Debates of May 3rd, 1996

Oral Questions

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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

Quebec is exasperated. On January 18, 1996, Minister of Employment Louise Harel submitted to the federal government a proposed agreement to implement the Quebec consensus on the repatriation of manpower training programs. On April 17, a meeting between that minister and the Minister of Human Resources Development was cancelled without being rescheduled. On April 25, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre in turn urged the federal government to respond to Quebec as quickly as possible. As far as we know, it did not get an answer either.

Instead of announcing programs that only increase overlap and complicate the situation even further, does the minister not recognize that the time has come for him to sit down at the negotiating table with Quebec and at last fulfil his government's promises?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do think the time has come to see how we can negotiate with all the provinces of Canada in order to meet our commitment with respect to training programs. However, since the consensus the hon. member is referring to was confirmed in Quebec after my meeting with Mrs. Harel in Quebec City, I think it is important-once all the provinces are sitting down at the negotiating table with us-to have an offer reflecting the reality in Canada, in Quebec of course, but also elsewhere.

I hope that, with the co-operation of all our provincial colleagues responsible for manpower and employment, we can come to an agreement. But I can assure the hon. member that, once we are sitting down at the negotiating table, our intention is to have a very legitimate, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous offer so that we can enter into negotiations that will finally lead to the conclusion everyone is hoping for.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is far from reassuring. The Quebec consensus includes manpower adjustment programs, manpower policies, and not only manpower training. That is clear, as the Chambre de commerce de Québec and the Conseil du patronat reiterated before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Does the minister not agree that Quebec's exasperation is justified? It is this consensus Quebec is asking the minister to act on by finally sitting down at the negotiating table with Quebec. When will the minister do so?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Quebec consensus is very clear. I agree with the hon. member. It is in this context that I and the Government of Canada want to be sure we do not sit down to another failure at the negotiating table.

But, as the hon. member might agree, dealing with active measures can be very complicated. As far as manpower is concerned, I agree with the hon. member that we have already said we would indeed withdraw.

As for the other elements, commonly referred to as Part II of the Employment Insurance Act, it is a very complex matter because the needs across the country vary widely. We are familiar with Quebec's demands, and that is why we will go much further than simply withdrawing from the area of training. We want to look at all these other elements the hon. member was referring to.

Once we sit down at the negotiating table, I can assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada will put forward a straightforward proposal that, I hope, will meet the demands made by Quebec and all the other provinces.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking good note of the minister's answer. I am also taking good note of the fact that no date has been set for these negotiations.

Does the minister not agree that the federal government seems much more concerned about its plan B, the Guy Bertrand version, than about recognizing in concrete terms the Quebec consensus on manpower policies?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely-at least in part-to avoid bringing into the debate all the other well-known elements related to manpower training and the active measures to help create jobs that we want to be certain our proposal will be very easy to understand. In my opinion, we will then have a legitimate hope of reaching an agreement not only with Quebec, but also with all the other provinces.

Once our work is done, and we are almost there-I do not like to set deadlines when we are not certain we can meet them-I am confident that, in the near future, we will be able to sit down at the negotiating table with our colleagues from all the provinces. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Prime Minister will hold a conference with his provincial counterparts from across the country; there are all kinds of timetables that must be considered.

We want to assure the hon. member as well as all those interested in this issue that we will go ahead. We want to make sure that our proposal, when it is presented, will be well thought out and meet the needs not only of government officials but also of the people we really want to help: the men and women working in all kinds of jobs across the country and those looking for work.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I ask members and ministers to please make their questions and answers a little shorter.

Goods And Services Tax

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

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

Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Finance stood by his statement to the effect that his government had made an honest mistake in promising to abolish the GST. He even said that he was speaking on behalf of the government when he made that comment.

Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the comments made yesterday by the Minister of Finance do reflect his government's thinking?

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to be a member of the finance committee which travelled across the country for the consultations with respect to the GST. I was accompanied by members of her party and of the third party.

We heard Canadians, we consulted with Canadians and we responded with a package of changes and a harmonized national value added tax. We listened to Canadians. We did what they asked us to do and it is consistent with our red book commitments.

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

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

When the Prime Minister refused to recognize he made a mistake regarding the GST, he spoke on behalf of his government. When the Minister of Finance openly said it was a mistake, he claimed to be also speaking on behalf of the government. Who are we to believe: the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, there is no divergence from what the Prime Minister has said, what the Minister of Finance has said and what the former Deputy Prime Minister has said.

The fact is this government is committed to the elimination of the goods and services tax. We are achieving that goal by the vehicle of harmonization of sales taxes with the provinces which is now well in train. I think in the next few months we will see even further progress on this issue.

This government is working to fulfil its promises and is doing so in a very difficult financial context. Despite the best of intentions

sometimes reality confronts us. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have been very open and forthright in admitting that.

Liberal Party

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to their election promises because acts of God can knock them off track. This is the same man who promised Canadians during the last election "there will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep". The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways.

I ask the government, which is it? Will the Prime Minister keep every commitment he made to Canadians during the last campaign, or will he admit that his government has broken election promises?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again the Prime Minister has stated that this government has a very proud record of discharging its promises as laid out in the red book in the last election. We are discharging our promises.

Perhaps I could ask the hon. member about his party's promise. His party campaigned on doing things differently in politics, a new way of politics. Is the new way of politics reflected in the statements of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, the statements of the hon. member for Athabasca, following on statements I could cite from other members in this House? That is not the new way of doing politics.

I would submit our record in discharging our promises on this side stacks up very favourably compared to that of the Reform Party.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the defence minister is rehearsing for when he becomes a member of the opposition again. It is the opposition that asks the questions. The government answers them.

The Prime Minister said that acts of God prevented him from keeping some of his promises. Was it an act of God that made the Prime Minister sign NAFTA? Was it an act of God that made the Prime Minister cut CBC funding? Was it an act of God that cut provincial transfer payments to social services and health care? Was it an act of God that cut old age security by 10 per cent?

The Prime Minister can blame God, floods, famine or locusts for his failure. He is the one who broke his promises. Will the Prime Minister simply admit that his promises are worthless?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is this government that has delivered on its commitment to reduce the deficit. It is this government that has delivered on its commitment to restore faith and integrity in public office in this country.

The right hon. Prime Minister has led the way in many of these promises which we have outlined in the red book. We feel that by the time the next election comes, Canadians will judge us on our performance and they will see that we have delivered on the promises we made in that election.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that he has fulfilled 75 per cent of his red book promises which is not true. It is simply not true.

There are 157 promises in the red book and his government has only kept 37 of them. That is barely 25 per cent. It must have been some act of God, a huge tornado that swept away 75 per cent of the red book promises. The Prime Minister's signature in the red book is not worth the paper it is written on.

Does the government still intend to implement all the promises in the red book, those promises it made to get elected?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to credibility and believing promises, I certainly would put my faith in the Prime Minister.

When it comes to adding up the promises we have kept, the figures of the Prime Minister are more reflective of reality than those of the hon. member.

Referendums

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, next May 13, the Quebec superior court will be hearing the case of Guy Bertrand, the lawyer who claims the 1995 Quebec referendum was illegal under the 1982 Constitution. Yesterday, the Minister of Justice indicated to us that the government is seriously considering intervening in this case.

In order to inform the public and to demonstrate his good faith, is the Minister of Justice prepared to table in this House the legal opinions he has in hand concerning the Bertrand case?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the federal government is contemplating taking part in the proceedings before the Quebec superior court. I would, however, like to point out that our reason for this is not connected with the positions of either Mr. Bertrand or Mr. Singh, but rather the position taken by the Government of Quebec.

On April 12 for the Bertrand case, and May 1 for the Singh case, the Government of Quebec presented two requests for dismissal without a hearing of the two cases which challenged the legislation or other measures being used to make a declaration of sovereignty legally binding.

In support of those requests, the Government of Quebec takes the position that neither Canadian courts nor the Canadian Constitution have anything to do with Quebec's declaration of sovereignty.

The question we are asking at this time is whether the Government of Canada ought to have something to say in response to this position, that is to say the position of the Government of Quebec.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we totally subscribe to the Quebec position, particularly since Quebec is absolutely not in agreement with the 1982 Constitution, having never signed it.

If his government intervenes actively in the Bertrand case, will the Minister admit that this confirms the existence of a Plan B on the rules of secession, and that he is preparing for a legal denial of the fundamental right of the Quebec people to determine their own future?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

No, Mr. Speaker. Our consideration of these questions, our consideration of the possibility of participation before the courts is merely, as I have said, related to the position taken by the Government of Quebec. I would also like to stress that we have not yet made a decision on this; we are considering our decision.

Goods And Services Tax

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not find anywhere in the Liberal red book where the Liberals promised to replace the GST with a billion dollar cash incentive to three provinces. Nowhere, not even on page 22.

On the campaign trail the Prime Minister did not say: "I hate the GST, I will kill the GST and I will spend a billion dollars to do that".

What act of God is this government hoping for to convince Canadians that this government did not break its GST promise and that it is not wasting a billion dollars on a cash incentive to hide this broken promise?

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has asked that question. It gives me a chance to remind the hon. member that on numerous occasions when we have had structural adjustment the government has responded with assistance to those regions that require it. That is what is taking place in the implementation of the national harmonized value added tax in the Atlantic provinces.

I will repeat again what the member and others in his party have heard time and time again. It is worth repeating one more time in the hopes that they will absorb it this time. It is going to be an enormous improvement for those Atlantic provinces. We are sharing the cost of adjustment with those provinces, consistent with what we have done for instance out west in western grain payments to grain producers when we ended the Crow rate subsidy.

I do not recall-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and now his parliamentary secretary object to the word B-R-I-B-you get the picture. They call it the cost of adjustment.

I am starting to wonder if it is only the government that is paying it and the premiers who are receiving it who have a problem with that word. The premiers of Alberta and Ontario, the B.C. government, journalists across the country and Canadians from coast to coast see it for what it exactly is.