Debates of March 7th, 1996

The Budget

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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

The old age pension reform announced yesterday by the minister represents a considerable erosion of the financial independence that has been hard won by and for women over the years. Seniors' benefits will now be determined based on family income. Receiving a cheque in his or her own name will not be more than a sop to the feelings of the one spouse who is considered dependent on the other.

Is the minister aware that he is jeopardizing women's financial independence by treating them as second class citizens dependent on their husband's income?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member is not recommending a system with two different sets of rules. The supplement is based on the couples' income, and so I think he will agree that it is absolutely fair for those who are better off, wealthier, who also deserve to receive their cheque on the same basis as the less advantaged. It is a question of fairness.

Second, nine women out of ten will get more money because of our reform. One of the main reasons behind this reform was precisely that, to be able to give more money to those who are the least well off, mainly women.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reform ought not to run roughshod over women's dignity.

Does the minister acknowledge that, in actual fact, his reform will transform today's benefits for seniors into welfare for seniors?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, not in the least, in fact exactly the opposite is true. First, it is taken out of the taxation system for greater independence. Second, I am in the process of restoring total indexing, in other words in future our seniors will not lose money because of inflation. They have now been protected.

This is why the majority of comments from seniors' groups have been most favourable to this reform; they are well aware that it will not only sustain the system but will also be better for women and better for our seniors' dignity.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Liberal budget tried to fool Canadians into believing that funding for medicare is being stabilized. Here are the Liberal funding facts: $30 billion, $29 billion, $27 billion and $25 billion.

Will the health minister admit that he is letting medicare funding plunge until 1998 when he will be somewhere else collecting his gold plated pension?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the hon. member would stand today and congratulate the Minister of Finance for bringing in one of the best budgets the country has seen.

I realize where the hon. member comes from and the individuals he is attempting to support. But even he has to recognize that the finance minister has put in place a regime which will not only stabilize the transfer, it establishes a cash floor and it is consistent for an extended period of time.

It is what the provincial ministers of health wanted and it is what the provincial ministers of finance wanted. It is a good deal for all Canadians.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I finally figured out where the Liberals are getting their advice. They are not getting their advice from medical doctors, they are getting it from spin doctors.

It is time to set the record straight. The finance minister said Reform would cut medicare by $11 billion. The fact of the matter is that these suckers are cutting by $4.3 billion. We would not cut a penny, not a penny from medicare.

How would we do that? We would cut waste. We would cut business subsidies and we would cut pork barrel highway projects.

Will the health minister step down and convince the finance minister to put medicare as the highest priority and stop the cuts to medicare?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I did not raise the issue of spin doctors. But the leader of the third party said in September 1993 that his party supported user fees, deductibles and would eliminate universality. However, just before the election there was a flip-flop. Reform members said in October that they were opposed to private health care and user fees.

When they got into the House of Commons in October they said medicare was bad for everyone. Then they flip-flopped again. In November they said that medicare is important to all Canadians.

It is high time that members of the Reform Party stopped talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Answer the question David.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When the Crow benefit was abolished last year, the government recognized the importance of that subsidy by providing $3 billion in compensation. The dairy subsidy that the government is about to phase out, as a result of yesterday's budget, is just as important to milk producers. But strangely enough, there is no compensation in this case.

How can the minister explain the unfairness of this measure that will severely penalize Quebec since 50 per cent of Canada's dairy producers are in that province?

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Frontenac is comparing two programs that are totally different. I agree with him that the dairy subsidy is very important to milk producers.

Members will recall that, last year, the Minister of Finance had announced two successive reductions of 15 per cent a year and had said that the industry would be consulted to determine what would happen to the remainder of the subsidy. That is exactly what was done. There were consultations by both the parliamentary secretary and the minister. Stakeholders in the industry chose the process that we announced yesterday, a phasing out of the subsidy over five years, because it would have a lesser impact on the market.

People in this industry agree with this measure. We consulted them and we acted according to the result of these consultations.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the producers I had the pleasure of talking to last night and again this morning told me that they were not consulted personally and that they will lose between $4,000 and $6,000 a year because of this measure. Do you want us to believe that dairy producers will accept such a cut? Never.

Will the Minister of Finance recognize that this measure affecting dairy producers is unacceptable and confirms his department's double standard policy, a policy that the Bloc Quebecois has been condemning for nearly three years?

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with the member when he talks about a double standard.

The industry was consulted. Maybe the producers to whom he talked yesterday were not aware of that or were not consulted, but the fact remains that the key stakeholders in this industry were consulted and they chose a phasing out of the subsidy rather than a buy out over a period of one or two years.

They thought it was the best way to proceed in order to avoid causing too big a change over a short period. We will phase out the subsidy over five years, just as recommended by these people.

Cuba

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

On February 24 two American civilian planes were shot down by Cuban air force MIG jets. This unfortunate incident resulted in four deaths. The facts in this case have not been fully established, therefore it is essential that a credible international organization examine this matter.

On February 27 the UN Security Council passed a motion requesting the International Civil Aviation Organization to investigate this incident. As Canada enjoys friendly relations with both Cuba and the United States, our role can be one of mediation.

Will the minister commit himself to working with both governments to ensure that ICAO receives full co-operation and full disclosures of the facts from both Cuba and the United States and that both nations will comply with the recommendations made by ICAO on this issue?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.

I would like to report to the House that yesterday in Montreal at the ICAO meetings, the Canadian delegation was led by my parliamentary secretary, the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. At that meeting we took the very strong position that we should condemn the shooting down of any civilian aircraft, in keeping with the full rights under the Chicago convention. We made that very clear. We also were very active in promoting the development of a resolution that would undertake a full investigation of all the facts surrounding the shooting down of the aircraft outside Cuban waters a week or so ago.

That resolution was adopted by full consensus, which we are very pleased to see. We have been urging both parties to adhere to the results of that investigation, to ratify the Chicago convention that outlaws the shooting down of civilian aircraft.

I think it is a clear example of how, when we work through international institutions by international rules that is the best way to solve disputes.

The Budget

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget speech by the finance minister created a serious puzzle. He noted that the private sector had created 263,000 jobs over the last 13 months. A check with Statistics Canada, on the other hand, shows that there had been a net loss of 227,000 jobs.

Can the minister please explain this puzzle?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the jobs that I quoted were private sector jobs created. They came from Statistics Canada. The numbers that I quoted yesterday were right. There would be other numbers which would be the net numbers, which would be the private sector numbers less perhaps the public sector losses which have occurred. But the private sector numbers that I quoted yesterday were correct.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the puzzle still remains. The Statistics Canada numbers I have in front of me give me the January 1995 and January 1996 numbers

of full time employment in Canada and they have decreased by 227,000.

I would think that if this is correct, then to be bragging or boasting about gross jobs of 263,000 is highly misleading, that in fact there has been a serious loss.

When will the government create jobs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member, but I suggest perhaps that a review of the numbers would demonstrate that there has not been a net loss of jobs. There has been a net creation of jobs and all of the numbers show that. That answers his question. The premise of his question being incorrect, therefore the question follows.

Since we took office there has been very large scale job creation. Almost 600,000 jobs have been created in the private sector since we took office. That is a very substantial record and we are very proud of it.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

In yesterday's budget, the government talked from both sides of its mouth. It has the nerve to talk about stimulating job creation while being extremely harsh on workers' venture capital funds, a favoured job creation tool in Quebec. The Fonds de solidarité de la FTQ alone is responsible for the creation of 40,000 jobs over the last few years, a good number of which in the regions.

How can the government justify attacking a tax haven which benefits mostly the middle class, instead of reducing the number of tax havens available to major corporations and the rich?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that these funds, which can be found across Canada, are meeting a very important need. As a Quebecer, I am very proud of the fact that, out of the $4 billion available from this source, $2 billion are available in Quebec.

This being said, now that these funds are well established, and since some of the money has not yet been invested, the vast majority of experts and provinces agree that these advantages should be reduced as they are very costly for taxpayers. This money could be used to stimulate job creation elsewhere, through a youth program, for instance.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that it is not the case of the CSN fund, in Quebec, which is just starting, and of several workers' funds across Canada.

Will the government admit that, of all tax havens, those used to create jobs should be the last to be revised, as opposed to those used to shelter profits made by major corporations?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware not only of the Fonds de solidarité, but also of the new CSN fund. As a matter of fact, I congratulated its managers. I believe they are playing a very important role. I am convinced of that, and they know that the incentives now in place as the result of the budget will be sufficient to allow them not only to start up, but also to pursue their undertaking.

The issue is simply one of limited resources. If we want to fund, for instance, youth employment, and if we want to try something else to stimulate job creation, we have to proceed in a balanced way and with a much broader vision, and this is exactly what we are doing.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party campaigned on consolidating seniors' benefits with a clawback at $54,000. Yesterday we got a new seniors' benefit that combined seniors' benefits effective in 2001. And "2001: a benefits odyssey" cuts the benefits ceiling down to $40,000.

The Liberals howls of rage against an end to universality ring hollow on this pension flip-flop.

Will the minister admit that the seniors' benefit is just a code phrase for the fudge-it budget's assault on the retirement future of Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what has happened with the new seniors' benefit is that we have installed complete indexation for protection from inflation, which the Reform Party did not have. We have increased the amount of money that will be going to poor seniors, which the Reform Party did not have.

Our plan is infinitely superior, not to the Reform Party plan, but by that put forward by the hon. member. The House should know that the hon. member put forward her plan and it contradicts completely the plan put forward by her party. However, I must say that it is a heck of a lot better than the one put forward by her party.