Debates of Sept. 20th, 2000

Fuel Taxes

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this was a risk I mentioned while discussing this problem in New York last week.

There is a danger in the western world that countries which are very dependent on oil may find themselves in a much more difficult situation than we have in Canada, because we have oil in this country. Moreover, the level of taxation on gasoline in Canada is three times lower than what it is in England, Germany or France.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister tells us that he is waiting for leadership. I guess leadership from the provinces when it comes to cutting taxes. He is waiting for the provinces. He is waiting for OPEC. He is waiting for the G-7. Maybe now he is waiting for Christmas to cut taxes.

His 1995 excuse was that he was waiting to end the deficit when he introduced a 1.5 cent increase in the tax on gas. Now that the deficit is gone, why are we still paying that tax on gas?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made it very clear that the impact of any tax cut must be one that is significant and felt. That view is also shared by provincial governments.

That is why we have said that if we were to act in that area we would only do so in conjunction with the provinces. We are prepared to show the leadership. No single level of government can provide a large enough cut to make an impact. We do not want to see this money lost at the pumps. We want to see it go into the pockets of consumers, not into the pockets of oil companies.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The finance minister wants to take leadership, but he actually wants the provinces to lead him. I am not sure but I think that is followership.

Why does the finance minister not explain to Canadians why a 3.5 cent cut per litre at the pumps would not be real tax relief for those who are hard pressed? Why does he continue to impose a tax on tax, a double tax which his own caucus says is unfair and should be removed? Why does he not listen to his own backbenches on this issue?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is certainly right when he talks from the leadership that has come from his caucus, the member from Pickering and the others.

The government will act. One of the reasons we will act is that we have been studying this issue. There has been leadership from this caucus while that opposition sat silent.

Budget Surplus

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

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Minister of Finance made fun of the Bloc Quebecois because we said that the surplus would be $11.5 billion. He said it would be $3 billion. Today, we see that we were right.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that his strategy of hiding the surpluses does not fool anybody and that it is just a convenient way of avoiding debate and bolstering his image on the eve of an election?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois seems to be having a little trouble accepting the good news. A reduction of $12.3 billion is good news. It will lower the debt.

This is $1 billion we will save on debt servicing. It is $1 billion we will be able to use for health, education, innovation and tax cuts. It is good news.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not news for us. We have known about it for a year. Even the minister knew. Even he knew, I am certain.

However, what he is not saying is that half of the surplus has come right out of workers' pockets as a result of the $6 billion in EI cuts. This is a disgrace.

What does he have to say to all the workers who are demonstrating today in Chicoutimi, on the North Shore, in Charlevoix and in the Saguenay region? What does he have to say to them when we know that he helped himself to $6 billion from the EI fund and that this had a direct impact on families, which are having trouble making both ends meet? What does he have to say to them? These are perhaps not people he knows very well. They are not people of his class.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what we will say is that when we took power unemployment stood at 11.5% and it is now down to 7%.

We have created more than 2 million new jobs since we took power. Real disposable income per capita is on the increase. So is growth.

What we will say is that Canada is doing just fine, and Quebecers know it.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is telling us today that, a few months ago, he miscalculated budget surpluses by 300% and that he had an additional surplus of $9 billion last year, money that comes from excess taxes paid by taxpayers.

Does the minister know that a family with two children starts paying federal tax at $14,948 and that with these surpluses, which the minister knew about, he could have alleviated, as early as last year, the burden of low income families and all those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister know that?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should review his figures. Following our last budget, a family with two children and an income of $30,000 will not pay any net federal income tax.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the figures given here are from the minister's own department.

Does the minister realize that, because of his incompetence, because of his crass electioneering strategy, about five million taxpayers who should not have paid taxes last year did pay taxes, namely those earning less than $30,000? Does the minister realize that?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, once again, thanks to our budget, there are now 900,000 Canadians who have an income but do not pay any taxes. Four years from now, there will be 1.5 million. All I can say to the hon. member is that the department can provide him with the figures, but he must know how to read them.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

As we now know, the government has a record surplus of $12 billion, thanks to the tricky practices of the Minister of Finance.

We have a record number of poor, a record number of homeless, a record student debt load, and fewer people eligible for employment insurance.

The Prime Minister promised to divide the surplus fifty-fifty. Why has he gone back on his word?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to be aware of certain things, for example that we signed an agreement last week with the provinces to devote more money to children in all provinces. Since we have been in government, we have established tax credits for poor families. We have put a great deal of money into improving the social situation.

Here is the situation. We have a government that is working very well, there is a great deal of optimism in Canada at the present time, and revenue is coming in faster than expected, fortunately, so we are using this surplus to pay down the debt. This means that we will not have to deal with that problem further down the road—

[The Speaker]

The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister always lowballs the surplus so that Canadians will not have a clear picture of the truth. The truth is that the government is giving into the bankers and the financial big shots rather than helping the people who need it most.

The priorities of Canadians are the environment, education and health. Why is the Prime Minister betraying the priorities of Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why three-quarters of our spending has been on health care, education, the environment and innovation.

At the same time we have brought in massive tax cuts that will benefit low and modest income Canadians. At the same time we are reducing the debt so that the next generation of Canadians will not have to bear the huge cost our generation has incurred. This is a question of generational equity.

Fuel Taxes

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. His finance minister has just confirmed that the government's position on fuel taxes is that there will be no help from Ottawa unless the provinces agree.

Why does the Prime Minister give the provinces a veto on cutting Ottawa's taxes on fuel?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I said in and outside the House that the government is examining various options. The government will certainly take action in that area.

I also said when I was looking at excise taxes, and according to most provincial governments, that it would be far better to act together if one is to have a price cut which will be of sufficient size to take effect at the pump, be visible and not end up in the pockets of oil companies.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me ask whoever is answering for the Prime Minister the following two questions. First, has there been a proposal to the provinces for a meeting on cutting fuel taxes? Second, does the Prime Minister rule out removing the GST on home heating fuel?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has spoken very clearly on this subject. I think we have to make sure that any move, if we were to have a move, goes into the pockets of consumers and not of industry.

I would like to quote a good friend of the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Mike Harris, who said “We are not about to cut taxes to give oil companies more money. I can tell you that. We need a guarantee that the oil companies won't suck up the difference with higher prices”.

I think that is why the Minister of Finance and the provincial governments are careful. They do not want oil companies to pick up the difference and not consumers.

Fisheries

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reported deal at Burnt Church is not a deal. It is a capitulation. Illegal traps remain in the water.

Yesterday the minister said “Mediation cannot be a shield for unauthorized activity”. He said that he “would not jeopardize conservation of the viability of the fishery by letting fishing continue unabated”.

This deal allows fishing to continue unabated. It jeopardizes conservation. It legitimizes illegal activity. When will the minister get the illegal traps out of the water?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that Mr. Rae has reported and sent out a press release saying that he has a commitment from Burnt Church first nation to substantially reduce the number of traps in the Miramichi Bay.

The intent is to ensure that we have conservation as a priority. As I said in the House before, and I want to say it again, I will carry out my mandate to make sure we protect the resource for all Canadians and future generations, but we owe it to the communities to bring the communities together to make sure that we make every effort to resolve this situation in a peaceful way. That is exactly—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Delta—South Richmond.