House of Commons Hansard #38 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was benefits.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, how can the member, a representative of that party, talk about courage, credibility and integrity when the former chief whip of that party, who made a statement that cast dishonour upon every one of us in the House, refused to resign?
What did the former chief whip do? Did he resign his seat? No. What he did was resign as chief whip. That party changes chief whips every week.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister can try to duck election promises all he wants, but
the government promised Canadians from one end of the country to the other he would abolish, scrap and kill the GST.
Page 22 of the red book was not good enough for the Prime Minister on the campaign trail and it was not good enough to keep Sheila Copps on the front benches.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept responsibility for the promises he made during the last election? How can he expect Canadians to believe that his promise to abolish the GST was different from the promise made by Sheila Copps?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, Reform members stand up here every day fulminating against the GST, making statements about their preparedness to abolish it, to scrap it.
After the finance committee said it is simply unacceptable that Canada have 10 sales tax systems, how could those members stand up here and say they commend the government on its attempt to harmonize the tax with the provinces? How could the Reform Party have been so right then and so wrong now?
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to today's newspapers, the federal government intends to show up in court on May 13 to question the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm this morning's news reports to the effect that Ottawa is about to intervene in court on May 13 to question the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, for a long time now, the federal government has been following the situation with regard to Mr. Bertrand's litigation. In his case, Mr. Bertrand has raised several constitutional issues of great significance. So, it is important for the federal government to examine the case and the issues, and that is what we are doing.
I hope to be able to make a recommendation to my colleagues in the next few days. We have not made any decision yet, but we are examining the situation.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government is interfering with the most legitimate right of all Quebecers to decide their own future.
How can the Minister of Justice justify such a decision, because he did say that he would make it, when shortly before the last referendum he stated that the right of the Quebec people to express their will concerning their own future was a political position and not a legal issue?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the substance of the Bertrand litigation has to do with constitutional issues. It is passing strange to suggest that the Attorney General of Canada would be disinterested in constitutional issues. The Government of Quebec brought a motion and has taken a legal position in relation to the issues in the action.
It is part of my responsibility as chief law officer of the federal government to look at the issues in that case and to recommend to my colleagues and to the Prime Minister a position in relation to the case. This is not interfering with the expression by the population of Quebec of its will or its position on a question. This has to do with constitutional and legal issues, the very substance of the Bertrand litigation. That is the reason we are looking at it and preparing ourselves to decide.
Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC
Mr. Speaker, under the finance minister's plan to hide the GST in Canada he has added to the list of taxable items things like children's clothing, wheelchairs, books and medication.
Before they were elected the Liberals claimed they cared and would not tax these things. Why did they stop caring once they were elected?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, obviously when we have 10 different retail sales taxes across the country resulting in different tax bases we have to start somewhere. The general understanding was that we would start with the one common base which existed across the country, the federal sales tax base.
We made it very clear in negotiations with the provinces that we were prepared to examine this whole area and we will do so.
I have a little difficulty with the question from the member of the Reform Party who in the finance committee called for an expanded sales tax base. Perhaps the member might tell us what he would expand it to, food, pharmaceuticals and various other things?
Herb Grubel Reform Capilano—Howe Sound, BC
Mr. Speaker, in all of Canada second hand dealers in everything from books to jewellery to boats are fuming about the change in GST regulations that wipes out the tax credits they used to get.
The government's budget bragged "no tax increases". With the nationwide tax increases I just mentioned, is this statement, made so proudly in the budget, still true?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not increasing its tax take. The rate stays at 7 per cent. The federal base stays the same. As a result of this there is no increase in revenue to the federal government.
If we look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada, there is obviously a substantial decrease in the tax rate as it applies to Atlantic Canadians.
I return the question to the hon. member. During the finance committee they said they would expand the base to food and pharmaceuticals. How can the member now stand up and essentially say he would tax the basic necessities of life and then criticize the government for trying to introduce rationalization into the system?
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
We also learned today that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have also recommended to the Prime Minister that he challenge the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.
Does the minister not realize that, by denying the people of Quebec the right to decide their own future, his government is demonstrating that it has nothing to offer Quebec and that the grand plan for national reconciliation is nothing more than a big hoax?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no intention of preventing the people of Quebec from expressing their position on these matters. This is not why Mr. Bertrand launched his suit. Let us be clear about Mr. Bertrand's case. He began it as a private citizen, and he raised important constitutional questions.
As the Attorney General of Canada, it is my responsibility to prepare and to give advice to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues on the question of participating in this case. In fact, the federal government has been made mis en cause by Mr. Bertrand. We are therefore already involved in the case before the courts. In the days and weeks to come, we will be examining the matter and deciding whether we will participate actively with the other parties before the court in order to determine the important points in the case.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Minister of Justice would give such a long winded non-answer to a very simple question. Does the government intend to challenge the Quebec referendum or not?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the referendum is not in issue in the Bertrand litigation. The court documents revealed that what is in issue is the constitutional validity of l'avant-projet de loi. That is the issue before the court, and it raises questions of legal significance.
As I have already told the House, it is my responsibility as Attorney General of Canada, having been made mis en cause in the litigation, to prepare and give advice to my colleagues and the Prime Minister, which I shall give.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The finance minister in Alberta has argued that the federal minister is lowing the GST rate in Newfoundland to 5.5 per cent by throwing a billion dollar subsidy at the Atlantic provinces.
Is the minister planning to give a break to the rest of Canada by lowering the tax rate on the GST to 5.5 per cent?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the transition funding provided to Atlantic Canada does not represent a cut in the federal sales tax rate. That rate remains at 7 per cent from coast to coast.
This a cost sharing with the Atlantic provinces. They pick up the first 5 per cent loss on their own provincial sales tax revenue. But it a cost sharing over four years. In other words, this is transition funding. It ends at the end of four years. It is not permanent.
The kind of rate cut that the member is talking about would be a permanent rate cut. Obviously he is comparing an apple and orange. I am sorry but it is not on.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like fruit salad to me. Even if I could not sing, for a billion dollars I could learn to harmonize too.
The pay-off to the Atlantic provinces is unfair. It taxes the rest of Canada in order to subsidize taxation in another area of the country.
When will the finance minister admit that this is not a business deal, it is a political deal? The harmonization deal asks other
Canadians to keep paying 7 per cent while people in another part of the country pay only 5.5 per cent.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, try as he might, the hon. member is not going to be able to make this stick.
It was not the federal rate that came down. It was the provincial rate that came down. The provincial rate came down because the Atlantic provinces, albeit using a certain amount of transition funding, are absorbing that cut and expect to make it up as a result of increased activity.
Let us take a look at what is being said here. The government is providing transitional funding on a four-year basis on an average to the three provinces of $250 million a year. A cut in the national rate from 7 per cent to 5.5 per cent would cost about $4.5 billion a year.
What the hon. member is asking for is the equivalent of $250 million transition funding leading to a $4.5 billion cut which is simply nonsense. The fact is in B.C., it would be $725 million and in Alberta it would be $485 million. The numbers simply do not stand up.
What is more important-Mr. Speaker, you want me to stop?
Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
This minister is responsible for promoting competition. Yet, over the last month, the price of gasoline has increased by more than 25 per cent.
To protect consumers just as the American government is doing right now, what is the minister waiting for to use his powers under the Competition Act to order an investigation into the possibility of collusion among companies?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, we will look closely at this investigation in the United States to see the results. As the member knows full well, the power of the Minister of Industry to give an order to the director of competition is seldom used. In fact, it has been used only once in Canada.
At this time, we do not have enough information to justify such an order, but if the member wants to ask questions to the director, I think he will be appearing before the industry committee. Moreover, the member has the right, with five of his colleagues, to submit a request directly to the director.
Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to forget that this responsibility ultimately falls on his shoulders. He himself has the power to intervene under the law.
If the minister thinks the evidence is not sufficient, why then does he not decide to launch an investigation into this since he has the power to do so?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long the line would be if we were to issue directions to hold investigations every time somebody made an allegation.
As the hon. member knows, there have been a number of situations with respect to gasoline prices that have been investigated by the director of the competition bureau. That has led, in recent months, not only to charges having been laid but successful prosecutions under the provisions of the Competition Act.
The director has also established a 1-800 number so that consumers who have concerns about gas prices can make those concerns known directly to the bureau of competition so that action can be taken where it is warranted.
Finally, I remind the hon. member that he with five of his colleagues has the ability to ask the director to investigate issues where he thinks there are facts that warrant it.
Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Today the minister tabled the Firearms Act regulations which have 30 days of consultations. Having read the regulations, I and many of our colleagues see the need for some changes and some modifications.
Is the minister prepared to listen to representations and make changes to the regulations which we feel will make it less burdensome on legitimate gun owners?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I have a strong sense of déjà vu when I answer questions having to do with the Firearms Act, but the simple answer is yes.
Today I tabled the first segment of regulations which will help implement the Firearms Act and bring its principles to life. The purpose of tabling them at this time and having 30 days before the committee is to permit us to solicit and collect reactions.
The hon. member was kind enough to express already today some of his reactions to the draft regulations. I want to assure him and all members of the House that we will be taking note of the views of those who read the regulations and have an interest in them. We are more than prepared to make changes and adjustments in these draft regulations to deal with any reasonable concerns that are expressed.