House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debate.
Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member is against national unity, but we do not share those views in the least. We are in favour of national unity, and we are working in the interests of all Canadians in this matter.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, Iris Hosiery received $6 million of taxpayers money that top garment industry officials thought was crazy. Never mind the record of the owner of Iris. Never mind the warnings of the industry. Darn it all, there are socks to be subsidized.
Was the $21,190 that Iris and Mr. Badia donated to the Liberal Party necessary to get this grant for Iris?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, you must understand that from the point of view of that party it is “never mind the 1,440 people that are working”.
One of the things that is clear, and I will say it again, members on that side of the House do not believe that the Government of Canada should be working with communities and individuals to ensure that they have the opportunities to benefit from this great country. Well, we feel quite differently.
Werner Schmidt Reform Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, never mind all the garment workers who lost their jobs because of this particular grant.
The industry officials indicated very clearly that many of the garment industry workers would have to leave their jobs if Iris got this particular grant. In fact, the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers Institute warned that job losses would take place right across this country. Iris got the grant anyway.
Is $21,190 the price of doing business with the government?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I reject the allegation made by the hon. member. If he has proof that there was something inappropriate here, then let him bring it forward.
Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC
Mr. Speaker, in the Human Resources Development saga, the Prime Minister has acknowledged that, if an investigation turned up serious problems, the money would have to be repaid.
Is the Council for Canadian Unity exempt from the rules, or is it going to pay back the money?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, any money forwarded to this program was for actual costs incurred.
Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
TaxationOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. There is so much noise I cannot hear the hon. member who is just over to my right. This is unbelievable. Quiet down, please. We must be able to hear the questions and answers.
Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In recent days questions have risen about the impact of the Alberta government's flat tax on middle income people. Some have suggested that middle income earners will actually lose part of their tax cuts due to flat tax.
Could the minister explain what exactly is happening with this tax?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very pertinent.
Brad Severin, who is an eminent Alberta tax accountant, has in fact confirmed the unfairness of the Alberta plan. He has said, for example, that in the year 2001 the taxpayer earning $65,000 a year will pay $170 more in taxes under Alberta's plan than under ours. As Mr. Severin says, it only gets worse as time goes by. By the year 2004 they will pay $440 more.
The question is: Why does—
TaxationOral Question Period
The Deputy Speaker
I am sure we would all like to hear the question but there is a limit. The hon. member for Peace River.
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, when the HRDC minister granted the $6 million to Iris Hosiery in Quebec, she did so even though the president of the Canadian apparel industry stated that this subsidy would jeopardize the level of competition in the industry.
Let us try to get this straight. HRDC subsidizes a company supposedly to create jobs even though it was told it would kill jobs in the same industry by driving competitors out of business. Was this done because Iris Hosiery was a large donator to the Liberal Party of Canada? What else is it?
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, it just happened to donate $21,000.
Listen to what the former HRDC minister had to say when he announced this questionable grant: “Some would say today's announcement has a strong pre-election aroma about it”. That is it exactly. This grant really does stink.
Will the HRDC minister admit now that this had nothing to do with creating jobs and everything to do with winning the election in 1997?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, it was anticipated that the products from Iris Hosiery were going to be for export.
I would note that the investment of the Government of Canada was 16.3% and that the company itself invested $54.9 million. I would also say that this project was supported not only by the local municipality, but of course by the Government of Quebec.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
Recently the Minister of Industry was reported as saying that he wants to go to the bargaining table to open up the question of foreign ownership. He also predicted the end of foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian airlines, communications companies and even Canadian banks.
I want to know whether the Minister of Industry was speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada when he said this. Is this really government policy?
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. In fact what I said was that I expected, as was the case in the last round of WTO negotiations, that issues related to the ownership limits in telecommunications would likely be something that we would look at moving forward.
There is some interest within the industry to do that as well. However, I would point out, as the member suggests, that if we were to make changes in ownership limits we would expect concessions from our trading partners.
Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, the minister did say that he would like to put these issues on the bargaining table.
It seems to me that he wants to trade away our economic sovereignty. The trading away of economic sovereignty would mean the loss of political sovereignty. At the same time the Prime Minister is saying that he wants to stop the Americanization of this country.
I want to know how the minister's policy of bargaining these issues away and putting them on the table squares with what the Prime Minister is saying.
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, I think the difference between our view and the NDP view is that we believe that Canadians can succeed in the global economy.
We recognize that globalization is a reality of the changing technologies, the changing investment structures and the changing patterns of the world. Canadians can win in that environment. Canadians win in the telecommunications sector. Whether they are companies like Nortel, Newbridge or others, we get the jobs. The jobs have to be here for us to succeed in that global economy.
That is the difference. Their walls would never work. The jobs would go.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, internal Bank of Canada correspondence clearly states that over the next 12 to 18 months there are plans to privatize the administration of the Canada savings bond program.
Yesterday the minister said that the decision has not been taken and in fact it is not being contemplated.
Was the minister not only half right? While no final decision has been made, is privatization not being contemplated and have companies not been approached?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, there are a number of options which are being looked at in terms of the back office of the Canada savings plan, which is currently being administered by the Bank of Canada, such as merging it with a Department of Finance agency, outsourcing conceivably to the private sector, but also outsourcing possibly to Public Works and other government departments.
Fundamentally, the privatization of the entire situation is not being looked at. Outsourcing is certainly a possibility.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, outsourcing and privatization are fairly similar, but we are talking about the backroom operation of the Canada savings bond program.
Will the minister commit to referring this important issue to the Standing Committee on Finance for further evaluation before any final decision is made?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a member of the House of Commons finance committee. If he wishes to raise it there and the House of Commons finance committee would like to see the pertinent officials appear before it, I would more than delighted to comply.