Debates of March 29th, 1996

Gulf War Syndrome

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. At a press conference yesterday, a former member of the armed forces was very critical of the government for dragging its feet on the gulf war syndrome issue. She said that over 200 former soldiers are affected. While the American administration has acknowledged the existence of this syndrome, the Canadian government simply stated that it has been impossible to find a clear relation between certain symptoms affecting some members of the forces and their involvement in the Gulf War.

How can the government remain so passive and refuse to have this issue really looked into, thus depriving those allegedly affected by the syndrome of all public support?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, again this is a very good and serious question. I would like the House to know that the epidemiologist for the armed forces has asked for further studies because of the seriousness of this claim of the gulf war syndrome.

We are not the only country that is wrestling with this problem. Britain has done the same thing. The leading epidemiologist has undertaken to make further and more extensive investigations into the serious problems which face all who served in the gulf war. When the final conclusions come forward we hope they will be acted on.

I know that in the Department of Veterans Affairs they are getting a good hearing but I will leave that for the Secretary of State for Veterans to answer.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the position of the government is that potential victims of this syndrome should be left to fend for themselves, so that the government can avoid compensating them, should the department be found to have some responsibility?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Secretary of State (Veterans)(Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a long and proud tradition of taking care of its veterans. We have one of if not the best packages of benefits for veterans in the world.

There are a number of gulf war veterans who receive disability pensions through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Somalia Inquiry

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister told this House that his department initiated the information commissioner's investigation into DND's document tampering. That is just not true. According to the deputy information commissioner, the investigation was launched at the specific request of CBC radio.

I ask the government, why did the defence minister mislead this House?

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, the word mislead usually is not used in the House. Of course it would be completely unparliamentary to say "deliberately mislead".

I would take it that because there is nothing else to qualify it, I am going to permit that question to go ahead. However I would ask the hon. member to couch his question in such words that it would be more acceptable to the House.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the debates the minister alluded to our

involvement with the commissioner through the involvement in process and conclusions. In that sense, we did get involved with the commissioner. It was Mr. McAuliffe, a CBC investigative reporter who did request the investigation.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I take that then as an admission of guilt, shall we call it.

Let us go over the facts one more time. At the written request of CBC Radio the information commissioner investigated allegations that the Department of National Defence tampered with documents. It was at his initiation. Yesterday however the minister said it was the defence department that went to the information commissioner and that is false, false, false.

I ask the government again, why did the defence minister say what he said?

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not deliberately mislead this House. The minister was going through a series of contacts with the commissioner and inadvertently mentioned it. There was not a deliberate falsification. There was not a misleading of the House. The hon. member knows that.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, then we have other problems. As a former member of the armed forces like the member himself who just spoke, I can tell this government a thing or two about leadership, honesty, integrity and responsibility.

The Minister of National Defence cannot keep blaming his subordinates for the chaos in the department. He is the Minister of National Defence. Documents were altered. Unlawful orders were given and cover-ups happened on the minister's watch.

If the minister is not willing to take full responsibility for the chaos in the Department of National Defence, will the government, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister demand his resignation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada as represented yesterday by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons has full confidence in the capacity of the Minister of National Defence.

I would point out that the Reform Party is very intent on claiming a cover-up. Why would the government of the day be interested in the cover-up of a mess that was created by the Conservatives?

Poverty

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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

Yesterday, in a poverty profile report, the National Council on Welfare stated that the average poverty rate was higher in Quebec that in the rest of Canada, and that it remained significantly higher than the national average.

How can the finance minister explain his refusal to immediately close all the loopholes, which amount to billions of dollars and benefit rich Canadians, as shown by the council?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, poverty levels in Quebec and also in the other Canadian provinces are a concern for all of us.

If there is a scourge we must deal with, it certainly is the poverty of children, of single mothers in our society.

This is one of the reasons why, in our past three budgets, we closed the majority of loopholes. What is left are incentives to help industry create jobs. One of the most important ones, for instance, is the taxation level which is much lower for small and medium size businesses than for major corporations.

The best way to help is first to give money directly to the poor, but also to create jobs, which has been the result of our past three budgets.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the finance minister not agree that it is high time for him to listen to the official opposition's proposals and, for the sake of fairness, to open the government consultation process on business taxation to groups representing the poorest members of our society?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I totally agree that we have to meet with these groups, but I have done it. I met with the antipoverty association before each budget. In preparation for the budget, I met with most social groups wishing to talk about the budget. The finance committee did the same, and we intend to keep on doing it.

On the other hand, as I know the member is well aware, all governments are faced with the same problem. We have debts, we have deficits, this is a burden we do not want to pass on to our young people. This is why, when we see in today's Le Devoir community groups comparing Bouchard to Harris, we understand that it is another provincial government faced with a problem.

I do not intend to criticize the Government of Quebec. Governments are trying to do their best, and so are we.

Minister Of National Defence

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Prime Minister said that he is proud of his minister of defence. What a strange use of language. Is he proud of the hazings? Is he proud of the continued cover-ups? Is he proud that senior officers ordered documents destroyed or falsified? Is he proud that morale is at an all time low?

Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could tell the House just exactly what it is the Prime Minister is proud of.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member has complaints about morale in the armed forces, he should get himself a mirror to see the reason why.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, are there no better answers than this?

The incompetence of the minister sets an unacceptably low standard for all other ministers to stoop to and we have just seen it right there.

The men and women on the front lines of the Canadian military are the most courageous in the world and they deserve better leadership. My question again, if I can get a decent answer this time, is: What message is the Prime Minister sending them when he does not have the courage to do the right thing and demand the defence minister's resignation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Reform Party is obsessed with moles, cover-ups and other kinds of stories. If the Reform Party is truly interested in getting to the bottom of the facts it should support the decision of the Minister of National Defence who had the courage to call a public inquiry into the events surrounding the Somalia affair precisely because he did not want to have anything to do with the mess that was created by the previous Conservative government.

Business Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, we just learned this morning that Imperial Oil, an oil company making huge profits, will receive a $843 million tax refund from the federal government.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. While the minister is asking all Canadians to tighten their belts, is asking the people most in need to forego $7 billion through his cuts in social programs, including $500 million to Quebec students, and is asking the unemployed to cough up $5 million in premiums each year, is it normal and morally acceptable that a company that will make $514 million in profits this year should benefit from such generosity on the part of Revenue Canada?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify to Canadians that the Government of Canada through Revenue Canada will be paying refunds. The refunds are not the government's decision but are in reaction to and the reality of a court decision, and this government does obey the law in this country.

With respect to the resource allowance refunds it has been nearly a quarter of a century that the mining and oil and gas sectors, very important sectors to our Canadian economy, have needed clarity. It is with the work of the Minister of Finance since 1992 when the court procedure ended and in discussions with these very important resource sectors of our economy we have now in a very proactive manner inserted regulations and legislation that will give certainty that was not there before to an area of the law. This is very beneficial for all the stakeholders.

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

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state is telling us that taxation is defined by the Supreme Court. He has some nerve, using that as an excuse.

I will rephrase my question. Is it not time that the minister understood, once and for all, that it is crucial and urgent to proceed with a total and complete review of business taxation, not behind closed doors, not exclusively by a group of experts of the type that, indeed, made sure that Imperial Oil receives an $843 million tax refund, but a real review, through a parliamentary process open to the public and transparent, to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question by stating very clearly that this government has acted to stop the situation from repeating.

The government of the day in 1992 issued draft regulations after the court decisions were halted and over with. We passed legislation in 1995 requiring large corporations to specify and quantify their outstanding tax issues. We released the new tax rules for the resource allowance in the 1996 budget.

Of the refunds being issued over this time period, they were anticipated and prudently allowed for in our budgets. Fully two-thirds of the moneys being expended as refunds now is interest. There will be corporate tax, mostly at the top corporate tax

rate, payable on this interest. Therefore the government will be getting some of this money back in its pocket.

Goods And Services Tax

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Premier Mike Harris has said that hell will freeze over before we will see co-operation for a 15 per cent sales tax in Ontario and with good reason. His finance minister has said that harmonization would cost Ontario taxpayers up to $3 billion.

Page 15 of the red ink book states: "Governments have little room to find new revenues from the tax side. Indeed the long term objective of all governments must be to reduce the tax burden".

Will the finance minister now admit that his $3 billion harmonization proposal for Ontario based on the red ink book promise to eliminate the GST actually breaks another red book promise to harmonize and reduce the tax burden?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

No, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that our proposal does exactly what we said in the red book. What the member has just called for, which is harmonization, is in fact what the member's party called for in the finance committee.

It is important to understand that the $3 billion the hon. member refers to, as far as the federal government is concerned, whatever would occur would be revenue neutral. If there would be a gain on one segment of the taxpaying public in Ontario, the Government of Ontario would certainly have the opportunity to use that funding either to reduce taxes or in fact to increase social services in the province of Ontario. It would have complete flexibility.

Therefore it is simply not true to say there would be a shift from one level of taxpayer to another. In fact, it would give the government the scope for far more fairness in Ontario, as was the conclusion of the Ontario fair tax commission over a year ago.

What we are looking at is a profound structural change in the tax system which would do a great deal of good for small business and the consumers of Ontario.

In terms of the opening statement of the hon. member, his reference to hell freezing over, that may be the case. It may well be that the hon. member and other governments have a better knowledge of that place than I have.