Debates of Feb. 20th, 1998

The Economy

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was reported last night that this year Canadians could have had debt reduction and tax relief. There would have been a surplus, but it has all been blown on new government spending. The big surplus that the government has been crowing about for months has already been spent before the budget. Canadian taxpayers have been robbed.

Let me ask the junior minister for finance, what about tax relief and debt reduction? Where is it? Gone with the wind?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to give my response to the junior deputy leader.

We have taken a very balanced approach as we have come through these very difficult fiscal circumstances. One thing I will guarantee to this House is that when this government commits to making an expenditure, we will take responsibility for it.

Every household in Canada knows this has to be done. Our government does as well. We will pay as you go. We will not saddle future governments with announcements of investments we are making today.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every household in this country pays its Mastercard bill when it is due. It is as simple as that.

We have over half a trillion dollars of debt. Canadians are paying the highest income taxes in the industrialized world. They might expect a bit of debt and tax relief, which is what they have been promised for a long time. It is crazy.

Canadians did take the Prime Minister at his word that 50% of the surplus would go to debt and tax relief. That simply has not happened, not with what the finance department has been leaking anyway to the press lately.

Why does the cabinet always get first dibs on any spending? Whose money is this anyhow, Mr. Minister?

[The Speaker]

Please address your questions to the Chair. It makes it easier that way. The hon. secretary of state.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, public money belongs to Canadians and this is why we have been stewards of that money. This is why we have adopted a balanced approach of reinvesting in Canada's social and economic infrastructure, a balanced approach of paying down the debt and a balanced approach of reducing taxes.

We are going to meet the Reform Party's targets for deficit reduction, but we will do so without ripping apart the social fabric of this country. We have done this at the same time as we have reduced taxes.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Well, Mr. Speaker, talk about responsible stewards. These are the so-called “stewards” over there that ran us into debt in the first place back in the 1970s.

The budget surplus is being blown on new spending, $2.2 billion worth. That money should have gone back to taxpayers. It should have gone to pay down the debt. Oops, not the deficit but the debt. That is what this government promised and that is what we are trying to hold it accountable for.

Why is it so easy to say yes to new spending and so easy to say no to debt and tax relief? Why is that?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Reform Party finds it so easy to say no to more spending on health, no to more spending on children and no to more spending on a better quality of life for Canadians. Why does it say no to what Canadians want and need?

I say let Reformers wait for the budget. Canadians I submit will be very satisfied with the budget as they are satisfied with the government's performance now as demonstrated by a poll on the CBC last night.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

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

The surplus does not belong to the Liberals no matter how much they would like to think it does. It belongs to Canadian families. Budget after budget this finance minister sucked billions of dollars more out of Canadian households than Brian Mulroney ever did. This was supposed to be the taxpayers' surplus.

Why is the Prime Minister treating the budget surplus like the property of the Liberal Party when it belongs to weary Canadian taxpayers?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when the budget is presented next week it will be seen that we are responding to the needs and concerns of Canadians and responding to what they want us to do with the funds that they have provided.

It is pointless to speculate at this point on the details of what we are going to be doing. However, I can assure members that it will not be a smash and grab attack on the well-being of Canadians as is set out in every pronouncement by the Reform Party since it came into existence.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about what Canadians really want. Canadians know how they want to spend the surplus. They are responsible even if this government is not. They want to cut taxes and they want to pay down the national credit card. A majority of Canadians say to pay down the debt. Millions of Canadians want immediate tax relief. They have all been robbed this year by this government.

Why will the Prime Minister not give Canadians what they really want: tax relief and debt reduction?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am told that in an Environics poll this morning 87% of Canadians support the government's 50:50 formula, a division between tax reduction and debt and deficit reduction and spending on key investments, on education, on young people, on innovation and the like.

We have already begun cutting taxes. We have cut employment insurance premiums. We have been cutting taxes for young people taking post-secondary education and their parents. We have been cutting taxes for people who are disabled.

Why is the Reform Party unwilling to recognize what we are already doing? I am willing to recognize that this shows our commitment to what—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Témiscamingue.

Reference To Supreme Court

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the constitutional farce begun by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs came to an end yesterday.

As it played out, we saw the government pile up contradiction on contradiction, as the support for this strategy of attempting to manipulate the court melted away like an icicle in the sun.

After a week of hearings, does the minister bow to the evidence that his strategy, which he borrowed from Guy Bertrand, is heading straight for a dead end, and that he is even losing the support of his traditional allies?

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

Mr. Speaker, would the PQ government, which would like to unilaterally proclaim itself the government of an independent state, have the legal justification to be so considered by citizens and governments?

The Bloc says yes. We say no, there is no such right. The court will provide an opinion, which we shall respect, and which will provide information that will be useful to everyone.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government claimed it was going to the supreme court to seek clarification.

Yet, in less than one week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Justice have contradicted each other. The government's counsel and the Minister of Justice have also contradicted each other. In short, we have moved from contradiction to further contradiction.

Does the minister realize that his strategy has led to total confusion, even right within his own government?

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

Mr. Speaker, the attorney general has made a statement to that effect.

Now, let us speak of contradictions. This week, former Parti Quebecois leader Jacques Parizeau came up with a legal theory. He stated, in legal terms, that secession had a basis in law and that the explanation of why Quebec is indivisible yet Canada is divisible was a question of narrow legalism. That is a legal theory. In our opinion, this is a wrong theory. What we need to find out is whether it is right or wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the main thing to remember about this week is the great confusion in the federalist camp.

The Minister of Justice says one thing, only to have it contradicted by her lawyer the next day. The lawyer, Yves Fortier, argues one thing in the morning, does a kind of legal flip-flop over the lunch hour, and argues the opposite in the afternoon, this time contradicting his boss, the Minister of Justice.

This is my multiple-choice question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: What does he call this performance: a) legal contradiction; b) constitutional confusion; c) political panic; or d) the sinking of his constitutional Titanic ?

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

Mr. Speaker, the attorney general has issued a statement. Now, speaking of clear answers, the Bloc has some answering to do.

Does the PQ government have a legal right to be considered an independent government just because it declares itself to be one? Will citizens be legally obliged to obey this self-proclaimed government of an independent state? Are governments obliged to recognize it as a legally independent government?

We are waiting to hear what the Bloc has to say, when it has finished with all its sound and fury and proclamations to cover up the fact that it does not have an argument to stand on.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question, but I can understand, because all the answers were right.

Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not realize that he is the prime architect of this fiasco and that his strategy has completely and utterly isolated the Liberal government opposite?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, notice how carefully the Bloc Quebecois always avoids getting too deeply into an issue it finds extremely embarrassing.

As a Quebecker, I do not want to see my society plunged into a situation where a government would act outside the law and ask us as citizens to obey its laws anyway. No democratic society has ever been subjected to such a situation and that is why we need to go through this exercise of clarification regarding the plan to unilaterally secede hatched by a government, by a party that does not believe in the rule of law and democracy for everyone.

Child Poverty

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

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

While we heard news today about the balanced budget, there are countries like Denmark where virtually no children are forced to live in poverty. As of this morning 1.5 million children in Canada are living in poverty. Has the Liberal government finally decided to stop forcing Canadian children to live in poverty? Is the government not embarrassed by this fact?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets the more than $800 million we have already committed ourselves to for the improvement of the child tax credit system. We have also made a commitment to add the equivalent amount over the next few years to deal with the needs of children in poverty.

My hon. friend's question is without foundation or substance. We are concerned about the poverty of Canadian children and we are working to deal with this serious problem.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not only my concern. Canada's catholic bishops had this to say “Canada's failure to eliminate child poverty is akin to child abuse”. They go on to say “If a parent denies a child food, clothing and social security, it is considered child abuse but when our government does the same, it is simply balancing the budget”. When will this government stop child abuse as declared by Canada's catholic bishops?

[The Speaker]

My colleague, as you know, we cannot use words from another source or another person to say what we cannot use in the House. I would ask all members to be very judicious because we are coming very close to using unparliamentary language.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I reject totally the unwarranted premise and allegation in the hon. member's question.

We have been working actively to deal with the issue of child poverty. We intend to continue doing so and we invite the provincial and local governments to join with us in this worthwhile objective. And I invite the hon. member from the NDP to drop his unwarranted rhetoric and join with us as well in this worthy cause.