Debates of Feb. 5th, 1997

Personal Income Tax

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I was getting to my question. He did nothing for individual taxpayers either.

Here is my first question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister agree that by making sweeping changes in the corporate tax system, as the Bloc suggested last November, he could collect as much as $3 billion which he could use to create thousands of jobs?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to, I would be delighted to table the list of all the loopholes we put in place. It is too bad we have to table them for the hon. member to see what they are. Since we did this for every budget, I would have thought the hon. member, being the

opposition finance critic, would know about these loopholes. In any case, we will table them.

Meanwhile, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on the start of his campaign for Mr. Duhaime.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I want to thank the Minister of Finance for the publicity he gave my candidate for the leadership. He is a great man for the job.

The Minister of Finance actually said, actually referred to the tax loopholes he put in place. Just imagine. He produced these tax loopholes and that is the problem: he did nothing about it. In three months and a half, with a small team, the Bloc Quebecois did what he failed to do in three and a half years. That is a fact.

I have a second question. Regarding the changes in personal income tax, is the Minister of Finance prepared to give serious thought to a proposal by the Bloc Quebecois for creating a kind of employment RRSP to help people who are unemployed?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct a mistake. Obviously, we closed the tax loopholes on this three-page list, and we intend to table those pages.

Meanwhile, we have introduced many measures to help people save. For instance, I was told, since I did not have a chance to read it, that in its report the Bloc Quebecois mentioned ways of helping students. The hon. member should know that we are well ahead of the Bloc Quebecois in this respect.

For instance, in our last budgets we increased the education credit from $80 to $100 per month; we raised the limit on the transfer of tuition fees to those who are paying for a student's education from $4,000 to $5,000 per student; we raised the annual limits on contributions to registered education savings plans from $1,500 to $2,000 and the lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000. And I could go on.

Ethical Guidelines

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals came to power in 1993, the Prime Minister made a commitment to high ethical standards that would guarantee the integrity of his government.

On November 6, 1996 he said: "I have guidelines for ministerial conduct which have been transmitted to the ministers. They have read them and they follow them".

We are wondering what kind of ethical guidelines would allow denial of the broken GST promise, political interference in the Somalia inquiry, the use of the justice department for a political witch hunt and the stonewalling of the inquiry into tainted blood.

Do any of these activities violate the Prime Minister's ethical standards, or by his standards are all these activities ethically acceptable?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we formed a government three years and two months ago. The ministers have shown that the government is a government that is very ethical and respects all the norms. No ministers were involved in any scandals of any nature.

In political debate we may have differences, but to tackle this very negative approach by the Reform Party, as it was published Monday morning in the Toronto Star , that it will be only negative, is a big contrast with the promise he made when he became the leader that he was to have the highest standards in this House.

I know they want to do everything, even have the people in the gallery to protest, people ready to go in the scrum and say they are journalists.

On top of that, I learned this morning that to succeed in that, the leader of the third party is trying to become an actor. He has hired somebody to train him how to look mad when he is not mad.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the Prime Minister did proclaim one of his ethical guidelines. He promised that every minister in his cabinet would assume full responsibility for any bungling in their departments.

How is letting the defence minister gag the Somalia inquiry assuming full responsibility? How is letting the justice minister go on a political witch hunt with the justice department assuming full responsibility? How is the Prime Minister's promising to scrap the GST and denying the promise was made assuming full responsibility for the commitment?

When the Prime Minister promised to hold his ministers responsible for any bungling, did he mean what he said or was this just another empty promise like killing the GST?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a witch hunt. The leader of the third party has been taking lessons from someone so he could act in the House of Commons.

The Minister of National Defence has given until the month of June to finish the inquiry. There were three extensions before. The minister of defence has explained very well the reason why. What is very surprising is that he is just responding to the request of the leader of the third party, urging us to terminate it quickly so that

there will be no inquiry during an election. We are doing exactly what he is asking.

Why would the man who is talking about integrity say that in October and today say exactly the contrary to what he said at that time?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we want truth before the election.

The Prime Minister's vague and confusing answers on ethical questions lead many of us to believe that there are no ethical guidelines.

Time and time again we have asked the Prime Minister to table those guidelines in the House and he has not done so. Perhaps, like his homeless friends, they are imaginary or maybe they got caught in the shredder somewhere. When he and Mr. Mitchell went up on the mountain perhaps they forgot to bring down one of the tablets, the one about accountability, integrity and responsibility.

How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to enforce ethical standards for his government when the Prime Minister will not let the public see those ethical guidelines?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about integrity, what about the Reform Party's question period strategy which I read about in yesterday's Toronto Star , asking negative and accusatory questions, coaching Reform sympathizers to take part in media scrum, causing disturbance in public galleries, disrupting royal assent in other places. What happened to the Reform Party pledge to do politics differently?

I have never seen a party use and abuse an institution to try to move up in the polls. This is something I know will not succeed.

Sponsorship Of Sporting And Cultural Events

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Health intimated that he is currently considering changing his policy on the sponsorship of events by the tobacco industry. It would appear that pressure from all those involved and the members of the Bloc Quebecois finally succeeded in waking up the minister and making him aware of the legitimate concerns of the organizers of sporting and cultural events.

Could the minister confirm that he is seriously considering the possibility of changing the measures that apply to the sponsorship of cultural and sporting events and could he provide more details on the solutions currently being examined?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not speculate about speculation.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked a fuller response given that, if the minister were to read the papers, he would see that these are his own statements.

Could the minister confirm that he is currently examining the possibility of changing the measures that apply to the sponsorship of cultural and sporting events and of making an announcement before the election?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that 40,000 Canadians die each and every year. Bill C-71 was for the purpose of health, enhancing the health of young people in particular.

I said on the record for members to view that last week we received a number of representations and various technical amendments from a variety of different groups which we are examining at the present time. When I complete my examination I will move forward.

Somalia Inquiry

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has spent the last three years protecting and promoting the highest ranked players in the Somalia fiasco.

General Jean Boyle was bumped up to chief of defence staff. Admiral John Anderson was shuffled off to NATO headquarters. Commander Serge Labbe was also shipped off to NATO. The Prime Minister's long time friend Bob Fowler was sent to safety at the United Nations. These people must be held accountable.

When are we ever going to hear their story about what really happened in Somalia?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question the minister of defence has answered many times. There is an inquiry and the inquiry can call any witness it wants. It still has two months to do that. There is nothing I can do. We are not calling the shots. There is a commission to decide and it can call anybody it wants.

As far as personal friends, I never knew many of them before. I had never met these people before they were in these jobs. They were all appointed by the Conservative government.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, talk about a flip-flop. First the Prime Minister said last fall that it is fine and the commission can have all the time it needs. Now he says that it is good enough and it will just be shut down. This government and this defence minister have castrated the commission. It is as simple as that. They have cut it off. They have not allowed it to do its work. This Prime Minister knows full well that it is not able to get to the post-deployment phase, which it thought it was going to have time to do.

We need to hear from witnesses like Major Buonamici and Barry Armstrong, whose allegations first initiated the whole Somalia inquiry.

The Minister of National Defence says that Canadians do not really want a historical document. I think he is quite right, but what they do want is the truth.

Why cannot Barry Armstrong be allowed to testify and Bob Fowler be forced to testify?

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

Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer to the hon. member's question is that it is totally within the purview of the commissioners to ask whomever they wish to come. I am sure that the people to whom the hon. member has referred are more than available to come before the commission if, in the wisdom of the commissioners, they feel these are the appropriate witnesses to hear.

The hon. member knows, because she talks about flip-flops, that in this very place, Mr. Speaker-and I say this to you because I am sure you would have been here-on September 17 the hon. leader of the Reform Party said, from page 4308 of the Commons Debates :

Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there is no ultimate cover-up in the Somalia inquiry, will the Prime Minister guarantee to this House that the results of the inquiry will be made fully public before the next federal election?

We are trying.

Culture

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

Mr. Speaker, ignoring Canada's historical positions on culture and ignoring his own party's promise in the red book assuring Canadians that the Liberals would defend culture, the Minister for International Trade last week called into question all of Canada's cultural protection measures over the years. In the meantime, however, the Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the cultural exemption was a vital part of international trade agreements.

My question is for the Prime Minister. With the remarks of his Minister for International Trade, it is a grave moment for Quebec's and Canada's cultural sovereignty, and the Prime Minister cannot remain silent. He must respond. Which of his two ministers represents his government's position? The one he made responsible for culture or the one ready to fritter culture away.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in government policy. Certainly the government wants to continue to promote Canadian culture both in the domestic sense and on the international stage. In fact, over the last few years Canada's exports in terms of its cultural sector have grown enormously. It is now a $3 billion industry.

Times have changed, and so I have raised some questions with respect to how we go about continuing in our promotion of culture, particularly in the context of trade and globalization.

Certainly the Minister of Canadian Heritage and I are working together to ensure that the government continues to promote the cultural product of this country, of all parts of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out whether the government is on the same wavelength. I would remind you of the 1994 Tassé report, because all recent commissions agree on the need for cultural protection and funding of cultural development.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage says she will appeal the decision of the World Trade Organization in the matter of Sports Illustrated , while her colleague for international trade is saying that no decision has been made in the matter.

Could the Prime Minister tell us who in cabinet is responsible for culture and who in cabinet is defending the government's official position?

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as the decisions of the World Trade Organization are concerned, it is true that there is nothing final yet.

Once a final decision is made, we as the Government of Canada will certainly do our utmost with allies like France and Ireland, allies that fear the Americanization of culture around the world, to fight the globalization of the industry in Hollywood.

Somalia Inquiry

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I asked the Prime Minister to recall Bob Fowler from the UN

because of his involvement in the Somalia affair. He refused because all the allegations would be sorted out by the inquiry. To quote him, as he likes to quote so much from Hansard , on March 21, 1995 he said: ``The inquiry will be comprehensive and everything can be discussed at this inquiry''. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's words have been proven totally untrue.

I want to know if the Prime Minister is going to apologize to Canadians for this latest Liberal broken promise.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for the hon. member to attempt to prejudge the testimony or what went on at any of the events. That is for to the commissioners to look into.

I find it rather unusual that the hon. member has already decided, for whatever reason, that the person to whom he has referred will not be called before the commission of inquiry. The commission can continue hearings until the end of March.

The hon. member is making known his views as to who he thinks should be called. I have said it is not my intention to comment on the roster of witnesses nor on the testimony given before the inquiry because I do not think it would be appropriate. If the hon. member wishes to continue with his campaign to have certain people heard, he has until the end of March to make sure they are, if the commissioners believe it is in the best interests of getting to the bottom of this affair.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are tired of this kind of rhetoric from the minister.

One year ago, following the serious allegations from Kim Campbell, we again asked that Mr. Fowler be recalled to Ottawa. This time the Minister of Foreign Affairs refused with the following excuse on April 16, 1996 in Hansard . He states:

Mr. Fowler will appear under oath before the inquiry to give all the information he knows-

That is another broken Liberal promise, given here in the House. Is the Prime Minister willing to admit that he and his ministers systematically abused the trust of the House and of the Canadian people?