Debates of Feb. 8th, 1999

Apec Inquiry

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess he has been taking lessons from the justice minister: in due course, in proper time, in a timely fashion.

What is there to inquire about? Is the minister committed to this being a fair process where they will be able to get to the alleged effect of the Prime Minister on the APEC issue?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague, I received a letter from Mr. Hughes. My staff and I are evaluating the letter and we will respond to the letter.

Agreement On Social Union

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 this House passed a resolution stating that Quebec forms a distinct society and that all legislative and executive bodies and powers would be bound by that resolution.

The Bloc Quebecois has always held that this resolution was not worth the paper it was printed on, although the Prime Minister has always strenuously objected to this.

If, indeed, this is not an empty resolution, could the Prime Minister indicate to us what the importance of that resolution was during the negotiations on social union?

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be awkward for me to respond without revealing secret discussions between the governments during these negotiations.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois could ask the Premier of Quebec about this. He would get some answers that would surprise him greatly.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the minister has invoked secrecy when asked a question.

I would like him to explain to me how it is that, in the agreement on social union, there is recognition and protection of the rights of aboriginal people, while there is no recognition anywhere of the rights or the existence of the Quebec people? So what has become of the famous resolution on the distinct society?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would beg the leader of the Bloc Quebecois to ask that question of the premier, who I trust will openly disclose the discussions that went on around the clause concerning the unique character of Quebec society.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the resolution that was supposed to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, the Prime Minister said, and I quote “Once it is passed, this resolution will have an impact on how legislation is passed in the House of Commons. I remind Canadians that the legislative branch will be bound by this resolution, as will the executive branch”.

I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when and where during the negotiations or the agreement, the government took account of its own resolution?

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

Mr. Speaker, let the hon. member and leader of the Bloc put the question to the Government of Quebec: Who did not want this clause in the agreement?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two examples: the millennium scholarships and the social union framework where Quebec's position was dismissed.

Does this not prove that the resolution passed in this House on the distinct society and the Prime Minister's promises on the eve of the referendum in Verdun are devoid of meaning for Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would recommend the member stop reading his second question without listening to the answer to the first, because this is becoming increasingly embarrassing for him.

I repeat: Let him put the question to the Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs: Who did not want any clause recognizing Quebec in the agreement?

Foreign Affairs

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are saddened by the death of King Hussein, but they are also saddened by the Prime Minister who failed to be in attendance at the funeral to pay appropriate tribute to this man of peace, a man who championed peace for 47 years.

Are Canadians to believe that the government and the Prime Minister were caught by surprise at the death of King Hussein?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member apparently did not hear the responses to the earlier questions. We certainly extend our condolences to the people of Jordan and to his family.

The Prime Minister had wished to be present. He indeed sent staff in advance to Amman, Jordan. Unfortunately the notice given was inadequate for him to leave British Columbia and get to Amman in time for the funeral arrangements.

This was a disappointment to him and to the House but unfortunately that is the situation as it occurred.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, politicians around the world face logistical problems about getting to the funeral and not all politicians have a private jet.

If the Prime Minister sent staff in advance to be in Jordan, surely it is clear the Prime Minister had sufficient warning that he himself could have got to Jordan in time to pay appropriate tribute to this man of peace.

Why was that not a reasonable expectation for Canadians to have of their Prime Minister?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the expectation we had was that there would be a 24 hour notice given for the Prime Minister to be present. Unfortunately that did not occur.

The situation has been that we are represented, and I am sure extremely ably, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What I think is important for Canadians and members of the House to understand is that crass political gamesmanship about this very serious issue is very unfortunate and inappropriate.

Agriculture

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am continually frustrated by not having any answers when farmers phone my office to ask me what is happening with the farm income assistance program.

The minister of agriculture had 18 months when he took office to know that there was a farm income crisis. We have not heard anything since the announcement on December 10 of an intention of a program.

Will the minister of agriculture stand in the House today to make a ministerial statement as to the status of the farm income program?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's information amazes me because I know he has personally met with a number of people on the safety net advisory committee. They have filled him in on their concerns and on the advice that they have given us.

Provincial and federal governments have been working together with the industry to finalize the criteria which we will announce to farmers in the very near future.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I had those meetings with those people is that they were self-initiated by me and those organizations, not by the minister.

Farmers are asking where the programs are. Some provincial agriculture ministers right now are thinking that they may well have to go on their own for the programs.

Is the minister's strategy simply to do nothing and let the provinces fend for themselves?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to talk about ministers of agriculture he should go back home to his own province of Manitoba which to date has not agreed to take part in this assistance to farmers and the 60:40 split. As it has known all along, it will have to participate if it wants Manitoba farmers to have the same support as the farmers in the other provinces of Canada.

I will tell the House again that the federal government will treat every farmer in Canada that meets the criteria, no matter what province they are in, exactly the same. If the provinces do not want to assist they will have to explain that—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians had better brace themselves for another shell game from the finance minister in next week's budget.

The finance minister is proposing to give Canadians $2 billion in tax relief, but on the other hand he is taking $2.4 billion away from them because of bracket creep and CPP tax hikes. In other words average Canadians get $143 but then he takes away $171. They are $28 worse off.

Why does the minister not just admit that his Liberal tax cuts are really a tax hike in disguise?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already said in the House, the difference between ourselves and the Reform Party is not in the desire to cut taxes. It is in fact the pain that the Reform Party would inflict on the Canadian social fabric to accomplish its aims.

Last week the Reform Party presented its plan to the House. In order to effect its plan in the third year there would be required between $7 billion and $16 billion worth of cuts to Canadian social programs to pay for them.

Would the hon. member now rise in the House and tell us what programs he would cut?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is almost laughable, coming from a finance minister whose budget projections have been off by $50 billion in the last five years. He has a lot of nerve getting up in this place and talking to me about numbers.

The Reform plan would put $4,660 back in the pockets of a family of four making $30,000 a year. That would do a lot of good for Canadians. Why is the finance minister raising taxes and telling Canadians he is cutting taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in order to pay for the Reform Party's tax cut we would have to gut old age pensions, substantially cut health care and education, and virtually decimate equalization.

Why will the Reform Party critic not stand in the House and tell us where he will find the $7 billion to $16 billion to pay for those tax cuts?

Human Resources Development Canada

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development would have us believe that it is good management on the part of the federal government to set recovery quotas, because there is always a certain amount of fraud associated with this sort of program.

How can the minister say such a thing, when his department has set recovery quotas of $600 million, even though his department and the auditor general do not expect fraud to exceed $200 million? Why are recovery quotas three times higher than anticipated fraud?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that the money being recovered represents much more than just fraud. Fraud accounts for one third, but there are also overpayments, there are sometimes errors on the part of the department or the taxpayer, and when there are errors, we put them right. That is good management, designed to treat all workers fairly.

But fraud was not all I mentioned. I referred to overpayments and other amounts that must also be recovered.