House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebeckers.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, on the day the Oscar nominations are being announced we want to give the finance minister the full monte.
Canadians are swamped with our titanic size debt. It is $77,000 per family. We are swamped with titanic size taxes, the highest in the G-7. Canadian families are barely keeping their head above water.
When will the finance minister throw Canadian families a lifeline in the form of across the board tax cuts and specific targets for debt reduction?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, we have in previous budgets provided poor Canadian families with the child tax benefit, which is a very important initiative. We have provided those families in which there are disabled Canadians with lower taxes. We will continue in this vein.
There is no doubt that the great reward for the clean-up of the country's balance sheet that has been effected by Canadians will be that over the course of time clearly the tax burden will be lowered.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, that was a real Oscar winning performance. It kind of reminds me of Forest Gump.
Canadian families are paying $6,000 a year in taxes just to pay their share of the interest on the debt. They have seen their disposable incomes fall by $3,000 per family since 1990.
Instead of titanic sized spending increases, what Canadians want to know is when will the finance minister introduce a budget which brings in broad based tax cuts and, of course, specific targets for debt reduction?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government certainly intends over the course of this mandate to reward Canadians for the tremendous sacrifices they have undergone as this country has come back from what was the deficit despair.
I should like to say to the hon. member and to all members of this House who have been quite patient in asking questions on the forthcoming budget that we will answer those questions on Tuesday, February 24 at 4.30 p.m.
I am pleased to announce that I will be tabling the budget on Tuesday, February 24, at 4.30 p.m.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, a growing number of analysts, commentators and editorial writers, as well as Daniel Johnson, leader of the Liberal Party, fail to understand the attitude of the federal government, which refuses to compensate Quebec for damages to its hydro-electric system. They all question the President of the Treasury Board's restrictive interpretation of the compensation program.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that the provisions of the federal compensation program give his government the latitude to compensate Quebec?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there was a disaster in the Saguenay region and another one in Manitoba, and the rules were applied to the satisfaction of both provincial governments at the time.
Companies like Hydro-Quebec do not qualify. Government assistance is targeted to small and medium size businesses and to farmers. In the case of the Saguenay region, for example, no money was given to Alcan or to the paper mills that sustained damages, because government assistance is not for them.
The eligibility rules are very clear. They were established in 1988 when Lucien Bouchard was a minister in the Conservative government.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the guide clearly says that the federal government has the latitude to compensate hydro companies. It is not the words but only the section numbers that were changed in 1988. I suppose it is a subtlety that the Prime Minister fails to grasp.
That being said, will the Prime Minister recognize that the decision on whether or not to compensate hydro companies for the damages they sustained is up to the federal government? In other words, the ball is in the government's court. Will it respond to the requests that have been made?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we are applying the rules set out by the Conservative government in 1988, when Lucien Bouchard was a minister in that government.
Again, we did not compensate hydro companies for any damages sustained as a result of the flooding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is very clear.
Our role is not to help large corporations. Our role is to help small businesses and farmers. That system worked well in the Saguenay region and, last year, in Manitoba, and we intend to continue with what has served Canadians well during—
Federal Compensation ProgramOral Question Period
The Speaker
The member for Témiscamingue.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board repeated his refusal to compensate Quebec, giving the excuse that Hydro-Québec is a very large company able to pay for the cost of its own repairs. The federal policy manual states that the federal government may compensate large companies, and I quote: “In an exceptional situation, if the minister thinks it justified”.
Are we to understand that the ice storm and the damage to the hydroelectric system are not exceptional enough for the government to feel it is justified in taking action?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear to the Government of Ontario, which also sustained considerable damage, that Hydro Ontario was no more eligible than Hydro-Québec. We are not compensating large companies. We will not be providing assistance to Bell Telephone, which also sustained enormous losses in Quebec during the last storm, because the system provides that companies that can insure themselves must cover their own damages. Companies such as Hydro-Québec and Bell Telephone can afford to insure themselves against disasters.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to see the Prime Minister make no distinction between Hydro-Québec and a private company not owned by Quebeckers. There is a big difference.
The principles underlying federal assistance would allow the government to pay compensation because, one, electricity is an essential public service; two, there is a clause to compensate large companies; and, three, there is a precedent in Newfoundland.
Why, then, is the government stubbornly refusing to compensate Quebec?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the government thinks that companies such as Bell Telephone, Hydro Ontario and Hydro-Québec, the latter having made $700 million, could have spent a few million dollars on insurance and not come to the federal government for money.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister justified a military intervention against Iraq by saying that Saddam Hussein is violating the ceasefire. Yet, in 1991, he stated that we should not take part in a war that is not fought under the flag of the United Nations.
Does the Prime Minister intend to follow the United Nations or the United States?
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, General Lewis MacKenzie also opposes military aggression against Iraq, saying “as many as 5,000 Iraqi children under 5 are dying each month as a result of UN sanctions, and bombing Baghdad will only make matters worse”.
What further diplomatic measures have the Prime Minister and his foreign affairs minister taken in the last 72 hours to avert those senseless bombings?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we are very active diplomatically. Earlier I was talking with the president of France concerning initiatives. I consulted with him and gave him my views, and he gave his. We hope we will be successful with the Russians to persuade Saddam Hussein to respect the resolutions of the United Nations.
Tomorrow the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be in New York discussing matters with the secretary-general of the United Nations.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is quite timely, in view of the answer just given by the Prime Minister on Canada's involvement in an initiative in the Gulf.
Since the Prime Minister admits that he has been in touch with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of France in the last 72 hours, I would like to know if, during these talks, he demanded that any action be taken under the authority of the United Nations in order to give greater moral authority to any such action.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, as I explained in my speech yesterday, we are acting in accordance with a United Nations resolution and a ceasefire resolution that was violated by Saddam Hussein.
When the ceasefire was signed, Saddam Hussein agreed to allow the inspections he is now refusing. Because he is in violation of the ceasefire terms, the 1991 resolution is still valid for all the parties concerned.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I take it by the response of the Prime Minister that neither he nor his government asked that this intervention happen under a new resolution of the United Nations, a new resolution made necessary by an admission of his Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday who said there was division within the security council.
The Prime Minister will know that there are more chances of success and fewer chances of bloodletting and children and innocent people suffering if there is a firm determination and resolve within the United Nations. That will give the world and Canada moral authority and less chance of war.
Why does Canada not—
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be in New York to discuss that and other subjects.
I said that the president of the United States, the prime minister of Great Britain and I and others who have agreed to participate were advised that we are acting under a valid resolution which has existed since 1991. When Saddam Hussein broke the agreement of ceasefire he gave us the authority to have the resolution of 1991 respected by him.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, today we are hoping for a sighting. Senator Andrew Thompson is due back in the Senate from his siesta in Mexico. His visit could be a rare and exciting event around here, something like the swallows coming back once a year to Capistrano.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the Canadian taxpayer paying the senator's salary? Does this government not believe in work for wages?
The SenateOral Question Period
The Speaker
I do not know whether this falls under the administrative responsibility of the government. However, if the Prime Minister wishes to address this I will permit him to.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I said that Senator Thompson should do the honourable thing and resign. I cannot kick him out. If I could, he would have been gone a long time ago. To do so I would have to amend the constitution. I do not think we want to amend the constitution at this time just for that.
I hope he will do the honourable thing and resign. The Canadian people are asking him to do so.