Debates of May 10th, 2001

The Economy

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we now know why the government does not want to table a budget for two years. The economists who are doing work for the finance minister are actually saying that government spending is heading us toward a deficit. One economist has even said that the government just never added the numbers together. This is incredible.

Could the Prime Minister please tell us how he allowed his finance minister to mishandle the finances of this nation so badly that we are now approaching a deficit?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is probably the easiest question I have had in a long time.

It is the first time in the history of Canada that we have had four or five surpluses in a row. It is the first time in 40 years that we have paid the debt three years in a row. It is the first time in history that the interest rates have gone down under the stewardship of the Minister of Finance, and myself of course, from 11.5% to 6%, and of course it will carry on.

Let us talk about spending. When we came to power in 1993-94 the government was spending $121 billion. Seven years later we are not yet back to that.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, he can laugh all he wants. The Liberals laughed during the last election when we pointed out the numbers that said we were headed toward a deficit. They told the voters that we were not headed toward a deficit. Their own economists are now saying that we are headed toward a deficit. It is no joke. They can laugh all they want. Now we see that the full range of promised tax cuts is in jeopardy.

Will the Prime Minister break his promise on tax cuts like he did on GST and like he did with his promise on the ethics counsellor?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the majority of the tax cuts were implemented on January 1 this year. The rest will be implemented. We are predicting that we will have balanced budgets for years to come. No one can know if in three, five or ten years from now there may be a major recession. However the way we have handled the finances of this nation since 1993 has been a huge success.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, these economists say that we are headed toward a deficit even without a downturn. Every taxpayer in the country knows that as the government approaches its year end the spending spree really goes crazy.

I will remind the finance minister and the Prime Minister that it is not their money they are blowing out the door, it is the money of taxpayers. That is exactly why the auditor general asked who was minding the store.

Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us if there are any new spending controls being put in place to protect us from the deficit we are headed toward and to protect us from these unaccountable, unbudgeted, incompetent binge spenders? Are there any controls in place?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I just explained that we started in 1993 and, excluding the payment on interest, it was $121 billion. We reduced it by 20% during the difficult years that we had. We have increased it slowly since that time. We are not back yet to where we were in 1993-94. Of course we still have problems in Canada but we have a program: reduction of the debt, reduction of taxes and spending for some of the problems that exist in society that we do recognize on this side.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement today that another Canadian company and Ottawa valley employer, Mitel Corporation, will be laying off 430 workers rather than adding the 300 workers it planned on two months ago tells us that the government's luck has run out in relying on the Americans to pull us through the current downturn.

How many people have to lose their jobs before this government takes concrete action?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when any Canadian loses his or her job it is a matter of considerable concern to the government. The fact is that there is a slowdown in the United States and a slowdown in the high tech industry and the telecommunications industry. That is where these job losses are taking place.

I would simply ask the Ottawa area member to tell us what measures she thinks the Canadian government should take to make the American telecommunications sector buy more Canadian companies.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unemployed Canadians want jobs, not excuses. It is not good enough for this government to say that there are adjustments or changes in the U.S. economy or the technology sector that account for this change.

How long will the parents of Canada's best and brightest have to say goodbye to their children as they seek work elsewhere?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what is happening in the Canadian economy domestically.

It was announced yesterday that housing starts in this country are going to achieve their highest level ever. They are up 7.5%.

Fundamentally, it is the judgment that is placed by economists outside this country on what has happened in this country. The IMF has said the policy positions that we have put in place are exactly the ones that are required. The OECD has said the same thing. Last week the Economist intelligence unit moved Canada up two places to third place among the best places in the world in which to invest.

Organized Crime

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the solicitor general said that the immunity for police officers to commit illegal acts granted by the bill introduced by his colleague in justice “will not be limited only to organized crime”.

This is likely to pave the way for abuses such as those committed by the RCMP against the sovereignist movement back in the 1970s, with the barn burnings.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether she shares the position of the solicitor general and, if not, whether she intends to limit the immunity granted to police officers solely to investigations into organized crime?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical new tool for the police and it is not a blank cheque. The bill outlines strict limits and controls and it also has direct political accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to policy, this is disturbing. What we are asking for is for this to apply only in connection with organized crime. Each time the solicitor general is asked a question about investigations, he says he does not interfere in them.

Yet this time he is the one, when all is said and done, who will decide whether police officers can commit a crime. That is what is disturbing.

Does the Minister of Justice not agree that it would be far simpler and far more law abiding for the decision to be made by a judge, as it is with electronic surveillance? Will she shoulder her responsibilities? She is the one to determine this, so will she respond?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my colleague, the solicitor general, has said. I emphatically disagree with the leader of the Bloc that this is an appropriate role for the judiciary. What he fails to understand is that to involve the judiciary in this kind of role would lead to their involvement in the investigative stage of crime in a way that violates the traditions of our democracy.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill on organized crime provides that the police will ultimately have to obtain authorization from the solicitor general or the minister of public security to commit criminal acts when they infiltrate groups, whether or not these groups are involved in organized crime.

Will the minister acknowledge that this approach is contrary to the traditional arrangement among the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judiciary and that it could minimize the role of the judiciary, which is to protect the rights of the public against potential political abuse?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have adopted the approach that we have to ensure that the judiciary is not involved in an inappropriate way in the investigative stage of crime, thereby ensuring that they continue to play their role as the ultimate protectors of Canadians' rights and freedoms.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they are saying that in the case of electronic eavesdropping the role of the judiciary is inappropriate.

Would she accept the criticism of this approach by the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association, which consider it totally arbitrary to have the solicitor general provide the authorization rather than a judge, as is done obviously in the case of electronic eavesdropping?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said and as the hon. member should know, our tradition has been and, as far as we are concerned on this side of the House, will continue to be to keep the investigative phase and the judicial phase separate and apart. To do that which the member suggests would radically change the balance that has been part of our legal tradition.

National Defence

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the mid-eighties the U.S. proposed star wars I. Today we are facing another star wars proposal. It is the same madness.

The Prime Minister says that he is trying to make up his mind. Let me help by reminding the Saint-Maurice member of what he said about star wars on March 22, 1985, and I quote:

Can we have the Government's assurance that the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament will not be associated with the star wars project...? That is what we want from the Government.

Could the Prime Minister answer his own question?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, there is no program yet by the American government. It has told us that it will consult with us before making a decision. We said that this is the best way to approach the problem because it has promised that we will be consulted.

It would be very easy just to say no and sit back, but I think that by being with the Americans in negotiations and discussion we can influence the decision rather than be on the outside. There are other leaders in Europe, in Russia and in China who want to have a dialogue. We want to be part of that dialogue.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, with this Liberal leader, where one stands and what one says depends on where one sits.

Listen to what today's Prime Minister asked Brian Mulroney in March 1985, and I quote again:

—will he live up to the reputation of Canadians, that we have always been on the side of peace, and not get into an adventure which will lead to escalation of the arms race around the world?

What has changed the Prime Minister's mind? Could he explain why he does not have the guts to do as Brian Mulroney did and just say no to star wars?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is some fundamental difference in the position then and today.

In the proposition proposed so far by the Americans, there is a huge unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons by the Americans. It is a positive sign.

As far as what they will do with the new system, we do not know exactly. We want to have a dialogue, just like the Russians are willing to have a dialogue, and the Europeans and so on.

Yesterday I spent some time with some people who are working on disarmament. They are encouraging Canadians to participate in the dialogue because they think that—

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Auberge Grand-Mère

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government continues to reject the requests made by the Bloc Quebecois to table the lease between Consolidated Bathurst and 161341 Canada Inc. regarding the lot on which the Auberge Grand-Mère is located.

The property registry indicates that the lease was not cancelled. Nor was it cancelled in the bill of sale signed by Consolidated Bathurst and Yvon Duhaime.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if, after he was sworn in, the rent continued to be paid by his company to Consolidated or to Yvon Duhaime?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we answered all these questions. Once again, the hon. member is fishing.

I sold my interests on November 1, 1993. Under the lease, the rent was $1 per year. I do not know what happened after I left, but I do know that Consolidated Bathurst sold directly to Mr. Duhaime. It never sold it to the golf corporation in which I had an interest before I became Prime Minister.