House of Commons Hansard #2 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fishing.
Speech From The ThroneOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am giving a little bit of room today but not lots and lots of room. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, we got sharper responses when we were handling the question period by ourselves.
This summer I visited a lot of Canadians at their places of work: at factories, plants, offices and so forth. What these people are interested in is take home pay. They will not believe any promise of tax relief unless the federal government takes a smaller bite from their paycheques.
Why should Canadian workers believe any of these promises on tax relief when the federal deduction from their paycheques week after week and month after month keeps increasing rather than decreasing?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when we started, the EI premium was at $3.07. It is at $2.55 at this moment.
There was a surtax of 3% imposed by the Tories some years ago because of the deficit. That is no longer there. There are 600,000 Canadians who are not paying any more taxes because my Minister of Finance brought in some good budgets. We will keep doing that in a rational, reasonable and sensible way.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, once before the Prime Minister promised tax relief. He was going to abolish, get rid of, in other words obliterate the GST. Everyone knows what happened with that.
When the Reform Party started pressing the government on tax relief this was the Prime Minister's initial response: “I don't think it is the right thing to do in a society like Canada”, as if giving tax relief was un-Canadian in some way.
With a record like that and with statements like that on the record why should Canadians believe they are going to get real tax relief out of the Prime Minister?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, when we came here we said we were going to reduce the deficit to zero. They did not believe us but we did it. For three years in a row we have had surpluses in Canada. We have not seen that in 50 years. Since we have a surplus, in a very humble way the Minister of Finance reduced taxes in the last two budgets. He will continue to do that in the next one. We have an agreement on that.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, when we clear all the rhetoric away from yesterday's throne speech what are we left with? No tax cuts, just a commitment to spend a whole lot more. The stark reality is that on January 1 the first act of the government in the new millennium will be to raise payroll taxes and personal income taxes through bracket creep.
Why does the finance minister not simply admit that after all the smoke has cleared from yesterday's throne speech what we are left with is a big tax hike on January 1?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that on January 1, as indeed on January 1 of every year since we have taken office, there will be a reduction in payroll taxes.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that yesterday's throne speech was not a budget in which we deal with taxes but it did provide a profound vista on the government's plan for the future, one that has been universally well received right across the country. It is a perspective that says we will invest in education, we will invest in social programs, and that—
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, maybe the finance minister should invest in a watch. He has taken up a lot of time.
We are looking at a finance minister who has a great future behind him. He had a chance to cut taxes but he blew it. Instead, he raised taxes 60 times. His whole record is a record of tax hikes. We are now paying the highest taxes in Canadian history.
Why does the finance minister not just give it up? Why does he not admit that his real agenda is to raise taxes in the next budget?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I have told the member a million times not to exaggerate.
This is a question of credibility. The fact is that the Reform Party has no credibility. Its tax plan in the third year would require a surplus of $52 billion. That is smoke and mirrors. Until such time as the Reform Party gives the Canadian people a plan that is based on solid facts it will have no credibility in this debate.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government is invoking the social union agreement to justify its forays into provincial jurisdictions.
It has announced that it will establish a national children's agenda, evaluate the effectiveness of social programs, and eliminate unjustified barriers to the mobility of citizens and students. Let us not forget, however, that this agreement was never signed by Quebec.
Are we to understand that the government intends to impose these new programs without Quebec's consent, once again demonstrating the one-sided nature of its flexible federalism?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the member is forgetting something, because the Government of Quebec went along with the national child benefit.
It agreed to take the resulting surpluses and reinvest them, because we were investing in families. That is what it did and we had its consent.
We are working with the provinces, although I am well aware that this does not serve the interests of the Bloc Quebecois. But since what we are doing is good, as was the case with the national child benefit, the Government of Quebec has had to continue working with us.
We are going to keep on tackling real problems, particularly those having to do with children.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have the leader of this government to thank for the two instruments driving federal policy: unilateral patriation, in 1982, and the social union agreement, both opposed by federalists and sovereignists alike in the Quebec National Assembly.
In the same vein, the government announced that it planned to establish a pharmacare plan. But Quebec already has such a plan.
Are we to understand that the only choice open to Quebec will be either to amend its plan, or to forgo the money from the federal program, some of which also belongs to Quebec taxpayers?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we did not announce a new program; we merely said that was a problem and that there should be talks with the provinces, including Quebec.
This is how a federation operates. It is still the best form of government in the world. As President Clinton said last Friday, federalism is always the best solution in a modern society.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government has committed to eliminating the barriers it claims impede the mobility of citizens within Canada. We are aware of the tensions that exist between Ontario and Quebec in the area of construction.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether this desire of the government to eliminate barriers to mobility means that it wishes to interfere in the discussions currently under way between Quebec and Ontario relating to construction?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, there is a dialogue at the present time between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Ontario relating to protectionism in the field of construction.
I believe there should be an agreement to enable people to work anywhere in Canada that there is work, and to prevent excessive protectionism, which is detrimental to economic growth in any part of Canada.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is getting into a particularly hot issue as far as Quebec construction workers are concerned. Perhaps he should think twice about doing so.
In another area of concern to us, again in connection with barriers to mobility, does the Prime Minister consider that the provisions of Law 101 relating to the language of work in Quebec constitute an obstacle to mobility?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, that is the problem.
I deal with federal problems. Living here in Ottawa, I have had the opportunity to see that there are far more Quebecers working in Ontario than there are Ontarians working in Quebec.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis on the farm and the government does not care.
Forty-six per cent of prairie grain and oilseed producers could be out of business this time next year if the government does not act. Our farmers are as efficient as any in the world, but the government has destroyed crucial agricultural support.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why was the throne speech silent on the greatest, most serious farm crisis since the Great Depression?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the government has been working on the problem for a long time. We put $900 million aside in the last budget for resolving this problem. This was long before the summer.
At this time the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is communicating with his counterparts in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The solution to this problem will come from both levels of government working together.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, being in communication is not exactly a solution.
Yesterday the Speech from the Throne was supposed to be about children, yet today children on the prairies are watching their farm families and farm communities fall apart. There was not even a mention in the throne speech.
Can the Prime Minister explain to these children why they do not count?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we had a Speech from the Throne where the main item was the future of children in Canada. It is a very big preoccupation for the government.
Probably she did not read the same Speech from the Throne as the minister of finance of British Columbia who said “I would give it seven or eight out of ten; I think the spirit is right in most areas”. Thank you for the compliment we received from the NDP.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, the 1990 Sparrow decision giving natives the right to conduct a food fishery should have sent warning bells when Donald Marshall Jr. appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada to fight his conviction for illegal fishing.
Given the Marshall decision and the ample time the government has had to study all possible scenarios coming out of the supreme court ruling, can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain why his department was so ill prepared to respond to the supreme court ruling?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have acted in a very expeditious manner. This has been a priority for me. We have been working around the clock to make sure we respond. Three days after September 17 we responded. We set up a short term plan and a long term plan.
We believe in dialogue and co-operation. That is what works. It has paid off. It is working.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, the reason that the native fishing issue has escalated so dramatically is that the minister's department had no plan regarding the court ruling, no ideas, and exercised none of the leadership that the minister should have been exercising.
Can the minister now explain why DFO was caught so off guard? As minister, does he accept responsibility for the violence that has occurred thus far in the wake of his inaction? Will he take responsibility for the future risks?