Debates of Feb. 20th, 1997

The Budget

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member is quite wrong. Apparently she cannot read. Perhaps she should go back to the red book. She would see that our commitment was to invest $1 billion in science and technology during our mandate. By creating the Foundation for Innovation we have already invested $800 million.

We also created Technology Partnerships Canada, whose budget, starting next year, will be $250 million annually, and this is stable funding.

Today we announced the renewal of the national network of centres of excellence as a permanent program with $47 million in funding. We announced other investments in the budget.

Pensions

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, any reform of CPP must reflect fairness for all Canadians. If a 20 year old person invested CPP contributions in an RRSP at an average return of about 7 per cent he or she would have an nest egg of over a million dollars. That would give an annual retirement income over double what is being offered under the Liberal CPP plan.

How can the minister justify forcing young people to contribute to a plan that would have to rank as one of the worst investment schemes on the planet?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the projections that have been made by the federal government and the provinces are quite prudent. Again I point out that all 10 provinces are joint stewards in the Canada pension plan.

If the Canada pension plan was to earn higher rates, and there is no reason why it should not given the fact that it will be subject exactly to the same investment criteria as any private sector pension plan, then clearly the returns will be higher.

Let us point out some of the fundamental differences the super RRSP will not have. CPP benefits are fully indexed. They are secure. They provide disability benefits. If somebody has an accident under the Canada pension plan they will be protected.

What Reform would do is throw those who have bad luck, who have accidents, on to the market with no help. Let us understand what it means. Under the Canada pension plan survivor benefits will be provided. As well, under the Canada pension plan women having children who have to retire from the workforce for a period of time are protected. Under the Reform plan there is no such protection.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is making lyin' Brian look good.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Some hon. members]

Withdraw.

[The Speaker]

I caution members again about using inflammatory words. I would like the hon. member to withdraw these words "lyin' Brian" and to put his question directly, please.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The Liberal record is a 17 per cent jobless rate for Canada's youth and now under the guise of CPP reform-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Put the question, please.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand why is the government breaking its jobs promise to Canada's youth and on the other hand if they ever do get a job forcing them to pay higher and higher taxes for ever diminishing benefits?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us put the debate over the Canada pension plan in perspective.

We have already seen that the difference of opinion between ourselves and the Reform Party has nothing to do with the CPP premiums. We have already seen that on the three basic options put forward by the Reform Party, one of 10 per cent, one of 13 per cent and one of 14.2 per cent, in all cases Reform are recommending higher CPP premiums than the federal government and the provinces. We understand that.

Therefore what we must deal with is what is the fundamental difference of opinion between ourselves and the Reform. It has to do with the values of this country. It has to do with do you believe that Canadians feel a collective responsibility one for the other? Do you believe that Canadians do not think this is a country only for the rich? Do you believe that what this country is all about is providing for Canadians on disability, providing for single mothers, providing for survivors? We do.

Tobacco Bill

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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

Despite his attempts to exert pressure, the secretary of state responsible for regional development in Quebec has failed. The Minister of Health this week tabled a number of minor amendments to his tobacco bill, which simply put the problem off until after the election. All the organizers of sporting and cultural events are angry and disappointed at the work done by the secretary of state in the matter of sponsorships.

Will the Acting Prime Minister acknowledge that, despite the fine words of the secretary of state for Quebec, the government has found no other way to ensure the viability of sporting and cultural events in Quebec and Canada?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member is completely off base.

The minister has responded to committee recommendations, a committee of which the hon. member was a participant. The minister has said: "All right, I will consider what the recommendations of the committee are, first of all, that the legislation passed as it was and second, I will take into consideration some of the concerns with respect to a transitional period in order to accommodate the concerns of all of those who depended on advertising". He has done that.

The minister has also taken into consideration the overwhelming opinion of the Canadian public that this is a health bill and that as a health bill it shall pass unchanged. The minister has also said: "I will be reasonable. I will receive further representations". He has received them and he has presented amendments that reflect weighing those recommendations in the balance.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the parliamentary secretary can say that, when the minister refused to meet representatives of the sponsors.

On October 22, the Prime Minister said before the Chamber of Commerce in Montreal, and I quote: "By working in a spirit of co-operation, we can put Montreal back on its feet. We have no choice, we must succeed".

Are we to understand that his work on behalf of Montreal is limited to adopting a bill that threatens more than 2,000 jobs and over $90 million in economic benefits there?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it is very constructive to engage in these kinds of scare tactics. The legislation, and the hon. member has read it well, does not prohibit advertising. There are restrictions to the application of advertising, restrictions to which the advertising agencies around the world and especially in North America agree should be in place.

The member also knows there are even more severe restrictions in the United States. In fact, as of next year there will be an outright ban. No such thing is happening in Canada.

For the edification of the hon. member and for the information of this House I would like to draw to the member's attention what the Minister of Health in Quebec said about advertising which I will quote for the member's benefit. I will table it if the member would like. It says:

The minister said this: "Sponsorship is subliminal advertising. Cultural products are associated with a brand of cigarettes. This is a very strong way to encourage smoking, especially among young people".

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.

Canada Pension Plan

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first I would caution the Minister of Finance not to speak too loudly of Reform ideas because it usually takes about a year for a Reform idea to end up being Liberal policy, as we all know.

Catherine Swift, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, wrote a letter to the Canada pension plan review committee. In it she wrote: "Increases in CPP premiums to as high as 10 per cent would be massively disruptive to small business finances and employment levels". The premium increase announced by the Minister of Finance to 9.9 per cent will cost a company with 100 employees $130,000.

Where will that money come from to pay this increase in taxes? Why will the government not link an increase in CPP premiums to a decrease in the UI premiums?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us simply contrast in terms of the CPP premiums with differing tracks between what the Liberals and the provinces have said together versus what the Reform plan is.

Instead of it going up to 14 per cent and then continuing, under the federal government and the provincial plan, the premiums are going to go up to 9.9 per cent and then they are going to level off. We will then have a fuller funded plan. What Reform is suggesting under what appears to be the most real of its options is that there would be an acceleration of those premiums up to 14.2 per cent.

How the hon. member can stand in this House and try to convince people that 14.2 per cent is less than 9.9 per cent can only be done in that weird little corner of the world where Reformers do their arithmetic.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians, what we are trying to do is to link the very real damage done to employment by payroll taxes and the fact that payroll taxes have to come down.

We all understand that the Canada pension plan is a basket case. Everybody knows that. The problem is that for new people coming into the plan it must be fair. For businesses that now have to try to maintain a payroll we have to keep them from going broke. For the vast majority of businesses there is only one place the money can come from. According to the same CFIB survey, 49 per cent of small businesses with five employees are operating at break even or loss positions which means that the last person hired will be the first person fired.

How many small businesses will be forced to close as a direct result of this payroll tax increase? That is the problem.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to the Canada pension plan as a basket case. One must understand what he is saying. The federal government along with eight of the provinces, provinces which reflect the vast range of the political spectrum in this country, provinces which reflect all of the regions of this country have come together with the federal government to protect the Canada pension plan so that it will be there for young Canadians.

To refer to the Canada pension plan as a basket case could only come if one adopts an extremist view. We understand that is exactly what we are dealing with. The basic difference here is not between Reform and the government. It is between a balanced view of what Canadian society is all about and about a band of extremists who would destroy the values of the country.

The Constitution

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

This week, Quebec's Liberal Party leader Daniel Johnson said he would not support the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution sought by the Quebec government, because, in his opinion, the fact that up to four other provinces could be involved increases the likelihood of failure.

Just yesterday, however, the minister stated unequivocally that section 93 could be amended bilaterally on the basis of the proposal made by the Quebec government.

Who are we to believe, the minister across the way or the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat the three basic points made from the very beginning by the Government of Canada in this matter.

First, on the face of it, what the Government of Quebec is proposing appears to be feasible, bilaterally, under section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 amending formula.

Second, the Government of Quebec must build a consensus around its proposal. Incidentally, my Quebec counterpart, Jacques Brassard, is now saying the exact same thing as I am, thereby contradicting the opposition in this respect.

Third, this is a matter that must be debated by the provincial legislature before being referred to the Parliament of Canada. That was what happened in each of the four previous bilateral amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the 180 degree turnabout and the glaring inconsistency of his friend and ally, Daniel Johnson, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs telling us that, until the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec sees the light and stops putting partisanship before the interests of Quebec as a whole, he will consider that there is no consensus in Quebec to proceed bilaterally?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the official opposition made another suggestion that may well reduce the likelihood of a court challenge. It is up to the Quebec government to determine whether this is the best solution and to discuss the matter with the leader of the official opposition.

I think that the official opposition in the House of Commons now realizes that a consensus is required. So far, it had always maintained that all we had to do was to accept a proposal put forward by the Government of Quebec.