House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was discrimination.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada is only a third party, it should let Quebecers decide their own future and withdraw from this case without going to a higher court, period.
How can the Prime Minister-since the Prime Minister is here, I take this opportunity to question him-how can the Prime Minister reconcile his provocative attitude toward Quebec with the mandate he gave his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to travel across Canada preaching the gospel of national reconciliation?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there is a case before the courts. The parties will present their arguments to the court. If the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are so sure of their legal position, they should have no fear of going before the courts. If their arguments are sound, they will prevail. If there is a lawyer representing the federal government and if he is wrong, he will lose. That is how the courts operate. When I was a practising lawyer and I had a good case, I did not ask my opponents to withdraw. I was very happy to argue with them.
However, this is not a political but a legal problem at this point. It is not us but the Quebec government that filed the motion before the courts, arguing that there was virtually no longer a Constitution in Canada. So we will defend our legal position, should the Minister of Justice decide to do so.
As for reconciliation, we had a very well defined program in the throne speech and we intend to discuss its implementation with the provinces at the first ministers' conference in Ottawa next month. The reconciliation plan we put forward, which is being stickhandled very adroitly by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, will be on the table and show that we are in favour of renewed federalism and not Quebec's separation.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, today the Government of Ontario will announce the first instalment of a promised cut in the provincial tax rate. Ontario taxpayers, however, are aware of the insatiable appetite for tax revenue by the federal government, an appetite that increased federal tax revenues by more than $25 billion since the government took office.
In order to maximize the benefits of Ontario's tax cuts consumers have to be convinced the dollars will stay in their pockets and not be picked by some other government.
Will the Prime Minister today promise that his government will not raise federal taxes and negate the stimulative effect of Ontario provincial tax cuts?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the last three budgets have shown to the Canadian people that we have managed to reduce the deficit from 6.2 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent with no tax increases. In many cases there were reductions in taxes.
We are very happy the Ontario government has tried to copy us.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, you will excuse us for not believing the Prime Minister when it comes to pronouncements on the subject of taxation.
The government's own record with respect to tax relief is abysmal. The only thing worse than its record on tax relief is its record on keeping promises. Canadians deserve to know that money left in their pockets by provincial tax cuts will not be sucked up by the federal government to pay for things like a $1 billion GST harmonization.
Is the Prime Minister willing to enter into a federal-provincial tax relief agreement to ensure tax relief given by provincial governments remains in the hands of Canadian taxpayers?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question remains the same as the last 10 times the leader of the Reform Party asked it. We have discussed this
extensively at the federal-provincial finance ministers meetings. There is a general agreement that it would be counterproductive for any one level of government to fill in tax room simply because of the negative effect it would have on the Canadian economy.
Let me remind the hon. member that not only in the last three budgets did the government not raise personal taxes, but in the last budget we very clearly nailed our colours to the mast. We did not raise corporate taxes, we did not raise excise taxes, we did not raise taxes at all, and we still kept bringing the deficit down.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, just a simple question. If there does exist a federal-provincial agreement on taxation not to invade each other's territory, as the minister says, will the minister table that agreement in the House?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well what I said. There was a discussion by the finance ministers. There was general understanding around the table.
Let me ask the leader of the Reform Party something. In its most recent budget the Reform Party talked about cutting old age pensions. It talked about cutting health care. It did not talk about cutting taxes.
Why is the member raising it here and now if he was not prepared to advocate it himself?
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, the Minister of Finance reaffirmed in this House that he was indeed speaking on behalf of the government when he said he had made an honest mistake by not abolishing the GST as promised.
The Deputy Prime Minister resigned over this broken promise and the Minister of Finance apologized again on behalf of the government. Only the Prime Minister refuses to admit that his government pulled the wool over Canadians' eyes by running on the promise of abolishing a tax whose scope he is now broadening.
Since the Prime Minister still insists his government did abide by its promise regarding the GST, could he tell us why his finance minister has made public apologies on behalf of the government?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that, whenever a minister speaks in this House, he speaks on behalf of the government. As a matter of fact, that is what I did just the other day, when the Deputy Prime Minister and member for Hamilton East gave her press conference. She has put the situation very clearly. Incidentally, I would like to report to the House that I spoke with the member for Hamilton East this morning; she is doing well and she will win the election.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the person the Minister of Finance should be speaking with is not the former Deputy Prime Minister but the Prime Minister.
I would like the Prime Minister, who is in the House today, to tell us if he agrees with what his finance minister said when he admitted he had made a mistake; that is what he said. The Minister of Finance said he was speaking on behalf of the government; the Deputy Prime Minister was also speaking on behalf of the government, and she resigned.
Could the Prime Minister speak on behalf of the government and stop acting like the old breed of politicians who always had to be right and were incapable of acknowledging their mistakes?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister indicated at the time of her resignation, what she had promised was more than what the red book stated. Our promise is stated on page 22 of the red book, where we say that our goal is to harmonize the tax, to simplify the system, to have in Canada a sales tax system in which businesses need not be visited by auditors from two levels of government. This was stated very clearly on page 22 and remains very clear.
What the Minister of Finance said and what I have been repeating in this House is we wish we could have put this system in place sooner. That is what we were hoping to do. But since the provinces were involved, we had to get their consent.
So far, four provinces have consented. This does not apply to Alberta. We expect the remaining provinces to get on board shortly and we are disappointed that all the provinces did not readily endorse the program, as we had hoped. We had said we wished to achieve this goal this year and we hope that the provinces that are still not involved in the process will be by the end of this year.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, to this government acts of God are used as an excuse for breaking promises. The act of God that is feared by Mike Harris is a consequence of not keeping one's word.
Today's Ontario budget will fulfil two major election promises, a firm date for a balanced budget and tax relief.
When will the finance minister follow the example of eight provincial ministers and commit to a firm date for a balanced budget?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that it will proceed on a set of rolling two year targets because it is that procedure which has given us the success in deficit reduction that we have had, a success that has been recognized by markets around the world.
For the first time in an awful long time a Canadian government has not only consistently hit its deficit targets, it has beaten them, and we will continue to do it. It is too bad for the Reform Party because it has lost its agenda.
Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad for the Canadian taxpayer that when the Liberals talk about going from 5 per cent, to 4 per cent, to 3 per cent of GDP they do not mention $40 billion and $50 billion of interest payments that it is costing Ontario taxpayers.
The lack of resolve on the part of the federal finance minister to eliminate the deficit is a cause for concern among Ontario taxpayers. They are asking whether a tax cut provincially will be swallowed up by a federal tax grab.
Canadians are judging their finance ministers by their ability to balance their books. This finance minister is dead last in that concern. When will he start leading by example?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree with the hon. member that there are times when one should cite the province of Ontario. On the GST let me simply cite the premier of Ontario.
He said in 1994 that in terms of GST the manufacturers and the businesses in Ontario would save over a billion dollars by being able to deduct these costs they could not deduct at that time on the sales tax in Ontario. He also said it has been one of those areas of major competitive disadvantage that Ontario manufacturers have had. He went on to say that Ontario businesses have had it.
I repeated this last week but perhaps the hon. member forgot. The premier of Ontario said: "Stop the rhetoric, stop the politics, stop the finger pointing, get on with harmonization and simplification of the GST". That is what he said and he was right.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration admitted in this House that the operation conducted in Quebec on the eve of the referendum, to speed up the issuance of certificates of citizenship, was of a particular nature and required unprecedented efforts.
However, whenever he was asked about this operation, the former immigration minister always downplayed it, saying that it was similar to those conducted in other provinces before an election.
How can the Prime Minister explain that his former immigration minister tried to downplay the operation conducted in Quebec just before the referendum, if not to hide from Quebecers the fact that Ottawa was doing its utmost to influence the outcome of the referendum?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I made myself very clear yesterday and I will do it again today. My predecessor, the current Minister of the Environment, did not deny at all the fact that we were making a special effort in Quebec, before the referendum, to issue certificates of citizenship to those who were entitled to them, just like we are making a particular effort now in British Columbia, where a provincial election will soon be held. Again, efforts are being made in British Columbia to speed up the issuance of citizenship certificates.
The right to vote is a fundamental one in our country and if people have such a right, we must do our utmost to make sure they can exercise it.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, this government is really pushing its limits. The minister should read carefully what her colleague said, which is the opposite of what she claims.
Of course he said that it was the same for any election. However, the government made a special effort in the case of the referendum. On checking, we found out that, in the case of the election held shortly before in Ontario, nothing special was done. As for British Columbia, if they did something special, then they only started yesterday, because as of last week nothing had been done.
I ask our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, to do what is necessary to deal with the issue of those who have money owed them.
How can the Prime Minister tolerate the fact that his government is once again floundering, with his two immigration ministers formally contradicting each other, one claiming that the operation was absolutely normal and the other confirming that the federal government did make a particular effort?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between the two statements made. As evidence of that, one simply has to look at the number of
citizenship certificates issued in 1995 in Quebec, in comparison to the 1994 figure. In 1994, about 40,000 certificates were issued, while the total number for 1995 will be around 43,000. As for British Columbia, 27,000 certificates were issued in 1994, while 8,000 more will have been issued in 1995.
I realize that the Bloc Quebecois has a great capacity for indignation, but it should really look at the facts.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession a secret GST briefing book that was issued to help cover up the Prime Minister's failure to kill the GST because of an alleged act of God.
On page 2 of this holy harmonization hymn book it states: "The GST is not dead, buried and scrapped". I guess that would be revealed truth.
The finance minister, Sheila Copps and the Prime Minister's holy harmonization hymn book all state that the promise was broken. Will the Prime Minister finally admit that he, not God, snookered Canadians when he told them he would kill the GST?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that the policy of the government was very clear. It was written on page 22 of the red book. They do not want to read that but they keep accusing the government of breaking its promises.
What about the national infrastructure program on page 60, the cancellation of the helicopter program, meeting the deficit's 3 per cent goal, appointment of an ethics counsellor and passing gun legislation? Do they want some more?
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, there but for the grace of God goes I.
There is some information in the Prime Minister's little hymn book that we cannot find. We all know how the Prime Minister likes to cite page 22 of his red book. Could he now tell us on what page of his new holy harmonization hymn book he admits to forcing Canadians to pay a billion dollars to keep this tax that everybody hates? Where is that?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member I think of the phrase there but for the grace of God goes God.
The hon. member ought to begin to understand that when we bring in a process of profound structural change it is the responsibility of the federal government to help the regions of the country adjust to that change.
This is what we did in 1972 with tax reform. It is what we did in western Canada when we helped the western grain farmer. It is the basis upon which the country has been built; the regions of the country help each other.
It may be very difficult for members of the Reform Party to understand but they should understand that they should be speaking for a united Canada, not a Canada that simply abandons-