Debates of April 28th, 1999

Hepatitis C

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the last budget was brought down, the federal government's contributions to social assistance, education and health programs have no longer been based on the number of recipients, but on the demographic weight of the provinces. In the case of hepatitis C, however, the federal government is reverting to the number of recipients.

Why is this government using demographic weight in its calculations only when it suits it, when this penalizes victims in Quebec?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our position is very simple. We want to help victims. To that end, we have offered money. Will Quebec accept our offer, yes or no?

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, hockey clubs, high tech companies, small businesses and families are now calling for across the board tax relief. The line of people is getting longer and much louder.

Yesterday the president of Canada's largest high tech company, Nortel, said his company is ready to pull up stakes and move to the United States unless the government gets real and starts to lower income taxes.

How much more evidence does the government need? How many more reports does it need? How many more jobs must be lost? How many more hockey clubs have to threaten to pull out before the government gets real and starts to cut taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, in every one of our six budgets we have recognized the need to bring down taxes. We have done so. We started, even when we were in deficit, bringing down taxes for the voluntary sector, for working families and for Canadians with disabilities.

In the last two budgets we have introduced $16.5 billion in tax cuts over the next three years. This is our commitment to tax cuts.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that will be two minutes for roughing the taxpayer and a five minute major for high taxing.

The fact is that for six years the government promises and tells us how concerned it is about taxes. For six years all these people I have just mentioned have been waiting patiently. They are tired of waiting.

Can the minister not understand that tax relief delayed is tax relief denied?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has and is committed in the future to bringing down personal income taxes but in a way that does not rip apart the fabric of this country. If personal income taxes were the sole determinant of where a business sets up, the Cayman Islands would be the industrial mecca of the world.

Millennium Scholarships

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 50,000 students will not be getting $3,000 scholarships because that money will be going instead to the creation of a new federal bureaucracy, which will duplicate what is already in place for administering student loans and bursaries.

Since Quebec has already agreed to having the maple leaf on all the cheques, why is the Minister of Human Resources Development stubbornly insisting on creating another costly structure which will not give students anything more?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Bloc Quebecois getting stirred up about the duplication that exists between the two levels of government. I see this as just one more criticism of the Government of Quebec, which is putting up embassies here and there all over the world, choosing to open still more of them while international affairs are doing just fine.

There is much that could be said of this, but I can tell members one thing, we have—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois takes it for granted that there will not be any agreement with the Government of Quebec, since he refers to duplication.

Yet I can assure hon. members that the National Assembly has unanimously passed a resolution, which would avoid any duplication, and that the foundation is perfectly capable of coming to an agreement with the Government of Quebec on this.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it takes some nerve to give us such an answer, at a time when there are Quebec students here in Ottawa.

It would be so simple for the federal government to pay Quebec its fair share of the funds, so that the scholarships could be distributed through the existing structures. The bureaucratic costs would be lessened and, as well, the money would end up going to the students.

If the minister really wants to help students, let him give us one good reason for being as stubborn as he is right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can avoid these administrative costs. All that is needed is a workable agreement. And all that this requires is for representatives of the foundation and the Quebec ministry to sit down together and ensure that what is arranged is in keeping with the National Assembly resolution, which the Bloc Quebecois and the Government of Quebec are in the process of denying. They are denying the Quebec National Assembly itself.

The proof that we have the good of students at heart is that we have chosen to celebrate the millennium by putting $2.5 billion on the table to help them.

Pensions

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is rushing a bill through the House that will raid the public service pension plan to the tune of $30 billion, and the taxpayer will not see one penny of tax relief out of that $30 billion.

If the government is so comfortable with this record-breaking pension rate, why the rush and why the closure? What is it trying to hide as it rams the bill through this place?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, a sufficient amount of time was taken to fully discuss this.

I would remind the official opposition members that they are the ones who introduced dilatory discussion for the hours that they had. Obviously they did not need all that time.

What is important is that we have a good bill that gives back to taxpayers what is theirs.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government thinks four hours is too much. When we think that it did not cancel GST and kept $20 billion of taxpayers' money, it did—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for St. Albert.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government only gave us four hours of debate before it brought in closure. Let us look at the record: $20 billion in GST that it did not give back to taxpayers; $26 billion in employment insurance that it has kept from the taxpayer; and now it will take $30 billion from the employees.

What is the government trying to do? Why the rush? Will it ensure that the employees have a say in what is happening to their pension plan?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this is the party that tried to delay needed legislation for six months. Obviously we have to question whether its members have the interests of the taxpayers at heart.

We have at heart the interests of the taxpayers. We are giving the civil servants every benefit that is guaranteed in the act. We want to give back to Canadian taxpayers the $30 billion that is due to them.

Amateur Sport

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her reaction to the report on sports in Canada, the Minister of Canadian Heritage ruled out the essence of the specific measures intended to support amateur sport. At the same time, the Minister of Industry is preparing to come to the aid of professional sport.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why it is his government's policy not to invest a cent more in amateur sport, but to invest in professional sport, when we all know that the athletes and the team owners are millionaires for the most part?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the government's response has not been tabled in the House yet. We hope to do so in about twenty minutes. We therefore ask the member and other colleagues to wait until the government has tabled its response.

National Highway System

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian national highway system requires repairs and expansion.

Can the Minister of Transport tell Canadians what he is doing to provide leadership for a national solution to this ongoing problem?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that there seems to be unanimous approval on both sides of the House for improving Canada's highways. As I have said in answer to questions from hon. members before, it is all a question of financing.

I am meeting with my provincial counterparts on May 14 to look at these issues and to develop a national program. This is a continuation of what we have done since 1991. We will also look at the policy on tolls.

I would be very grateful for the continued support of members both on this side and on the other side.

I should say that there was a successful conference hosted by my colleague from London North Centre a couple of weeks ago that highlighted the urgency of this problem.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister admitted in the House that aboriginal women do not enjoy the same rights as all other Canadian women in this country. She admitted that in the event of a marriage breakdown, aboriginal women most often do not have access to the matrimonial home She admitted that the Nisga'a treaty does nothing to redress this. As a matter of fact it slams the door on Nisga'a women ever having these rights.

Why is the minister prepared to ratify this treaty when it slams the door on Nisga'a women having the right to matrimonial property as all other Canadian women enjoy?