House of Commons Hansard #153 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was banks.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote François Dupuis, the senior economist of the Mouvement Desjardins, who said “While the financial context has stabilized in recent days, we must not forget that the situation remains highly volatile. The presence of numerous risks, both from an economic and financial point of view, calls for continued caution”.
We are being cautious. The Bloc Quebecois wants to take us back to the days when we had a deficit.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, now that the minister is done saying things that make no sense, I am asking him what he has to say to the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who recognizes that there will be a surplus in excess of $10 billion by the end of the current fiscal year, who accuses the minister of playing with numbers, and who asks, on behalf of all Canadian entrepreneurs, that the Minister of Finance show a little more respect.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is contradicting the senior economist of the Mouvement Desjardins. He is contradicting the senior economist of the Bank of Commerce.
He is contradicting the vast majority of economists in Canada, who are advising us to remain cautious and who agree with our principles, which are to reduce the debt, lower taxes and invest in sectors of the future, including health.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, in August the government rationalized yet another delay in honouring its pay equity debts to its own employees, claiming that further clarification was needed from the courts. With today's federal court decision to throw out the Bell case, the pay equity issue is now crystal clear. Will the minister agree to stop the delay and just pay?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, the basic issue has not changed. There are two groups of women that would be submitted to two different systems of pay equity and we have to appeal to make sure the law is clarified.
The judge did not make a decision on methodology in the judgment of today but merely sent it back to the tribunal of first instance. Therefore we are back with exactly the same problem we had. We have two different methodologies. We cannot treat two groups of women differently in terms of pay equity. We are in favour of the principle but we have to appeal.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, when this government likes a decision it touts it and when it does not like a decision it studies it endlessly. Obviously the government must have anticipated today's court decision as one possibility. Surely the government had a plan. Does the plan include paying its debts to its own employees or will it dredge up more excuses for more delays?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, the union appealed when it did not like the judgment in the Bell Canada case. In our case we cannot as a government treat two groups of women, the 20,000 women in the Bell case and the women in the public service, in different ways. We still have the same problem. We have two different methodologies and we still must ask the court to clarify the law. We believe in the principle of pay equity but we must treat women, whether in the private sector or in the public sector, in the same way.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the government dismantled the long term safety net programs that were put into place by Progressive Conservative governments to deal with commodity pricing.
A farmer from Manitoba said that dealing with short term cash inputs without long term commodity price safety nets is like giving Valium to a cancer patient.
When will this minister and his government put in the proper safety nets for our agriculture commodities?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member of what we inherited in 1993 which caused us to take a very serious look at the future of not only support to agriculture but support for all Canadians, a $42 billion deficit. In spite of that and with that saddle on our back, we have worked with the industry to put in place a safety net system to support the Canadian agricultural industry. We are continuing to work with it and we are presently reviewing that support.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the minister met with provincial agriculture ministers and industry stakeholders. At that time the minister said it was time for discussion, not for decisions. It has been reported that yesterday the United Kingdom put $250 million into its agriculture industry. Perhaps it is time for decisions to be made.
When will this minister put those types of funds back into our industry so farmers can put crops in this year?
Lyle Vanclief LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, we are continuing those discussions with the provinces and with the industry participants. We are taking this very seriously. We are looking at it in a very thorough and comprehensive way. We are determined to do all that we possibly can in order to provide all the support we can for the producers as they go forward into the completion of this year and into the 1999 crop year.
I remind the hon. member the farmers will not be planting this year. It will be next year.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, today the auditor general said “In my opinion the 1997-98 surplus is understated by $2.5 billion, and accounts payable and accrued liabilities as well as the accumulated deficit are overstated by the same amount”. He goes on to say “I consider this stated accounting policy to be inappropriate”.
Does the finance minister really think that the top accountant in Canada, the auditor general, is wrong? Is he saying that the auditor general, the watchdog for taxpayers, is wrong and that the finance minister is—
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the accounting firms of Coopers & Lybrand as well as Ernst & Young have submitted letters. Letters from both of these firms were tabled in the public accounts committee stating that the procedures followed by the government were procedures followed by the private sector and were well within the judgment capabilities of the government to do.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, the auditor general is independent. He reports only to parliament. The finance minister has a political constituency to appeal to.
Does the minister not understand the need of parliament to have an independent person like the auditor general oversee the finances of the nation so we can avoid this kind of political trickery? Does he not understand that?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, when we took office in 1993 one of the things we found was the reason that the deficit came out higher than it should have was that there were obligations that had not been reported by the government at that stage. We decided under those circumstances that we would be open and transparent as no other government has been. That is why we have done this and we will continue with that procedure.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Greenpeace released a damning report that shows how negligent the Minister of Health had been on the hazardous toys issue.
Besides the notice issued yesterday as a result of the denunciations by Greenpeace, how can the minister justify sitting on his hands all this time, when he has been aware for over a year of the threat posed to our children by these toys?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, we gathered evidence showing the risks and, yesterday, we took action. We put out a notice to parents, advising them to discard toys that constitute a hazard or pose a risk. We acted responsibly.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, in light of the danger, why did the minister, who does not miss a chance to encroach on the provinces' jurisdiction over health, not take action sooner?
Would he not have been better off looking after his business properly?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, we acted absolutely responsibly. We closely monitored the situation. We examined the studies presented by Greenpeace and others. We collected evidence and, after considering all the facts, we took action. Yesterday, we issued a notice to all Canadian parents concerning toys that pose a risk.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, let me quote the auditor general. He states “The $2.5 billion has been recorded as owing to an organization that was not in existence at March 31, 1998”. We know that the Prime Minister has imaginary friends. Now the Minister of Finance has imaginary organizations and calls this good accounting.
Why does the finance minister not just acknowledge that he is building a slush fund for the next election?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government had taken a decision. There was a cabinet decision.
The institution in question was set up before the government's books were closed. I am sure the hon. member knows that the millennium scholarship fund is not a slush fund but in fact is a very important instrument to help students fund their education.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, we do not deny helping Canadians and we want to help Canadians. The minister is taking the money and expending it today so he has it to spend just before the next election, as if he is doing a great thing by the Liberal Party.
It is a slush fund by any name one might want to call it. Whether or not other auditing companies agree with the statement, the auditor general says no way. When are you going to listen to the auditor general—
FinanceOral Question Period
The Speaker
I ask the hon. member to address his question through the Chair.
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would ask the Minister of Finance to tell us when he will listen to the auditor general and respond to his concerns.