Debates of June 19th, 1996

Social Programs

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the way the federal government wishes to exercise its spending powers, and given the Prime Minister's response, are we to understand that Quebec, which never agreed to take part in this consensus with the other nine provinces, will have to conform to the standards set by Ottawa and the nine other provinces, if it wishes to obtain full and total compensation in pulling out of this program?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will discuss that. We are in the field. We already have some tax incentives to help poor families provide for their children. Some provinces have similar programs and they would like to talk with us.

I know that the people of Quebec, not the Bloc Quebecois, would like all governments to work together to have a better society in Canada and in Quebec at the same time.

Job Creation

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that job creation would be the number one priority at the first ministers' conference. The key to job creation is not public works projects but genuine tax relief.

Yesterday in the House when government ministers were asked why tax relief was not front and centre on the agenda of the first ministers' conference, they had no explanation.

If job creation is one of the Prime Minister's top priorities, why is tax relief not high on the agenda of the first ministers' conference?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, at this time the priority is to eliminate the deficit both at provincial and federal levels.

I would like to read to the leader of the third party what was said by the member for Capilano-Howe Sound who argued recently at the Reform convention in Vancouver that there should not be tax cuts until the deficit is eliminated. At the same meeting the member for Calgary Centre said that a proposal for cutting taxes at this time was "voodoo economics".

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem. I do not know who is on the side of voodoo in that party.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had read a little further he would know that if the Reform taxpayers' budget had been implemented in 1993 his government would have a surplus next year and be in a position to offer tax relief.

Four months ago in this House the Prime Minister admitted that governments do not create jobs. Yesterday he revisited the idea of an infrastructure program run by government as the principal instrument of job creation.

The government seems unable to grasp the 1990s principle of job creation that a dollar left in the pocket of a taxpayer creates better and more jobs than that dollar in the pocket of the finance minister.

Instead of committing billions of dollars to another temporary infrastructure program, has the government ever seriously considered how many real jobs would be created by a multibillion dollar federal tax cut?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I was in the beautiful city of Calgary. The mayor of Calgary and the mayors of all the cities of Canada were congratulating this government for the initiative two years ago to have a good infrastructure program. In doing that a lot of things have been repaired, restored and ameliorated in Calgary and in all the cities of Canada.

The mayors would like us to be there. We will discuss that with the premiers later this week. It has been a great success. We have managed to reduce the deficit and we have managed to reduce interest rates. With the good management of the financial affairs of the nation, the Canadian economy has managed to create 600,000 jobs since the day we became the government.

I think that is why the people in Hamilton two days ago made sure that the Reform Party and its policies finished fourth.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer is straight out of the 1960s. We have 1.3 million people unemployed. We have two to three million people under employed. We have one out of four Canadians worried about their jobs.

The Prime Minister does not have to talk to the House about creating jobs in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. He has to talk about creating jobs in the millions if he is going to address this question.

I ask him again, and I will put it very simply. Has the federal government analysed-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

Don't use big words, Preston. Remember who you are dealing with.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Has the federal government analysed how many real jobs could be created by a federal tax cut? Yes or no.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the leader of the third party that-

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

The fourth party.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

The fourth party, yes, that is so. It is very confusing these days. The fourth party, I mean.

I remember that the sixties were not that bad. I was a member of Parliament and the premier of Alberta was Mr. Manning. In those days Albertans were bragging about what a good government we had in Alberta and in Canada.

We can do things the right way when we are making sure that we can reduce the deficit but at the same time we can improve the infrastructure of the country which will be an improvement for generations to come. I think that is good economic policy and it is why the people of Canada prefer our policies to their voodoo policies.

Social Programs

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

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

The Prime Minister wants us to think that his first ministers' conference will make it possible to decentralize the federation. How could that be when, on the one hand, he is withdrawing partially from manpower training, and on the other, he is announcing his wish to be fully involved in the whole issue of social programs.

Is that the Prime Minister's decentralization model, to withdraw partially from one jurisdiction in order to more easily take over another?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will be examining with the provinces a report presented by the provincial governments to the federal government. We think it is possible to improve the state of social programs and to ensure that they are available to all Canadians in the years to come.

I think it is incumbent on all governments to speak to one another in order to ensure that the social safety net is there for the poorest members of our society today, tomorrow and for many years to come in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Prime Minister another chance to answer my question. At the conference, he is getting ready to pull out of certain provincial areas of jurisdiction, provided he is allowed to take over securities.

How can the Prime Minister say that that is not his decentralization model-give with one hand and take with the other?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the national securities measure, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, is voluntary, and the provinces that wish to participate can participate, and those that do not, will not. I think this is a good way to ensure that we eliminate duplication, but those who like duplication can keep it.

Canada Pension Plan

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

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

The doubling of Canada pension plan premiums will result in a very significant pool of Canadian taxpayer retirement cash accumulating in the hands of government.

What Canadian in his or her right mind would trust a government that has our country $600 billion in debt with the income for his or her retirement? Why should Canadians trust the government to manage their retirement income?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, this question was discussed at considerable length during the very valuable consultation process that was undertaken by the federal chairman of the consultation process, David Walker, as he went across the country.

It was discussed quite extensively yesterday with the finance ministers. There was general agreement that if such a fund were to be created, it would be managed best by a group of investment advisers on market principles at arm's length from the government.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is good news. I am sure Canadians would feel much more secure if the fund were made politician proof so that this huge fund of resources could not then become a slush fund for political parties or politicians.

Following up on the response, will the 20 per cent investment rule be waived? Second, Canadians need to be assured that the retirement income of today's retirees and those who will retire in the immediate future will be protected. Those of us who are grandparents understand that our grandchildren should not pay a disproportionate share of both the national debt and retirement income.

Has the government done any studies or background work on the impact of this fund on job creation and growth, particularly to those in the 20 to 45-year age group?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a series of question and it is somewhat hard

to decipher exactly what he is driving at. I believe he is trying to address a very important problem.

There was discussion of the 20 per cent rule at the meeting. There were those who felt it should be waived, and others felt it should be maintained. Obviously this will be part of the ongoing discussion. The issue is whether there should be one set of rules for this fund and another set of rules for other pension funds. On the other side, of course, is the tremendous investment weight that this fund might have.

That is the only one of the many questions the member asked. I am sure he will ask the others subsequently and I will answer them at that time.

Goods And Services Tax

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

Mr. Speaker, six provinces asked that the GST be listed on the agenda of the first ministers' conference. Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs told us to wait for the results of the finance ministers' conference. Nothing has been settled, as the provinces' request was turned down by the federal Minister of Finance.

The Prime Minister put the securities commission on the agenda because, he said, the provinces asked him to. He also put social programs on the agenda, again because the provinces asked him to. Will the Prime Minister put the GST on the agenda because, once again, the provinces have asked him to do so?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we discussed the GST issue yesterday. We also discussed other tax issues. It was a good discussion. There were differences of opinion, not only between the federal government and some of the provinces but also among the provinces themselves. That is quite normal.

The issue was put on the agenda of the finance ministers' meeting at the provinces' request, and it is there that it should be discussed.