Debates of May 27th, 1996

Goods And Services Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, since the federal government announced the $1 billion agreement reached with the three maritime provinces concerning the GST, protest has been growing stronger, particularly in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta. While federal-provincial relations are deteriorating over this issue, and many others, the Minister of Finance stubbornly refuses to make the details of the agreement public.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he lift the veil of secrecy surrounding the details of the agreement with the maritime provinces, so that, at last, we can all know how and at what price he managed to reach this partisan agreement regarding the GST?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the details of the agreement are well known. We released a statement explaining all the major points of the agreement.

We are now negotiating the final agreement, which is not yet ready. I can assure you that, as soon as the agreement is ready, it will be submitted to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not right for the federal government to pay almost $1 billion to the maritime provinces, with taxpayers' money, without providing details on anticipated revenues, harmonizing costs and the impact of expanding the tax base to include services. It does not make sense. This is the information that the Quebec government has been asking since the very beginning.

I think the Minister of Finance made a mistake. He may have a chance to correct it. Why does he not delay any decision on the GST until the next finance ministers' meeting, on June 18? He will then be able to make, in concert with the provinces, a good, transparent and fair decision on the harmonization of the GST, at no cost for Canadians.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the details of the impact to which the hon. member is referring were submitted by the Atlantic provinces. If the member wants to know these details, I am sure he can ask the provinces. I also want to say that, the other day, I confirmed that the whole issue of tax and sales tax harmonization will be on the agenda when finance ministers meet in June.

Employment

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Last week in Calgary the Prime Minister said that high unemployment was systemic and it is the result of the global economy.

On behalf of the Prime Minister, would the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House why high unemployment is the result of the global economy?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and I welcome him into his new role. I want to say with all humility that if I were able to answer that question I probably would be in a place other than this and it would be a lot higher up than this altitude.

I have just come back from the OECD where countries like the United Kingdom, France and Italy wondered about the very same question. We in Canada are faced with a rate of unemployment of 9.6 per cent. It is far too high. We all agree on that. Other countries in the G-7 for example suffer from higher rates of unemployment and are faced with even greater challenges as they try to respond to the global environment we all have to operate in.

We must all work together. I want to give credit to the provinces as well as the Minister of Finance. The direction we are going in Canada has certainly taken us to a point where we can now say that we have reduced the unemployment rate by some 2 per cent or more in the last couple of years. We still have a long way to go but unlike a lot of other countries, we are going in the right direction.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good but it begs the question: How can the global economy be the saviour of our future on the one hand and the destroyer of our future on the other? The Prime Minister is going to have to get his answer straight because there is a lack of confidence in our economy when the Prime Minister makes half-baked statements that he does not have a clue about. It endangers the prospects of the country.

During the 1993 election the Prime Minister ridiculed Kim Campbell because she said that high unemployment was systemic and would stick around until the year 2000. In Calgary last week the Prime Minister agreed with Kim Campbell's assessment. Which Prime Minister should Canadians believe: the election candidate for Prime Minister or today's Prime Minister who is admitting that he does not know what to do either?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would just think about what he said, the Prime Minister everyone should listen to is the Prime Minister who ran for that office in 1993 and the Prime Minister who is in office now. If the hon. member would check he would know that when those statements were made the unemployment rate was in double digits. In fact, since we came to office in October 1993 there has been a substantial reduction in the unemployment rate.

No one anywhere in the world is not going to have to face the global challenges. The difficulty with facing those challenges is that choices have to be made. We as a government have made those choices. I am afraid the hon. member and his party do not even recognize the challenges yet.

Immigration

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

In a document made public this morning, Quebec's minister of immigration and cultural communities revealed that Montreal had become the main port of entry in Canada for refugees. In the last 12 years, over 120,000 refugees have entered through Montreal. In the last two years, the number of refugee claimants was even higher in Montreal than in Toronto.

How does the minister explain that 56 per cent of claimants arriving in Ontario obtain refugee status, while the proportion in Quebec is 70 per cent?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I am a little taken aback by the question from the member for Bourassa. Am I to understand that he is asking that more refugee status claimants be turned down in the Montreal area? Is that what I am to understand? Am I to understand that he is asking that the minister intervene with the quasi judicial tribunal responsible for making these decisions? If so, I cannot share his opinion.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at least the minister should recognize that Quebec is much more generous than the other provinces when it comes to refugees.

Can the minister tell us whether her government would give favourable consideration to future proposals from the Government of Quebec regarding a new cost sharing to help with the social benefits provided to those seeking asylum, in light of the very recent statement by the Quebec minister responsible for relations with the public?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform the members of this House that I have never received written or verbal requests from Quebec's minister of immigration.

Government Contracts

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when in opposition the Liberals railed against Mulroney for lining the pockets of his buddies at taxpayers' expense. Now Canadians learn that the defence minister has handed out at

least seven contracts of over $150,000. All the money has gone into the pockets of his campaign pals.

Why did the Prime Minister think it was unacceptable for Brian Mulroney to award his friends with lucrative contracts but he thinks it is acceptable for the Minister of National Defence?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board has checked the various contracts that have been mentioned. These contracts have been for work carried out to give personal advice to the Minister of National Defence on a very difficult and complex subject. All the rules of Treasury Board have been respected in allocating these contracts.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. The Minister of National Defence has abused his special ministerial discretionary budget to reward campaign pals in his very own riding. This budget is intended to benefit all Canadians, not political friends of the minister.

Will the Prime Minister restore some integrity to his government and order his Minister of National Defence to pay back the $150,000 taxpayers' dollars of money that he has siphoned to the pockets of his campaign pals?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we have looked at these various contracts to give advice on a difficult subject. The work was performed by a trained economist who could speak English and Greek and was aware of the various problems that existed in the area of veterans and veterans allowances. All the rules of Treasury Board have been satisfied.

Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to make the closing of the tokamak research centre in Varennes easier for Quebecers to swallow, the Minister of Natural Resources has tried to convince them that the government's new priorities favour Quebec. In fact, the minister has disguised the facts. First, the sale of Candu reactors benefits mostly Ontario and, second, Atomic Energy of Canada is even thinking of closing its operations in Quebec. Can the Minister of Finance, who has just signed with Quebec a memorandum of understanding on the economic development of Montreal, confirm the rumours that the offices of Atomic Energy of Canada in Montreal would move to Toronto, thus causing the loss of 130 direct jobs in Montreal?

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, AECL has not announced a decision with respect to the sites of those regional offices.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance, who is talking about the economic development of Montreal, promise as part of this memorandum of agreement that Atomic Energy of Canada will continue to operate in Quebec, as requested by the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, the Chambre de commerce du Québec and the Chambre de commerce de Montréal?

If he is so concerned about Montreal, I imagine he could give us a short answer and elaborate a little more than he does about family trusts.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that a decision has not been made.

National Defence

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence recently announced that the government is ready to move ahead on the vast majority of recommendations from the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves.

What assurance can the minister give this House that the reserves community across Canada will be involved in this restructuring process?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to announce that the government has accepted most of the recommendations of the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves and coincidentally those of the House committee and the subcommittee of the Senate.

The paid ceiling of the primary reserve will be raised to a level which will increase efficiencies, will allow an actual primary reserve strength of around 30,000 and a supplementary ready reserve will be re-invigorated to provide an estimated strength of 20,000. That will mean that Canada will have an effective reserve of 50,000 persons.

The reserves community has been and will continue to be closely involved in planning the implementation and restructuring of reserves. These reserve units be given more authority for the management-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has been dragging his feet on making substantial changes to the way western grain is marketed. Meanwhile, the recent threat to the status quo Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers resulted in immediate and swift action by the minister within one hour.

The prairie economy is being cheated out of hundreds of millions of dollars by the minister's failure to reform western grain marketing.

Will the minister act immediately to require the Canadian Wheat Board's buy back prices be based on the projected final Canadian price rather than significantly higher U.S. prices, thereby allowing producers with legal export permits to realize the benefit of better prices when they find them?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the purpose of the buy back policy as practised by the Canadian Wheat Board is to ensure that all western Canadian grain farmers can share in the value of the pooling process rather than that value being reserved for the limited few.

With respect to the general operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, that subject is being examined very closely by the Western Grain Marketing Panel. The panel is looking at a variety of methods by which the board's operations can be made more flexible, more responsive and can be enhanced in the very best interests of all western Canadian farmers.

It is fundamentally important for all of us in this House to recognize that we must act in the interests of all of those whom we seek to represent. That would refer to all western Canadian farmers and not just a select few.