Debates of Dec. 9th, 1996

Job Creation

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 6, Statistics Canada released its employment figures for the month of November.

From September 1995 to October 1996, the private sector created 220,000 jobs in our country. Since 1993, total employment has increased: 664,000 net new jobs were created, the majority of them being full time jobs, while unemployment rates have fluctuated.

We are also just starting to feel the positive effects of our basic economic factors, namely the lowest interest rates in 40 years, and the lowest mortgage rates in 30 years.

Contrary to what Louise Harel said last week, Quebec's employment situation did not deteriorate because the "no side" won, but because of the political instability that prevails.

Tribute To Mrs. Rose-Anna Nobert

[Réjean Lefebvre, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to mention that a constituent of mine is celebrating her 105th birthday, since she was born on December 8, 1891.

Her name is Rose-Anna Nobert, the wife of Rosaire Nobert and mother of seven children. She is also the proud grandmother of 36 grandchildren and the great-grandmother of 23 great-grandchildren.

I should point out that Rose-Anna Nobert, who currently lives at the senior citizens home in Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade, lived in her own house until she was 103 years old, which is simply extraordinary.

As the member for Champlain, I am proud to pay tribute to Rose-Anna Nobert. I join all the members of her family, and all her friends at the Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade home, in wishing her health and happiness on her 105th birthday.

Transfers To Provinces

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in the report by the finance committee's Liberal majority, we learn that, with the limited budgetary flexibility now available to it, the federal government could, at the suggestion of its members, provide assistance primarily to the disadvantaged and to students through measures that will cost it less than $2 billion in total.

My question is for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Will the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance, admit, and furthermore, could they inform members of their caucus, that if the government has $2 billion to play around with today, it is first and foremost because it has cut social transfer payments to the provinces by almost $5 billion over two years?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is a committee report. The Minister of Finance will table his budget in February.

Regarding transfer payments to the province of Quebec, I would like to point out that, while some transfer payments from the federal government have gone down, equalization payments have increased. At the moment the amount being transferred to the province of Quebec is about the same as it was when we came to office. In the case of Quebec, there has been no change, unlike richer provinces perhaps.

The Minister of Finance is going to prepare his budget and we will see. Usually, he brings it down in February. The Leader of the Opposition will have to wait two months, and then he will have his answer.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is because we are used to tricks from the other side. We have seen the government in action for three years.

Generally, when government members throw out an idea, the government is later tempted to use it in making unpopular decisions. That is why we are putting it on notice.

I ask the Prime Minister if he could tell these members and the House that the measures they proposed in the Liberal report to help students and the poor do not represent even half of what his government has cut in health, social assistance and higher education during its term of office, and that, as a result, it is still a long way from undoing the harm it has done to the most vulnerable members of society.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, for one thing, when we made cuts, they were much deeper in our own case, in order to reduce direct federal government spending.

Moreover, it is very clear that, when the time came to make cuts, we could not ignore the fact that 20 to 25 per cent of our spending was in the form of transfer payments to the provinces. At the same time, as the Prime Minister has just said, we did not touch equalization payments. Furthermore, I can tell you that equalization payments alone amount to $3.9 billion dollars, or 45 per cent of the total, for Quebec.

That being said, when we look at measures to help the most disadvantaged members of society, to help children living in poverty, to help students, a question comes to mind: Why did the Bloc Quebecois vote against all these measures?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows very well that the biggest cuts were to provincial transfer payments, and that they also dipped substantially into the UI fund. This was primarily how the minister refilled his coffers. We know this. He cannot deny it. Furthermore,

those living in poverty in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada know it. They know it each day that the government has hurt them, that it went after them cruelly.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that the best short term response to child poverty, family violence and school dropouts would be to re-establish the provincial transfer payments for social programs that it was too quick to cut, and will he promise to do so in his next budget and to inform government members that the path they have set out on is a very bad one?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, between 1993-94 and 1998-99, direct government spending will decrease by over 12 per cent. As for provincial transfer payments, the reduction will be less than 8 per cent.

At the same time, it must be pointed out that when provincial transfer payments were reduced, the reduction was less than 3 per cent of provincial revenues. This is a completely acceptable cost. Not only that, but when one looks at the cuts provincial governments have made in payments to their municipalities, we have cut much less.

That having been said, let us look at what was done in the last budget. Not only did we set an $11 billion ceiling-not a ceiling, a floor-to protect provinces, we included a formula that will see transfer payments increase after 1998.

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

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the Minister of Finance has tabled budgets in which transfers to the provinces for health, education, and welfare drop, or will drop, from $30 billion to $25 billion in 1996-98, in other words cuts of $5 billion over two years.

Today, that same government is talking to us about creating programs and tax measures in the order of $2 billion to offset, very partially, the cuts to the provinces.

Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that the manoeuvring he is involved in at this time, this withdrawal from the funding of provincial social programs in order to create its own programs has but one objective, increasing federal government visibility? This is not done in order to help those who are truly in need, the victims, for the federal government is the one who made them victims and is now coming to their rescue.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as regards transfers to the provinces, the key objective is to help the most disadvantaged members of our society, those who are in need, and to do so in partnership with provincial governments. This is why we gave two years notice before making the cuts. This is also the reason cuts to the provinces are less than the cuts at our end, these cuts represent less than 3 per cent of their revenues. Yes, we have made cuts, but in manageable amounts.

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

Mr. Speaker, when analysing the budget, we must remember that 84 per cent of cuts in federal government spending were made to transfer payments and subsidies to third parties, individuals or provinces, while only 16 per cent of cuts were made to departments or crown corporations. These figures come from the minister's own budget.

I refer to the Prime Minister, who stated in this House on December 13, 1995: "It is very important we continue to make visible transfers-like the heritage minister, the flag minister-so that the people-will see that the federal government helps pay for the social programs the provincial governments manage".

Will the Minister of Finance admit that this government is interested solely in visibility, that the only thing it is trying to do is to improve its own image, by blackening that of the provinces, which are forced to make the cuts for it?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as regards equalization transfers, Quebec comes out the winner. As for subsidies to industry for job creation like those to the aeronautical and pharmaceutical industries, Quebec comes out the winner.

I think it is very important that we not allow any region of the country to attack any other. The member is absolutely right. When the federal government transfers money to the provinces it does so to protect the basic social programs. If those are visible like child care, like the working income supplement and the protection of medicare then this government will keep on doing it.

Distinct Society

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Liberals just cannot take no for an answer. Canadians said no to Meech Lake and to Charlottetown. The Canadian people continue to say no to distinct society and the special status that it would confer on only one province in this country.

There are reports that the Quebec provincial government and the federal government are working behind the scenes to secure the approval of enough provinces to entrench the distinct society clause in the Constitution.

I ask the Prime Minister does the federal government endorse the constitutional position outlined over the weekend by Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson, yes or no?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this House of Commons voted a year ago on distinct society.

Again we have the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois together. Distinct society is very clear to me and it is something I have subscribed to all along. Everybody recognizes that the language in Quebec is different but perhaps the member does not know that. Quebec also has its own culture. Already in the Constitution the civil code of Quebec is the civil law in that province but not in the rest of the provinces. This was done in Canada in 1867 by the Fathers of Confederation.

I know the Reform Party does not want to respect the wishes of the Fathers of Confederation who wanted to have a civil code which was different for Quebec than for the rest of the country. This was among many other distinctions they gave in the Constitution.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this nonsense continues on. If this is the case, if the Prime Minister is telling us exactly the truth, why in the world did we go through Meech Lake? Why in the world did we go through Charlottetown? Canadians spoke on those issues and they said no.

My question to the Prime Minister is what part of no did he not understand?

Canadians across the country, inside and outside Quebec, want to see a rebalancing of Confederation. They want to see moving government responsibility closer to the people. Canadians also want to see a strengthening of Canada's federal nature and institutions. These are the changes most likely to keep Quebec in the federation, not the empty, divisive rhetoric that we have seen time and time again.

How many times do Canadians have to say no, Canadians across the country, not just in these hallowed halls? Why is the Prime Minister not recognizing 10 equal provinces in this country?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when the member asks for change is she not aware that last Friday the Minister of Human Resources Development was in her own province signing an agreement to change the status quo for a more improved situation in Canada, that it was the Government of Alberta that signed the first labour market accord in Canada last Friday?

This example shows that this government has the right approach. We are changing Canada one program at a time. I know the Reform Party does not understand that. The member does not even know that the premier and the government of her own province agreed to a new formula for manpower in Canada.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what many of the provinces are calling for. However, I am not sure that changing the Constitution and entrenching distinct society rights could be labelled as one program at a time. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are all moving toward entrenching Quebec as a distinct society.

Last winter in the government's throne speech the Prime Minister promised all Canadians, not just politicians or the elite but all Canadians, no matter where they live in the country, a say in the future of the country.

So I ask the Prime Minister this. Will the government assure the House and all Canadians that distinct society for Quebec will not be entrenched in the Constitution unless it is endorsed by a nationwide referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that it would be approved by a nationwide referendum. But when I see that the provinces subscribe to what the House of Commons voted for last December, they recognize the reality of life in Canada; that in Quebec there is the French language, the French culture and a different system for citizens in law. It is in the Constitution.

As I said, in P.E.I. there is a guarantee that whatever the number citizens in P.E.I. there will always be four members of Parliament and they will always have four Senators. Some might say that is a special status for P.E.I. Yes, but it made that deal and we are respecting it. We are not saying that privileges have been given to P.E.I. because it guaranteed to give the House of Commons four good Liberal MPs.

Krever Commission

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

In a report the government submitted to the Krever Commission last Friday, Judge Krever's approach was qualified as repugnant and without foundation. He was also accused of looking for scapegoats to explain what happened, instead of focusing on making the blood system safer. However, the Krever commission was given a mandate to investigate the events and the shortcomings in the system which led to thousands of Canadians being infected.

Does the Prime Minister endorse the statements in the report submitted by his government to the effect that Judge Krever's attitude is repugnant and that the government is in no way to blame for the tainted blood scandal?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the attorney general let me try to respond to the substantive question of the hon. member.

I say to the hon. member that the report which was tabled with the commission was a report of 474 pages. If the hon. member is asking if the government agrees with some inflammatory language that may be contained therein, the answer is no.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us why his lawyers say Judge Krever should concentrate on developing a new blood supply system, when no one in this government waited for Judge Krever's recommendations to start negotiations with a number of provinces on setting up a new blood authority?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should be very careful. The fact of the matter is all provincial ministers of health have come together for the purposes of establishing a new national blood authority. All information has been shared with the Krever commission.

I want to assure the hon. member that the report she made reference to, the 474 page document, does contain some inflammatory language. I said in the first response that the government, the Minister of Justice and I do not concur with that inflammatory language.

The commission will have an opportunity later this week to examine the authors of the report; not only to examine the tone of the 474 page document but also to question the authors of that report on its substance.

National Unity

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the status quo will not cut it. The time has come for the government to realize that its do nothing, do not worry, be happy approach to national unity is the very reason why Canada almost broke apart last year.

Canadians from coast to coast are looking for a revitalized federation. They want to see positive, constructive change. Rather than dividing the country with a distinct society, when will the government present new concrete proposals to revitalize the federation? Where is your plan?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

We are doing it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would you address the Chair in all of your questions, my colleague?