Debates of March 25th, 1996

Goods And Services Tax

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes we did say that and we still say that it should be phased out. We need to cut spending, that is the problem. We stand by that.

Liberal candidates across Ontario ran on the promise of killing, scrapping and abolishing the GST. Once they were safely in power they broke that promise. Now they are busy trying to bury the evidence.

After the minister of immigration gets through shredding her predecessor's pamphlets, there are 98 other ridings of Liberal propaganda and broken promises for her to get to work on with the shredder.

I ask the Prime Minister this question. Why did the Liberals break their promise on the GST? How many other Ontario Liberals are going to have to start shredding their campaign pamphlets?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, every Liberal who ran in the last campaign ran on a platform that was very successful, which was the red book. The promise is on page 22. As it was tabled in the House, it is available to every member of Parliament. If some members do not want to read it there is not much I can do about that.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what amazes me is that when the Liberals fall back on the red book now, the member from Niagara Falls, in his local newspaper last week, said: "I guess I could say that we were a little over-zealous and little over-anxious. I guess you could say it has haunted me". Those are words from a Liberal MP, not me.

I ask the Prime Minister this. How many Liberal MPs has the Prime Minister haunted with his promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST and then totally turn around on that? It makes no sense.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat once again that, in 1990, the leader of the Reform Party said very clearly, when he was trying to get the member for Beaver River elected, that he was going to rip the GST out, to get rid of it. One year later, he wanted to keep it. Now, his position is exactly the same as ours in the red book, in that he wants to replace the GST with a harmonized tax. It took him three years to get to where we have been since the very beginning.

[English]

The Reform Party can go through this charade time after time on what the government's position is. The government's position has been very clear. The difficulty the Reform Party has is that it is caught by its own contradictions year after year on the GST, on social programs, on the commitment to bring in a new budget, on how fast it would reduce the deficit, on medicare and on virtually everything.

There is no consistent philosophy from Reform Party members. They only have one objective which is to confuse. The only people they confuse are themselves.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The CBC's 1994 annual report tells us that the English network's budget was $750 million, compared to $275 million for its French counterpart. Yet, the two networks more or less have the same number of viewers and, according to their presidents, production costs are the same for both.

Since the Minister of Heritage agrees with the Bloc Quebecois that taxpayers should not have to be taxed, can she tell this House whether her magical formula to fund the CBC will allow her to eliminate the discrimination between the two networks and ensure that both cultures are treated on the same foot in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement is wrong. Canadians currently do pay taxes to support the CBC.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister missed my question, and such a good question too.

Since the Juneau report proposes, among other measures, to decentralize CBC's French language production and take it to regions outside Quebec, will the Minister of Heritage confirm that, to avoid a weakening of French language television in Canada, this recommendation will not be implemented, unless she minister allocates new funds to fund it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I answered the member. The premise of her question is false. What she said on Radio-Canada was that Canadians would not be taxed. In fact, Canadians are currently being taxed to the tune of some $900 million, specifically for the function of Radio-Canada.

What was recommended in the Juneau report was a different method which would see reductions of parliamentary spending being taken up by a more direct tax.

It takes money to promote CBC's activities in both official languages. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois flatly rejects, without even giving it any consideration, any new funding method that would ensure, in the long term, the promotion of French and English programming from coast to coast.

Goods And Services Tax

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago when Brian Tobin was in town he told reporters that he was here to pick Ottawa' pocket. I would encourage the finance minister to check his wallet because now we hear that $100 million has disappeared out of their super slush fund that is being used to pay off provinces so that they will harmonize with the GST.

Is the minister so desperate to get the provinces to sign on to his harmonization proposal which, of course, is a breaking of their election promises, that he is willing to pay them off even when we have a $600 billion debt? And where is he getting the money to do that?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have been having discussions with a number of provinces which essentially recognize that it would be good for their small and medium sized business communities and their consumers if the GST were replaced with a new single tax.

We can go back and forth as the member plays games. Is the Reform Party adopting a fourth position? Is it reneging on the

position it stated in the finance committee that it sought to have a single tax and that it recognized that it would be a very difficult negotiation?

What is the Reform Party's position? Are you in favour of a single tax?

[The Speaker]

Sometimes the hon. minister forgets me. Please do not forget me.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on national television the government, the minister, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to scrap, to kill, to abolish the GST. Those are their words. If they hang on them, it is their fault.

The Liberals are not willing to create jobs by cutting premiums from the $10 billion UI surplus but they are willing to try anything, including spending money they do not have to save the Deputy Prime Minister's job.

Why is the finance minister attempting to salvage his government's pathetic attempt to fudge on their election promise at the expense of Canadian taxpayers?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has always said that she would replace the GST with another tax. That is it. The words in the red book are very clear in black and white.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Why is the Reform Party deliberately trying to distort very clear statements that have been made in the past and a position that is rock hard?

Is it because the Reform Party is embarrassed by its own internal contradictions? Is it because the Reform Party does not know which way to turn? Is it because the Reform Party has lost virtually every item of its agenda? Is it because the Reform Party is no longer relevant to the Canadian political scene?

Broadcasting

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

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

In Halifax, in May 1995, the Minister of Heritage announced his decision to raise from 20 per cent to 33.33 per cent the figure for foreign participation in broadcasting parent companies. In November 1995, he repeated that commitment formally. To date, however, the order in council to authorize that harmonization with the telecommunications sector has not yet been issued.

Can the Prime Minister explain to us why his government is still dragging its feet on this order in council despite its repeated commitments to do so, while it knows very well that this delay puts broadcasting companies at a disadvantage compared to telecommunications companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, we wish to guarantee Canadian content in the broadcasting policy. This is something I believe even the Government of Quebec endorses.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Since the telecommunications and broadcasting industries are fighting for the same turf, can the Prime Minister assure us that they will be treated in the same way when it comes to regulations on foreign ownership levels?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member wishes broadcasting and telecommunications policies to be the same because, when the former Bloc critic organized a meeting with Télé-Québec on the subject, she agreed with the Government of Canada's policy on this.

As far as broadcasting is concerned, Canadian content is not the only important thing. It is also important for Canadians to own their culture.

United Nations

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has bailed out the UN on so many occasions it is hard to keep track anymore, but at least we have always been promised we would be paid for expenses.

However, this time it is $50 million that is unpaid and it does not appear we are going to be getting payment in the near future.

Will the government assure taxpayers that it will not sign any more blank cheques for the UN until this matter is taken care of?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that this year alone we have already received a $72 million payment from the United Nations, even during a time when it is desperately strapped for cash because of the very substantial arrears by other countries.

One of the most important initiatives that Canada is taking is to try to get the refinancing of the United Nations so it can continue on its peacekeeping missions.

It is an issue that the Prime Minister brought up at the G-7 during the last meeting in Halifax. I intend to raise it with the secretary of state for the United States while I am in Washington this week. It is very important that all those who have not paid their bills, pay their bills, so the UN can continue to do its job.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians have a great deal of difficulty understanding that sort of accounting.

The minister guaranteed that the command for our troops in Haiti would be 100 per cent in Canadian hands and that the mandate was for four months only. Now we find out we are paying the entire bill, the mission may be extended, the mandate is clouded and the control may be within the Haitian government.

Will the minister deny these reports, guarantee that this mission will be over in four months and that command decisions will remain in Canadian hands?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me explain first that this was an authority originally given by the United Nations Security Council. The extension is also under the United Nations.

We were asked as a country to take responsibility for the command. Canadian Brigadier General Daigle is in command of the UN mission. He is also responsible for the additional forces we put in to supplement and ensure the mission had sufficient resources to continue to fulfil the task set for it. We are working exactly under the UN mandate as established by the security council. The Canadian troops that are there as auxiliaries are subject to exactly the same mandate. They both report to Canadian Brigadier General Daigle.

In this case it is very clear that we are still following the fundamental principle that we want a multilateral international solution to these problems.

Securities

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

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, Le Soleil quoted the Minister of Finance as saying in an interview that it was urgent for the federal government to invade the area of securities, an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, because Canada was losing its capital markets to New York and Chicago.

Does the minister recognize that what makes New York and Chicago attractive to Canadian investors is the greater savings available in the U.S. as well as higher prices for an initial issue of shares, and has nothing to do with purely political motives like his excessive taste for centralization that makes him interfere in this exclusive provincial jurisdiction?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I never used the word "invade". I talked about co-operation, about creating partnerships and working together. In fact, the hon. member is right when he talks about the premium paid by American investors and the U.S. capital markets. There is a threat not only to Canadian but also to European stock exchanges.

That is why we must work together, we must co-operate. The idea is not to invade, but there is no doubt that it costs a great deal of money to send prospectuses to 10 provinces. We must find a way, as suggested by the Montreal business community, to co-operate to give the Canadian financial community a strong bargaining position.