Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1999

Child Labour

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ministers of 135 countries have been meeting in Seattle to prepare the agenda for the next round of negotiations of the World Trade Organization.

The Canadian Minister of International Trade has already indicated that the meeting would be addressing a number of controversial issues. In his exchanges with his counterparts from other countries, I would encourage the minister to keep in mind the child workers of the world.

According to the International Labour Organization, there are close to 250 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 working today, half of these full time. It is unacceptable that some of the goods involved in commercial exchanges are produced by children.

I call upon the federal government to ensure that this issue is indeed on the agenda of the next round of WTO negotiations.

Firearms Control

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, December marks the first anniversary of the Liberal government's firearms control program, a new system already paying dividends for public safety.

Last year 462 firearms licences were revoked for public safety reasons and 578 license applications were refused by provincial chief firearms officers.

The government is getting guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. In west Quebec a number of valid firearms license holders were linked to local police records for domestic violence. Provincial authorities were notified and licences were revoked.

This is one example that demonstrates the efficacy and importance of the registration system. It also makes me wonder, if the members opposite refuse to face the facts and prevent crime, are there grounds for a united alternative? Maybe the PCs and Reform can join the flat earth society together.

Health

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the health minister brought American Hollywood to the Canadian House of Commons.

After watching the movie The Insider , the health minister became star struck. The minister hired American Jeffrey Wigand whose life the movie is based on. Let us review Mr. Wigand's resume: refused to pay child support; a huge arsenal of handguns, gun powder and ammunition; charged with spousal abuse.

Why does the health minister have a double standard when it comes to gun owners? The health minister hired an American with enough artillery to stand an army when Canadians farmers and hunters are made criminals for legally owning shotguns and 22s.

The health minister has euthanized our health system by slashing $21 billion from medicare. Has the minister hired Dr. Jack Kevorkian as a special adviser as well?

Instead of hiring Hollywood stars to fix his tattered and torn image, the health minister should allow the Alberta government to restore the shambles largely caused by the Liberal government.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to Mary in Halifax the government is forcing her small business to pay $869 in GST quarterly tax payments for business she has not been paid for yet. Who is the creditor? None other than the federal government.

This is standard Revenue Canada policy set by the finance minister. Could he explain to Mary why he is forcing her to pay taxes on income she has not yet received?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, under most income tax regimes one pays tax on an instalment basis which anticipates income that comes in. This is pretty standard practice in all tax jurisdictions in the country and throughout most of the western world.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister completely misunderstands so I will say it again. This is money that Mary has not yet received. They are receivables. Very interestingly a lot of the money that she is owed is owed by the federal government.

My question is again for the minister. The situation is that Mary has a small business and is being forced to pay GST on income she has not yet received. This is standard practice by the federal government. Mary is in a tax crunch right now. Will the minister quit this unfair practice of taxing Canadians for income they have not yet received?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, quite obviously I do not have the details of this case. As I have explained to the hon. member, the fact is that businesses pay tax on the instalment basis. I am very interested in Mary's case and would be delighted to look into it.

I am also interested in Doreen and all the other people whom the hon. member raised last week. The real issue they would like to know is why Reform members are standing in the House and talking about cutting taxes when their own party program said they would not have cut taxes until January of next year.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would get control of himself and take the issue seriously. It is a serious issue.

This is one business in hundreds of thousands. It is not just an isolated case. All businesses in Canada are in the same boat. They are forced to pay taxes on income they have not yet received.

The minister does not have to wait for a letter from me. He simply has to consult with his own officials. He knows very well this is the case.

My question is straightforward. Does the minister think it is fair that Canadians should have to pay taxes on income they have not yet received?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear. Businesses pay tax on the instalment basis, but I would be delighted to look into that issue along with the Minister of National Revenue.

The real question is: Do members of the Reform Party think it is fair that they would have delayed any tax reductions for three years after we had eliminated the deficit?

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's high tax policies are not only driving talent south. They are driving jobs south as well. Executives fed up with their tax bills are taking entire departments or companies with them.

Canada is sitting next to the biggest industrial country in the world, which also happens to have a much lower tax rate. Yet the government keeps on hiking taxes. Why is it the policy of the finance minister to drive Canadian jobs south of the border?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, not only is that not our policy but, if we take a look at what our policies have done since we have taken office, there have been 1.7 million new jobs created in the country, 700,000 jobs created in the last year alone.

When we look at all the projections that came out this week in terms of the increase in our gross domestic product, in terms of job creation and in terms of business profits, it is very clear that the Canadian economy is firing on all cylinders. We now have the best record of any of the major industrial countries. Those are the facts.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what is perfectly clear is that the government's policies are causing this great country to become a farm team supplying talent to the United States.

Young professionals are leaving Canada to find work in the United States with American companies. The Prime Minister says good riddance to them if they do not like to pay taxes in Canada.

Can the finance minister not see the long term harm his policies are causing for Canada and Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are entitled to more enlightened debate in the House than the Reform Party is prepared to put out.

The fact is that the Reform Party's program would not have cut taxes until the year 2000. The Reform Party would not have cut EI premiums for workers. The real fact of the matter is that the Reform Party would not have eliminated the deficit until the year 2000.

We did it two years earlier than it would have. It would not have cut taxes until the year 2000. We began to do it two and a half years before it would have. The real problem with the Reform Party is that it has—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning in the National Post that the bill the Prime Minister is preparing in order to oversee the next referendum in Quebec is apparently totally biased.

The federal government, it seems, is preparing legislation to suit itself in order to make its own interpretation of the referendum result legal.

How can the Prime Minister think that anyone will put their faith in his interpretation of the next referendum when they know that, throughout his career, he has continually attacked Quebec, even going so far as to deny the existence of the Quebec people?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government intends to introduce an initiative in the House of Commons, and it is the House of Commons that will reach a decision. All members will have the opportunity to speak out.

Once again, however, I would prefer not to have to introduce a bill or a resolution, because, again yesterday, Mario Dumont said that Mr. Bouchard should accept the proposal I made Sunday that we stop talking referendums, as 72% of Quebecers do not want one. If they do not want to listen to me, let them listen to Mario Dumont at least.

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

Mr. Speaker, by rejecting the democratic rule of 50% plus one and by refusing to set another, because there is none set apparently, is the Prime Minister not in the process of telling us ahead of time that, whatever the outcome of the next referendum, it will never be enough to satisfy this Prime Minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. I am saying that they must be very clear with the people: ask a question on the separation of Quebec, the desire to form an independent country and no longer be a province of Canada. That is the plan.

They are uncomfortable about telling Quebecers the truth, while I want them to know exactly what is involved.

If the vast majority of Quebecers support separation, if there is a broad consensus, then I would recognize it, but not at 50% plus one. We have to be reasonable.

Young Offenders Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the strongest proof that the Prime Minister does not have Quebec's interests at heart is his handling of the issue of young offenders.

The National Assembly of Quebec, in a unanimous motion, and all of those in Quebec who work with youth, are calling on the federal government to backtrack but it is turning a deaf ear.

My question is for the Prime Minister. If the distinct society resolution the Prime Minister keeps throwing in our face so often in the House meant anything for Quebec, would the government not respond positively and immediately to the national assembly's unanimous motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed very important to have a flexible federation, capable of taking into account the interests of all provinces, including Quebec as a society with its own unique character.

That is why the minister is completely open to the desired flexibility in her bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Prime Minister's handling of the issue of young offenders shows once again how he is ignoring the consensus of Quebec in order to keep the rest of Canada happy. This is not surprising—he has been doing it for 35 years.

When all is said and done, is the Prime Minister's tack not to introduce legislation with respect to the rules of the referendum that will be to the liking of the rest of Canada, just as he intends to jeopardize the distinct way in which Quebec enforces the Young Offenders Act, once again to keep the rest of Canada happy, at the expense of Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that somewhere there are Bloc Quebecois members capable of seeing the big picture.

We are trying to improve the situation of young offenders in Canada with legislation that will be flexible enough to serve everyone's interests.

On a completely different note, as a Quebecer, I say that we are just as Canadian as other Canadians and that we cannot break up our country because of an unclear procedure that would force us to answer an unclear question, that would take us somewhere we do not want to go.

That is something Bloc Quebecois members have to understand, because the interests of Quebecers are at stake.

World Trade Organization

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, based on the NAFTA experience it is no wonder Canadians are uneasy about the government actually getting enforceable labour and environmental commitments at the WTO.

Enforcement provisions of NAFTA do not apply to labour standards or to the environment, and the Prime Minister knows that. In fact labour and the environment are not even in the agreement. They are relegated to side deals that have no teeth.

Why should Canadians expect that the government would seek at the WTO what it has abandoned in NAFTA?

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know, if she has read the standing committee report in this regard, that the standing committee wanted the federal government to make sure there was more co-operation between the WTO and the International Labour Organization and, in terms of the environment, to make sure that environmental standards were high on our list.

The Government of Canada has certainly done that. It has brought forward these issues and has supported the idea at the WTO that there be a working group on labour so that we can talk about these issues and make them a priority in the WTO.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, at the WTO the government has been weak-kneed wimps. Yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that they insisted before they agreed to NAFTA that labour and environment conditions be in the agreement. This is dead wrong.

There are no labour and environmental standards in NAFTA, even to this day. It is the difference between enforcement and no enforcement, the difference between teeth and no teeth. When it comes to labour and the environment why does the PM think only of PR?