Debates of Dec. 6th, 1999

Taxation

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, now the finance minister is taking credit for creating taxpayers.

I have another tax statement from a pensioner in Ontario. He sent in his pension pay stub dated September 30, 1999. The total federal tax he paid was $4,434. Last year for the same period he paid $3,465. That is a $1,000 increase. His pension stayed the same but his tax bill rose by that amount.

Why does the government hurt pensioners by clawing back so much of their income each year?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous for the Reform Party to quote pensioners because the fact is at the time that we were cutting the deficit, the Reform Party said we were not cutting it early enough. The Reform Party recommended that Canadian pensions be cut. For the member to stand up now and talk about that is simply nonsense.

We did not cut pensions. We will not cut pensions. That is the basic difference between us and the Reform Party.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they have been cut already.

Bernard is another dissatisfied customer. He wrote, “Along with my letter to the finance minister and the Prime Minister, I enclosed a copy of our family budget to show exactly how difficult it is. The response I got from the government was a list of the dollars the Liberals have given to low income families. I do not want charity. I do not want government programs. I just want my money so I can choose what is best for my family”.

Why does the finance minister hurt Bernard's family by confiscating so much of his hard-earned money?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party knows that not only did we eliminate the deficit two years before Reform said it would, but we cut taxes three years before the Reform Party said it would cut taxes. Those are the facts. I understand why Reform members want to quote pay stubs. The reason is after the next election there will be a lot less of them collecting paycheques.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at least we are not collecting pensions like some others.

The government's taxation tentacles are unable to reach the finance minister in Liberia but by Jove, they are reaching John in Oshawa. Fifty-three per cent of John's income was gobbled up by the tax man. To put that another way, the government made more from John's work than he did. Let me quote John and ask, “Why is the government entitled to more of my money than I am?” How could that be?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform Party just cannot live with good news. The fact is that taxes are going down. The national debt is going down. Taxes are going down and the national unemployment rate is at its lowest level in the last 18 or 19 years. The real problem is they just cannot stand good news. And there is a lot more of it coming.

The Constitution

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

Mr. Speaker, according to the papers, the government will be going ahead with a constitutional amendment with the province of Newfoundland to change the name of the province to Newfoundland and Labrador.

Will the Prime Minister confirm in this House his government's intention to make this constitutional change?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in April the Newfoundland House of Assembly sent to us here in parliament a resolution it had approved unanimously, asking us to make a constitutional change, which requires that a resolution be introduced in the House of Commons.

The government has not yet found the time to do so, but I know that we will do it one day, just as we changed the constitution to help the education system in Quebec and as we changed the constitution recently in connection with the school system in Newfoundland.

When the changes are bilateral, the government usually acts, but it is not a priority at the moment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this question arises after last week's announcement by the Prime Minister of his intention to control the rules of another referendum in Quebec by questioning the rule of 50% plus one.

Could the Prime Minister tell us why he is going after Quebec so deliberately at the end of this session?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, some like to be victims.

I have just said the Newfoundland House of Assembly has asked us to act. We are not talking about the federal government. We acted a few months ago for the Government of Quebec when we resolved a constitutional problem that had existed, I believe, for 50 years. We do this from time to time.

The Premier of Quebec was advised by Mr. Tobin a few months ago. In the documents that Quebec and Newfoundland have signed in recent years, Premier Tobin has always insisted on having Newfoundland and Labrador, and Mr. Bouchard has always signed the documents.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after stirring things up by threatening Quebec with changing the 50% plus one vote rule, the Prime Minister is adding fuel to the fire by bringing up the issue of Labrador, knowing full well the political dispute that exists between Quebec and Newfoundland.

Is the Prime Minister not once again indicating that the true objective of his actions is to stir up confrontation and discord with Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, the astonishment of the Premier of Quebec is a source of astonishment to us.

As the Premier of Newfoundland has confirmed in a statement, he has kept the Premier of Quebec informed throughout the entire process, which began last April.

What is astonishing is why the Premier of Quebec yesterday complained of provocation and why he is making a huge fuss about something he was already totally aware of. That is what is astonishing.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is astonishing is that this resolution was passed April 27, not referred to in the throne speech, and now turns up in this House when there is a dispute over the referendum.

With his desire to stir up confrontation and discord, is the Prime Minister not showing that he plans to win the next election at the expense of Quebec, by winning over votes in the west, and now in the east as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, the resolution is not before the House. They are the ones bringing this up. It is not before the House at this time. The Prime Minister has said that we have other priorities for the moment.

Why then all these theatrics? And, an even more fundamental question, why are they always looking for trouble? Why are they always questioning motives—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Why are they always questioning motives? Could not the request made by the Government of Newfoundland and the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, unanimously, be judged on its merits, without attempting to stir up trouble between the two provinces?

This is an internal Newfoundland matter. It should not be perceived as a threat by anyone. This could be discussed calmly, it seems to me.

Trade

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

I would like to welcome him back from the battle in Seattle. I hope that the only walls he has to climb from now on are the walls he has erected in his own mind preventing him from being more critical of the WTO.

In that respect, I want to ask him why it was, in respect of the text that was being developed on services—of course, there was no final text—but in the text that was being developed before the meeting, we now have proof that Canada was asking for shorter and less precise language and wanting to suppress certain language because of the sensitivities of cultural industries at home. Why was Canada, given the rhetoric on transparency, conspiring to hide its position?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to express my thanks to the Canadian delegation for its extraordinary contribution at the WTO ministerial conference last week. I want to thank my provincial colleagues who accompanied us. We benefited a great deal from their advice. I was extremely pleased that the Canadian delegation engaged in a very healthy dialogue with the NGOs.

As for the question on services, Canada did exactly what it said it would do, it did not take up on health and education.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a memo from David Hartridge, the director of WTO services, in which he refers to the fact that Canada along with the EU asked for the suppression of certain language and for shorter and less precise language in order to respond to cultural sensitivities at home.

Perhaps the minister could explain what these cultural sensitivities were. Why, given all the rhetoric about transparency, was Canada attempting to suppress the reality of what was being agreed to in this text?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what memo the member is referring to.

I can say that Canada stands for transparency. We believe in transparency. Of the 135 delegations in Seattle, the one that most engaged in a dialogue with the NGOs was the Canadian one. We engaged in a dialogue with the provincial ministers.

On services we will fight for a bottom up approach as we said. The services we do not want to take we will not take up. That is what Canada did. I am extremely proud of Canada's engagement in Seattle last week.

Natural Resources

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, France has been granted drilling rights on the Laurentian sub-basin, costing jobs and benefits for Atlantic Canadians. This occurred because the Liberal government poured cold water on the negotiation of an interim arrangement between the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to allow drilling in Canadian territory.

Will the Minister of Natural Resources assure this House that he will allow an interim arrangement to be negotiated between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland so that the benefits of this resource go to Canadians first?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the dispute that exists with respect to the offshore boundary between two particular Atlantic provinces is a matter that is entirely within the control of those two provinces to resolve.

It has become evident over the last number of months that they are not in a position to resolve that matter. Accordingly, I have appointed my own official agent to work with them to see if there is a way to resolve this matter. Failing that, the Government of Canada will put the matter to arbitration in order to ensure that Canadians can enjoy the benefits of those resources at the earliest possible time.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the federal negotiator needs to work harder.

On September 3 the premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Minister of Natural Resources to express his disappointment with the federal government's decision on this issue. Last year the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador expressed his willingness to co-operate. Everyone wants to co-operate except the federal Liberals.

How many jobs and economic benefits need to go to France before the minister drops this Ottawa knows best attitude and allows an interim arrangement to proceed?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the questioner refers to the rhetorical positions that have been taken by certain provincial governments indicating a willingness to resolve all matters. Quite frankly, if that willingness were there, they would have resolved it a long time ago.

It is because the provinces have not been able to resolve their differences that the Government of Canada has become involved in order to find a settlement so that this matter can be resolved at the earliest possible date. The Government of Canada is not delaying this matter. The delay rests with the provinces involved.

Agriculture

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers' worst fears were realized at the WTO talks in Seattle. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food failed to get any movement on foreign subsidies. Even the Minister for International Trade has been quoted as saying that there was a lack of leadership at those talks.

Now that the minister has failed at the WTO, what is he going to do to help farmers suffering from foreign subsidies?