Debates of Sept. 25th, 1997

The Debt

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister has done it to health care. He has cut the transfer from $19 billion to $12 billion. That is a fact.

There are young families out there in which both parents are working and they cannot make ends meet because of high tax levels. There are businesses out there that would hire these younger workers we are all concerned about except that the government is charging excessive payroll taxes, and the throne speech did not promise a cent of tax relief to those families or those businesses. What it promised are 29 new spending proposals from the government.

My question to the prime minister is who does he think would spend any surplus more wisely, Liberal politicians and bureaucrats or those families and businesses?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wanted me to speak about equality of the provinces. I am for that. I am for equality of individuals. That is exactly why I said yesterday that to make sure that everybody in Canada is equal we will put some of the money in the surplus to give a chance for students to go to university so they will be on an equal footing with the children of the rich people of Canada.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers believe that any surpluses belong to Canadians and they are really demanding accountability. To lay to rest the confusion over the government's 50:50 promise, will the finance minister provide a separate accounting for the surplus in all future budgets and will he commit to itemizing in the 1998 budget all the new spending announced today? A simple question.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is axiomatic and very clear that in every budget the government accounts for government spending. I can assure the hon. member that I will do that.

The Leader of the Opposition drew the comparison between the Tories and the current government and asked what some of the differences were. There are a multitude. There is another difference. I believe that the then minister of finance, Michael Wilson, wanted to cut the deficit but he did not get the support of his prime minister, and I did.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are glad to see that the finance minister is making up with the prime minister. That is wonderful.

In 1993 the finance minister said no government can operate effectively when its projections fall consistently short of the mark. Yet now even he refuses to set a mark. Is this 50:50 shell game a deliberate attempt to bamboozle the public and to pick the pockets of the Canadian public? That is what we want to know.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I am having a bit of trouble with the phrase “a deliberate attempt to bamboozle”. I want to caution the member to please choose his words judiciously.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody is going to make up with anybody, perhaps the hon. member might make up with his leader whom he consigned to the scrap heap of history yesterday.

Let me be very clear. We are going to balance the budget in 1998-99. There are going to be surpluses. We are going to be in a position to cut taxes. We are going to reduce debt and we are going to invest in the future of Canadians. We will set this out in the budget and in the interim between now and then in the fiscal update we are going to consult with Canadians as to their priorities.

Calgary Declaration

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister made a very telling statement on the consultations to be held by the provinces on the Calgary declaration. The Prime Minister said that the federal government might consult Quebecers, going around the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly.

I simply want to ask the Prime Minister whether he knows how the other provinces will consult their citizens on the Calgary declaration.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have used or will use all kinds of ways to consult their citizens, and I think the Canadian government has the right to consult Canadians throughout Canada. However, I did not say we would.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

No, that is not what I said. I said, in response to a question by the member who asked us to do so immediately, that I did not reject the idea. First we will see what the provinces that agreed to work on this will do, and then we will let you know. However, no one can deny the right of the Parliament of Canada to consult the voters who elect the members of this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about all kinds of ways. We saw a number of these mentioned in the newspapers. But the Prime Minister did not specify what kind of means.

How could he, in a major speech he made yesterday, lend such credibility to strategies as yet unknown, to consultations which may or may not be reliable? How can he try to go around the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly without knowing what kind of consultations the provinces will hold on the Calgary declaration?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, each provincial government will decide what form of consultation it will use. At this point, it seems obvious that each government will opt for different methods.

There are many ways to consult the public. We think that we can consult the public if necessary. I never said we would do so, and we never determined what form this would take.

We are perfectly happy to see the provinces select different methods to consult their citizens, and we hope that at some point they will adopt resolutions in their respective legislative assemblies, each province according to its own lights.

As I said before, as soon as they have presented these resolutions, a similar resolution will be put before this House, and then we will discuss—

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but the hon. member for Temiscamingue has the floor.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

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

The premier of Newfoundland has stated that his consultation on the Calgary declaration would be done via the Internet, a 1-800 line, or at riding meetings.

Does the Prime Minister, who claims to be so concerned about clarity and transparency, consider this method of consultation to be sufficient and satisfactory?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland is the one answerable to the voters of Newfoundland, and it is up to him to defend his proposal.

According to what I have read so far, he has the agreement of the opposition parties to do this. If he is making use of a modern method of consultation, that's fine. Each province will have its own method of consultation.

When the premier of Newfoundland faces his legislature, he will have to justify his consultation formula. It is not up to me to approve or disapprove of it, that is up to his legislature.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

And if the Government of Quebec wants to consult the people of Quebec on the same subject, it can do so, only it is up to the Government of Quebec to decide, not us.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to hear that it is not up to the Prime Minister to decide how the provinces are to conduct their business. At last.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Since the Prime Minister does not, when it comes down to it, know all that much about how Brian Tobin and his colleagues are going to hold their consultations on the Calgary declaration, how can he use that consultation, whose methodology he does not know, as a pretext, in a major speech, to make yet another threat against Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is of course no connection. I believe the hon. member is saying that the procedure relating to a referendum on secession should only be determined by the secessionist government. This is probably what the member has in mind, but he certainly cannot name one country in the world which would accept such a thing.

The hon. member must realize that the consultation process carried out by the premier of Newfoundland has to do with a policy statement which has no constitutional impact and which only involves that particular province, for the time being. In the case of a secession, the territory of Quebec would be excluded from the Canadian legal order and from Canadian federal institutions, something which cannot be achieved through such a procedure.

Fisheries

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

Our west coast salmon fishery is in dire straits. British Columbians, indeed all Canadians, are offended at the federal government's weak stance in this dispute.

Last week a congressional committee on the Pacific salmon treaty heard testimony in Washington from key stakeholders. Members of this House deserve to know that Canada was invited to testify at those hearings.

Why did the prime minister fail to send representatives to testify at these hearings and to stand up for Canada's interests?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the hon. member, whose experience has been in a provincial legislature rather than in the national legislature, would not understand that in Canada, as in the United States, it is a decision of the committee itself as to who will appear before it. We have no more right to tell American committees who they will have before them than they have to tell our committees of this House who to have before them.

I find it strange that the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party would believe in a principle that would allow other governments the right to attend all committee hearings of the House of Commons and Senate.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, no amount of wriggling and slithering on this issue is going to get the government off the hook. The minister of fisheries knows perfectly well that Canadians were invited to testify and they failed to testify.

My question to the minister of fisheries is when is his government going to stand up for the interests of Canadian fishers in coastal communities?