Debates of Sept. 19th, 1996

Auditor General

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have committees of the House of Commons that look at reports from a lot of officials from many important sectors of public administration.

When the committees meet, the duty of the members of Parliament is to look into the report and express their point of view about it. We have different parties in this House and sometimes the parties do not agree.

We are not about to ask the committee to meet and not to look and not to report. They are there to do just that. Now the report will be studied by the Minister of Finance. There are in this report suggestions by the people from the government side, people from the Bloc and from Reform. We will look at all the suggestions, take the good ones and reject the bad ones.

The committee members have to do their work, to study the report and have the honesty to report to the House what they believe should be reported to the House.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this report is extremely critical of an officer of this House. It was not the officer, it was not the auditor general, who waived the $500 million in tax revenue. It was the Department of National Revenue. It was not the auditor general who approved a tax waiver of that magnitude with no documentation in the files whatsoever. It was his duty to report these facts to the House.

Clearly this government favours the rich and taxes the poor.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the government act today to close this loophole that has been wide open for several months and stop it right now?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member earlier said that the committee had interfered in the work of the auditor general. That is obviously nonsense.

The committee, immediately on receipt of the report of the auditor general, convened, heard the auditor general, heard a number of experts on the issue and came out with a report that largely agreed with the auditor general on the steps that had to be taken. In fact we have now received the report and we are going to act on it as quickly as we possibly can.

It is really nonsensical for the member to say what he has said. What is even more nonsensical is for a member of the Reform Party to talk about somebody preferring the rich over the poor. This is the party which has consistently for three years stood up and said eviscerate the poor, get rid of them so that we can protect our friends. This is the party which has said let us get rid of old age pensions. This is the party which has said let us eliminate health care. This party which has tried to destroy the social fabric of this country, and he has the nerve to stand up here and say that. Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears.

The Cbc

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.

This morning, the CBC took action in response to the Liberal government's order to reduce spending. When it has completed the operation, it will have reduced its budget by one quarter, or $414 million, and its staff by one third, or 4,000 positions.

How can the minister explain that, with one hand, she is cutting the CBC's budget by $414 million, while, with the other, she is creating a $200 million patronage fund, in the guise of promoting the production of Canadian content?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the cuts made today to the CBC, in response to our budget, are not easy. I must remind the hon. member that the cuts were made to several levels of government.

Over the next three years, the federal government will let 40,000 people go. I must remind the member that, last year, even

Radio-Québec had to reduce its staff by half. It is true that we are losing positions, but during the budget cuts last year Radio-Québec, now Télé-Québec, had to let half its staff go.

I am satisfied that the CBC's president and board of directors have done their best to at least respect the CBC's right to be heard throughout the country in both official languages. They were not forced to cut as deeply as Radio-Québec did.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister would do well to get her facts straight. Télé-Québec may have made cuts, but it reopened all the regional stations, it did not close them, like the CBC.

Are we to understand that by transferring money from the CBC to the television production fund, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who until today had no influence over the CBC's editorial content, has finally given herself the power she has always wanted and that she will control the CBC?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is not easy to make cuts. Radio-Québec dropped from 629 employees to 329, a reduction of 50 per cent. One thing is certain, and that is that the programming fund, half of which has been set aside for the CBC, was supported by all of Quebec's artists, by Quebec's cultural community.

What is interesting is that this will give the CBC, working in partnership with the private sector, access to funds that will give priority to Canadian production, up to a total of $650 million. We are creating 10,000 jobs.

There is no doubt that these are difficult times and this is why we must work in partnership with film makers, the true creators of Canadian and Quebec culture.

Fisheries

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend will mark the return of a very special tradition for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and for the people of the lower north shore of Quebec.

Both the food fishery and the commercial fishery for cod has been closed for several years now to allow for rebuilding after a catastrophic decline. Conservation has been our first priority. Would the hon. minister explain to his colleagues why he has allowed the resumption of the food fishery?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this year I implemented the continuation of the sentinel fishery. This is a survey designed for fishermen and scientists to determine the rate of return of the cod stocks that were decimated. The results are optimistic. In some cases the results this year as compared to last year are from double to 25 times greater.

This is not sufficient for a commercial fishery but after consultation with every aspect of the industry, all the stakeholders, including the senior scientists, I have decided that it is prudent to allow a very limited, very closely controlled food fishery for two weekends. Essentially this will allow the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and those of the Quebec lower north shore to return to a traditional association with cod as a food in a very limited manner that they have been associated with for hundreds of years. I was very pleased to do it.

Goods And Services Tax

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is, did the Deputy Prime Minister scrap the GST like she said she would? No. Did the Deputy Prime Minister provide stable funding to the CBC? Rather obviously not. Did the Prime Minister fulfil his promise to scrap the GST on reading? Rather obviously not. In fact, he doubled it.

Given a record that would make Pinocchio blush, why should Canadians believe anything at all this government has to say?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, when you are looking to find out who is telling the truth, I have a hard time taking the question of the hon. member seriously when he and his party have a stated policy of abolishing the CBC.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Deputy Prime Minister to stay away from those bank machines.

I would like to quote from the Liberal Party policy convention: "A Liberal government would reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word and remove the goods and services tax on reading materials". The Liberals have put it in writing for us and we are very appreciative of that.

Since the finance minister likes to talk about his government's commitment to education and literacy, I wonder if he can explain his broken promise, for instance, to medical students at Memorial University who are going to have to pay $400 more for their books because of a promise that the Liberals did not keep. In fact, not only did the government not keep its promise it doubled the GST on books.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, there has been no change in the GST on books and there has been no doubling.

At the same time I indicated very clearly in this House on numerous occasions that we are very open to the concept of examining the way in which books are taxed. However, we raised certain questions which the hon. member has not yet answered. In fact, is this the best use of $140 million or are there other ways in which one can support literacy?

We will continue in that vein. Our basic goal is certainly an improved workforce and more educated Canadians. I ask the hon. member, why is it that in the last budget we increased educational credits for students? We made it easier for students to go back to school and to afford it. We made education easier in the last budget and Reform voted against it.

[Translation]

The Somalia Commission

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the army was at a standstill. Obviously, its chief of staff is busy defending himself, preparing his testimony and trying to get out of the mess he is now in.

Are we to conclude from what the Prime Minister said that he admits the army is paralysed because he refused to suspend his chief of staff at a time when the latter's credibility is being questioned? In other words, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that if he had suspended the general, the army would not be at a standstill?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, General Boyle has finished his testimony, and now the commission is continuing its work. We hope the commission will be able to finish its business as soon as possible, so that we can bring the necessary remedies to the present situation.

We should all let the commission go ahead with what it is supposed to do, which is to do its job so that the necessary reforms can be implemented as soon as possible.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the present context, could the Prime Minister tell us how much time General Boyle can spend on leading the army, carrying out his tasks and playing his leadership role, considering that for more than 12 months he has been busy managing the mess he himself helped to create?

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

Mr. Speaker, the process of change in the armed forces is going on very rapidly. I am pleased that the chief of the defence staff and his colleagues have been at the forefront of bringing some very important changes to the armed forces.

Yesterday in a speech in Ottawa the general talked about some of the real accomplishments of giving commanders more control, of devolving more authority to base commanders across the country, of looking at terms of service for military personnel so that they can be assured of service depending on performance.

Lots of reforms are going on. It is a pity that people have become so obsessed with some events that they are overlooking the fundamental changes, the good changes, that are putting the Canadian military in the forefront of reforms of all military in the world.

Regional Development

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister about how his government distributes regional development program funds.

Last week, the Liberal member for St. John's West gave an ultimatum to the town of Placentia. The ultimatum was this. Sell two surplus fire trucks for a token fee against your will or face losing a $350,000 federal grant for an arena.

I would like the Prime Minister to explain to us why Liberal MPs can use the money from taxpayers' pockets across Canada to force provincial or municipal governments to toe the Liberal line and to agree to individual MP's projects.

[The Speaker]

The way the question is worded, I am trying to see how it fits in with the administrative responsibility of a minister. I see the parliamentary secretary has risen. If he wishes to answer the question, I will permit it.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the statement that was made and attributed to the hon. member is not government policy. I understand that she has apologized. That ends the whole matter.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what do we say about this? It is not government policy.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Why is it that time and time again in this House, the Prime Minister of this government defends unacceptable behaviour by ministers at times, by backbenchers? Why does that happen? All they say is: "Ain't our fault, folks. It is not government policy".

I would like to know whether the Prime Minister has the courage to call in the ethics counsellor-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

Auditor General

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals on the finance committee got the message from the auditor general that there was something wrong in the way Revenue Canada was mollycoddling the Bronfman family trust they chose to attack the messenger.

Nevertheless, they did make some recommendations. I want to ask the finance minister, who claims that the Liberals have already dealt with this problem, why the finance committee would make such recommendations to deal with the problem if, as the finance minister says is the case, the government has already dealt with the problem.

I would like to further ask the finance minister when he is going to wake up to the fact that Canadians who pay their fair share of taxes are sick and tired of people getting away with this stuff and they want something done about it. They want the government to revisit this tax decision because it is legally possible to do so. Get that money back so we can-