move out.

His solution today is a distinct society clause. In 1989 he opposed Meech Lake. He said this about the distinct society clause: "No matter how the supreme court interprets the distinct society clause, it would always make francophones or anglophones feel defrauded".

Why would the Prime Minister take a position on distinct society today that he once fought so vigorously against and why would he tell a Quebecer that if things get rough he can always just leave?

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike the politics of the Reform Party, the Prime Minister is actually fighting to keep the country together.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the trend. The Prime Minister has flip-flopped on the GST. He has created imaginary homeless friends. He has blamed things on acts of God. He also says that blind luck is the best job creator.

Let us have a reality check here. In 1989 the Prime Minister had the audacity to call Brian Mulroney a liar for promoting the distinct society clause. He said that Mulroney was telling the French Canadians in Quebec "it is the best thing you ever had" and after that, he turns around to English Canada and says "don't worry about it, it means nothing".

If the Prime Minister called Brian Mulroney a liar for promoting the distinct society clause, will he now admit that he is doing the same thing today?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is promoting, as he has all his life, a recognition that in this country we have two founding nations, two founding peoples, with languages, cultures and civil codes that were enshrined in the law.

What is unfortunate in the position of the Reform Party is instead of looking at where we came from, instead of understanding the reason we are where we are today is that we have a history of shared consciousness and a history of shared commitment, what the Reform Party is trying to do with its politics of division will drive this country apart.

Kenworth Corporation

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

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

All the parties involved have come to an agreement on the terms and conditions for the reopening of the Kenworth plant. PACCAR, the solidarity fund, the union and the Quebec government followed through on their commitments. However, at the very last minute, the federal government has come up with new requirements which could prevent the reopening to be announced before Christmas.

In order to preserve some 900 jobs, could the Minister of Industry tell the House if he intends to follow through on the commitments made by his officials concerning the Auto Pact and the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement to ensure that the Kenworth plant will reopen?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing quickly with this issue, but some things are still under discussion.

Since November 26, when the solidarity fund and PACCAR came to an agreement, we have acted rapidly. Right now, we are still waiting for the company to submit its business plan. We will see what has to be done as soon as we get it.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while they are thinking about it and splitting hairs, unemployed Canadians have run out of UI benefits. What we want is action.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, because the parties involved are also waiting for an agreement over the TJF.

I would like to know if the Minister of Human Resources Development intends to commit funds from his transition job program to ensure the reopening of the Kenworth plant.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the TJF in the province of Quebec is now in full force. If the member is asking if we are willing to look at a proposal to help a particular industry or to create long term jobs I suggest that he make the proposal to human resources development and we will be more than willing to look at it.

Fisheries

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-62, the new fisheries act, includes a provision that fishers, fishery associations and fishing communities have been requesting for years.

Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to the House how the new partnership agreement proposals in the bill will work? What is being done to ensure that all interested parties will be included as part of the consultation process?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, partnering is a new way of doing business in the fishing industry whereby the fishers will have a greater say and a greater share in the management of the fisheries itself.

This is a responsibility they have been looking for more and more in the past. It will build on the success of our recent co-management agreements that we have had, the best example of which is the zone 19 crab agreement in Cape Breton.

I see this provision, a major improvement in Bill C-62, the new fisheries act, as a tremendous opportunity for representative organizations and the industry to have a direct voice in fisheries management to develop ways to manage the fishery more effectively and efficiently and to provide a more stable climate for long term business planning.

Customs

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter from the customs minister referencing the government's appeal of David Sawatzky's acquittal, the minister stated: "Until this matter is resolved, Revenue Canada will continue to apply sanctions such as vehicle seizures".

Is it the customs minister's opinion that her department has applied these sanctions and seizures equally on all farmers who have allegedly violated the customs and wheat board acts?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, customs administration in this country takes very seriously its responsibility to uphold several acts that are its responsibility.

In this case we have been told and we are responsible to ensure that people who export barley and wheat across our borders have the appropriate permits. We consider that the job we have done is effective and precise in fulfilling our responsibilities.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a Saskatchewan farmer indicated he would go public with information that Canadian Wheat Board officials made a deal with him, providing $223,000 in selection bonuses.

Then Canada Customs filed $165,520 worth of forfeitures against this farmer for previous grain export violations. I would like to know why the customs minister has not prosecuted this farmer and seized his vehicles with the same lightening speed used to prosecute farmers like David Sawatzky, Andy McMechan and Bill Cairns. Is this the Liberal government's idea of justice for farmers?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility that Canadian Customs officers have at our border is tremendous.

We have, in fact, the responsibility to ensure active facilitation of trade and also to ensure the safety and protection of our country. We uphold several acts that have been passed by this Parliament and we do it in a very effective and precise manner.

I suggest to the hon. member that if there are individuals who have complaints, there is a full process of appeal that we are part of. I would encourage him to support his constituents but we will uphold the acts as they have been written. We will apply our responsible actions in a fair and productive way and we take very seriously the dual role we have in Canada Customs to facilitate trade and to ensure the safety and protection of Canadians within our country.

Atlanta Olympic Games

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.

During a reception to honour the athletes who participated in the Atlanta Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is responsible for recreation and sports, learned that the Canadian Paralympic Committee did not pay all the costs associated with the participation of our athletes in the Atlanta games. So he made the commitment to give the athletes, or their sports associations, grants in the amount of $16,485 to cover half of the unpaid expenses.

Will the minister respond to the letter dated December 2 from her Quebec counterpart asking her to do her share and to reimburse the other half of the costs incurred by the athletes to participate in the Atlanta Paralympic Games?

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

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that my department paid a large portion of the costs of the Paralympic Games for Canada, we, as the Government of Canada, will

certainly continue to do so, but I am inviting the Quebec minister, Guy Chevrette, to join us in subsidizing 50 per cent of all the costs associated with Quebec paralympic athletes.