Debates of Feb. 18th, 1997

National Unity

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this is the limit. The minister tells us there is in fact a rule that if you do not defend Canadian unity, you may not get your grant. Maybe you will, but it is not a sure thing. It is up to the government.

How can the minister responsible for Francophonie, who is attached to Foreign Affairs, and I am not sure in what capacity he is answering my question, how can he be so matter of fact about a program that is trying to control all Canadian artists and Quebec artists as well who are more specifically on the receiving end?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, this is the exact opposite of what I just told the hon. member. I made it quite clear that these were not criteria. As for the objectives I mentioned, and there are six, there is no obligation to meet all these objectives.

One of them, as the hon. member said, mentions national unity. Another one refers to diversity. Is he against diversity? And another objective for instance, is to present our culture abroad. Another objective is to talk about cultural and other exports abroad.

So there is a whole range of objectives, and I am sure that everyone can find within that range ways to convey the message of Canadian diversity abroad.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if this were a page from Astérix, the comment would be: "Those Romans are crazy".

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Do not worry, Mr. Speaker, I will not violate the Standing Orders. You know my respect for the Standing Orders of this House.

The minister was explaining that they include this criterion but it does not have to be met. They put it in by accident, this thing about Canadian unity, but it does not really matter if we do not promote Canadian unity. What he just told us does not make sense.

I will ask him another question: Does the minister agree that the government has two objectives in mind by including this criterion, a new criterion artists will have to meet? First, they want political control over the creative arts in Canada, and second, they want to reduce substantially assistance to Quebec creators who, according to this government, are not interested enough in promoting national unity.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition doth protest too much, but I want to thank him for his short course in pop culture in the form of a quote from Astérix.

The hon. member opposite must know, and I told him so earlier, that this is not about criteria that must be applied regardless. In fact this is not about criteria at all. There are no prerequisites. We respect the freedom of the artists, that is quite clear.

What we have here are simply objectives. One of those objectives is diversity. The hon. member opposite mentioned another one. Is he against cultural diversity and cultural excellence?

I believe that Mr. Léveillée, that Edith Butler and many others are excellent examples of this cultural diversity in Canada. And I hope my hon. friend will agree that these people excel in their field.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, this government, which has made major cuts to culture, always seems able to find money to fund propaganda campaigns. The latest idea the Minister of Canadian Heritage came up with is a propaganda kit on Canada for distribution in schools.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The federal government had promised to withdraw from provincial jurisdictions. Why is the minister jumping in with both feet and squandering public funds to distribute her propaganda kit in schools when her colleague, the Minister of Finance, is cutting transfer payments for education?

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

Mr. Speaker, at the cultural affairs ministers' meeting in Saskatchewan last year, one of the questions raised by the provincial ministers concerned the lack of availability of Canadian material for use in schools.

Last year, I had a kit prepared-

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

You are not allowed to show it around.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

-which was such a hit with school principals that, within two weeks, we had received 3,000 telephone requests for kits from school principals, including 300 from Quebec.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.

After the flag operation, after the Canada information office, after the TV quiz, now the heritage minister wants to indoctrinate children starting in junior kindergarten.

Where will it stop? What is next? "Flushabye Flags"?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have taken on the challenge of the cultural affairs ministers, who asked the Government of Canada to provide information to school principals.

Later, I sent a letter to school principals to tell them about this kit, and the response was incredible. I would like to quote for the record the president of the Fédération des directeurs d'école du Québec, who stated today: "It is up to school principals to exercise judgment in deciding whether or not to order the multimedia educational package".

I always give school principals the choice. All we do is provide information. It is such a hit that, after two weeks, we had to have 5,000 new packages prepared.

Canada Pension Plan

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a 70 per cent increase in mandatory Canada pension plan premiums; up to $10 billion more per year in revenue for the

government; $690 more taken off Canadian paycheques. That sounds like a tax, smells like a tax and looks like a tax, but not so according to the Minister of Finance.

In the House yesterday he said: "This is not a tax grab. It is not a tax". I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is really the position of the Government of Canada that Canada pension plan payments are not a payroll tax.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance mentioned that it is a contribution by every citizen and employers to make sure there is a Canada pension plan available for generations to come.

The leader says that there was neglect in the previous government and I agree with him. That is why we are obliged to fix it at the request of the provincial governments. This program is a joint federal-provincial program.

They are pretty close apparently to the Conservative Government of Ontario. In the paper over the weekend the minister of finance of Ontario was claiming a victory.

It was to be proceeded with to make sure that this element of public finances of the provincial and the federal governments will be in order.

The people have to understand that these contributions are used by the provincial governments to finance their operations. That is why they wanted it fixed. We did that jointly with the provincial governments.

The premier of Alberta was very happy that this problem was resolved. He, like us, like Ontario and like most of the people, wanted the finances of the nation to be in good order. This is not the time to try not to tell the truth to the Canadian people.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, therefore according to the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, the CPP premiums are contributions and not a tax.

I have on my desk a paper entitled "Growth in CPP/QPP Contributions". In it the author clearly describes contributions to the Canada pension plan and the Quebec plan as compulsory payroll taxes. He demonstrates that increases in the payroll taxes from 1986 to 1993 reduced employment by 26,000 jobs. The author of this paper, Joe Italiano, is with the economic analysis and forecasting division of the Department of Finance.

Who is right, the finance minister who says that CPP premiums are not a payroll tax and that raising them has no impact on jobs, or the analysis of his own department that says exactly the opposite?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start at the beginning and go very slowly for the hon. members opposite.

These are not revenues of the Government of Canada. He misleads Canadians when he says that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I encourage you to stay away from words like "mislead" in questions and answers. I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to give his response.

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, their statements to the effect that these are taxes rather than describing them as what they are have left an unfortunate impression among Canadians. These are contributions to a public pension plan available to pay benefits under this plan. They are not revenues of the Government of Canada.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once said he would kill the GST. He broke that promise. The Prime Minister claims there have been no tax increases under his administration. Now we have a 70 per cent hike in a particular payroll tax alone.

Soon the Prime Minister will be sending candidates across the country to seek re-election. As they go from meeting to meeting, they will be followed like some hound from hell by the Prime Minister's record of broken promises on jobs, broken promises on taxes and broken promises on integrity.

How does the Prime Minister hope to improve his reputation for honesty and integrity when he refuses to admit that CPP contributions are a payroll tax and a 70 per cent hike in premiums is a tax grab?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary explained the contributions very well.

As I explained earlier, this is a joint plan between the federal and provincial governments. We cannot change the plan alone. We need the collaboration of the provinces. Because the provinces needed the money to finance their operations, they were urging us to make the contributions equal to the payments for the future.

At this time there is a deficit. The hon. leader of the third party is always talking about deficits but when we try to do something to put the finances of the nation together, he does not support us. He is the one who has completely changed his position. Because he is now desperate, he is trying to buy the votes of Canadians with their own money.

Canadian Embassy In Washington

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Yesterday, when asked about spying activities targeting a Quebec diplomat in Washington and involving military officers at the Canadian embassy, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said there was no policy, no direction whatsoever that anybody in any embassy should spy on any Quebec official.

Given that the two officers involved may, of their own initiative, have engaged in illegal activities under American laws, can the defence minister tell us whether these officers were suspended and whether he ordered an investigation into the activities of his military personnel at the Canadian embassy in Washington?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained very clearly that no one had engaged in spying activities in that case and that nothing wrong was done. We have no reason to believe that any illegal action under American laws took place.

We know that the allegations resulted from a misunderstanding or a difference of opinion between an American government employee and his superiors.

As for us, as the minister said yesterday, there is no government policy to spy on any official of the Quebec government or of any other provincial government.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am once again asking the Minister of National Defence whether or not an investigation was conducted and, if no investigation did or will take place, who are we supposed to believe? The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who told us yesterday that the allegations were unfounded, or the Minister of National Defence himself, who the day before said the issue had to be looked into?