Debates of April 25th, 1996

Coast Guard

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

Mr. Speaker, there are many other considerations involved. The information at this time is that the 10 per cent recovery, which amounts to $20 million across Canada, will not divert traffic to any other port.

Most of our trading partners have similar fees. Is the hon. member saying he would like the big companies not to pay the 10 per cent of the share the taxpayers actually provide when other organizations and smaller people are paying their fair share? I do not believe he is suggesting that.

Goods And Services Tax

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we witnessed the embarrassing spectacle of the finance minister grovelling for forgiveness for the government's broken election promise to kill the GST.

Today the Prime Minister is standing up in the House and saying "we did not break our promise", suggesting somehow that all along they had gone to the electors with the promise to bribe the Atlantic premiers with $1 billion and to create a GST super tax in three provinces.

Who is telling the truth, the finance minister or the Prime Minister?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the statements I made the other day stand. The statements made by the Prime Minister today stand. The statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister stand.

The government speaks with one voice. The issue is how many voices does the Reform Party speak with?

Let us talk about the substance of the issue. While the Reform Party plays its little games, the Canadian people are out there speaking. Who supports what the government has done? The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, and more to come in the supplementary.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, may I gently caution you that the use of the word "bribe" when you use it government to govern-

ment is close but we must not use the word "bribe" when describing one member's actions toward anyone else.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different stories over there. I suggest there is a major Liberal fib fest happening right now. If this whole issue is called harmonization, then I think a lot of Canadians are starting to feel the Liberals harmonized them real good at the last election.

We know now that the Prime Minister personally told Maude Barlow in a private meeting before the 1993 election that he already knew his promise to kill the GST was a sham. Is it Liberal integrity to say one thing behind closed doors to Liberal insiders and to say the complete opposite in order to get elected?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, never has a more cruel blow been imposed on Maude Barlow than to be cited by a Reformer.

Rather than go on, I will read the list of support at another time. Allow me to take the hon. member through the work we went through before coming to this solution.

When we were in opposition we looked at a series of alternatives. There are a number of people here who supported a business transfer tax. I myself publicly supported a personal expenditure tax. Once we came into office the finance committee was set up and it looked at a multitude of alternatives.

At the same time, the House may remember we made an offer to the provinces that would lower the rate and impose a flat tax which was rejected. There were public debates with the province of Ontario as to whether it would vacate the field or we would vacate the field.

This government has left no stone unturned in its seeking of a better alternative to what we have come up with. In the end we came up with the alternative that we felt was the best thing for the Canadian people, public policy and job creation. We are proud of what we have done.

Indian Affairs

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.

The Mohawk community of Kanesatake, which elected James Gabriel as acting Grand Chief to replace Jerry Peltier, is now about to hold an election and correct the appalling economic situation caused in large part by Mr. Peltier. Unfortunately, the government's confused and indecisive attitude is not helping them.

Having recognized James Gabriel as Mohawk negotiator for land claims, can the minister confirm to the Kanesatake community that he is finally ready to acknowledge the results of the February 28 election and to recognize Mr. Gabriel as acting Grand Chief of the Mohawk community of Kanesatake?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered this question once already.

As the hon. member knows, in that First Nation, right now there are two people who purport to be chief. The first, Mr. Peltier, was elected. We spent almost $50,000 to have a reputable consulting firm come into Kanesatake for a three year period. The second person, Mr. Gabriel, referred to by the hon. member went in by petition supposedly a couple of months ago. At this stage I have to get some direction from justice. We may not even have the authority to remove Mr. Peltier.

It was said from the meeting that he had resigned. This is not correct. He sent me a letter saying he is still the chief. In fact until it is sorted out either in the court or hopefully by the people in the community, there are two chiefs in Kanesatake.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the minister's attitude. Why does the minister refuse to recognize the legitimacy of James Gabriel's election, when his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, does so in an April 17 letter to Grand Chief Gabriel? Even the Deputy Prime Minister recognizes him. Why does the minister in charge of this matter not recognize him, too?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Bloc is applauding what in a sense is a tragedy.

Mr. Gabriel writes to the Deputy Prime Minister and purports to be the chief. Her staff prepares a letter responding to him as the chief. That does not change what I have just said in this House today or what I said in the House several months ago.

Public Service Of Canada

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

As the exercise of reducing the size of the public service continues, accommodating those wishing to take advantage of early retirement and those seeking alternative employment becomes more daunting.

Can the minister assure members, and more important, our dedicated public servants that the government will remain vigilant

in giving local managers the flexibility they need to manage the transition in as creative and fair a fashion as possible?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, we put in place a range of adjustment tools such as the early retirement incentive, which provides a waiver of pension penalties for public service employees who are 50 and over with 10 years of service, and the early departure incentive, which facilitates through cash incentives the voluntary departure of employees in those departments which have been hardest hit by expenditure reductions.

We have also established joint adjustment committees across the country in partnership with the unions. We have implemented a policy of alternates which permits a number of people who want to keep their jobs to change jobs with people who want to leave the public service.

All in all, we have put into place a lot of measures which indicates that we want the downsizing to be done in a fair and equitable manner. Everybody has recognized this is what has happened.

Goods And Services Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister must have left off of his list of support the provinces of B.C., Ontario and Alberta. I guess he just missed them.

I would like the government to listen to what the Atlantic Canadian business community is saying about the finance minister's attempt to create harmony in the tax system. He must have missed these quotes as well. Ernst & Young: "There is a quagmire here". The Canadian Federation of Independent Business: "You are better off leaving the stupid thing alone". That is a good quote.

My question is for the Prime Minister. If this is such a good deal for Atlantic Canada, Mr. Prime Minister, why does section 12 of the agreement allow for an increase in provincial taxes after the government's bribe money runs out?

[The Speaker]

Again, my colleague, would you withdraw the word "bribe" please.

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

I withdraw the word "bribe", Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

Does the right hon. Prime Minister want to answer? A supplementary, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. They did not answer the first question so I will go to a supplementary.

The finance minister on a talk show this morning said he was bailing out Atlantic Canada. That bailout is about $1 billion. That is $1 billion this country has to borrow in effect.

This government has a deepening problem with misrepresenting the facts. Will the finance minister or the Prime Minister come clean and admit the truth that what they are really doing is bailing out the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister and all those Liberals who were elected under false promises?

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laurentides.

Plutonium Importation

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

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

On April 18, representatives of Canada signed an agreement with Russia allowing Canada to begin importing plutonium, a highly radioactive substance, for use as a fuel, for one thing, in Candu reactors, which in fact the government intends to sell increasingly outside the country.

Would the Prime Minister not agree that importing plutonium originating in Russia is an extremely dangerous business, given the enormous health and environmental risks associated with the processing and handling of this highly unstable material?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we accepted the invitation from the Americans and the Russians to see whether we could use up their surplus plutonium, because they are about to dismantle missiles, which leaves plutonium to dispose of.

As illegal trade in this element is also very dangerous, they have asked us if we could consider using up the plutonium to get rid of it. We replied that if we can do so safely, without damaging the ecology or creating health problems for anyone, that would be a contribution that Canada could make towards peace. Because if the plutonium is gone, then there is no longer a risk of it being traded illegally, among other things.

We therefore agreed to do a feasibility study. We are also told that, in the form of MOX fuel, it can be transported with no risk. We are now conducting studies, and if it is completely safe, of course, we will be prepared to help with dismantling the missiles, thus reducing the risk of nuclear war.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to note that the tokamak installation, specializing in research into pollution-free energy, is about to be closed, while plans are being made to import plutonium, a material that is highly dangerous to health and the environment.

Given that Canada already has problems getting rid of its nuclear waste safely, does the Prime Minister realize that by importing plutonium, he is solving nothing, and that, on the contrary, he will worsen the problem of getting rid of nuclear waste in Canada, which poses a real danger to the public?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what we want is to get rid of the plutonium. We want to see it used up, and we will see if it is possible.

The Americans and the Russians came to us because we have developed a unique technology, the Candu reactor. Other experiments will be done in other countries. However, since Candu uses heavy water and natural uranium, this system would be the best to get rid of the plutonium.

Obviously, if this cannot be done safely, without damage to the environment, it will certainly not be done, but we agreed to study the possibility. If we can do it, the Americans and the Russians would be very happy. In fact, the Americans are ready to pay us to dispose of it. But if we cannot do so safely, with no harm to the ecology, we will not go ahead.

Canada Pension Plan

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the GST fiasco has left a sour taste in the mouths of Canadians who now feel betrayed by the government. The promise to scrap the GST was a cynical purposeful campaign trick. I am concerned that the next betrayal is looming on the horizon for seniors who will soon be facing massive cuts to the Canada pension plan.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that there is simply no way to secure the future of the Canada pension plan without taking another 5 per cent or 10 per cent of workers' incomes or radically cutting benefits to seniors? Is his promise to protect seniors and taxpayers as hollow as his promise on the GST?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, two alternative options are being presented to Canadians in terms of the Canada pension plan.

There is that put forward by the members of the Reform Party which is to effectively abolish the Canada pension plan and turn it into a super RRSP. That would result in pensions for the wealthiest in the country and no pensions for the poor. We categorically rejected that option.

At the present time a federal-provincial commission is travelling across the country examining ways in which the Canada pension plan can be kept whole.

The Canada pension plan obviously requires modification. However it is not in danger despite the cataclysmic declarations of the Reform Party. Yes, there may well be increases in premiums and there may well be changes in benefits. However, the fact is that this government, and I also believe all of the provincial governments and the territories can assure young Canadians that the Canada pension plan will be there for them.