Debates of Oct. 18th, 2004

Taxation

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first, the leader of the Bloc Québécois should consider the health accord, under which very substantial amounts will be transferred to the province of Quebec as well as to the other provinces. Also, we have a meeting on equalization scheduled for next week, and Quebec will benefit yet again.

The leader of the Bloc should also, I might add, consider the fact that Quebec's economy is doing very well under this Liberal government, here in Canada, and under a Liberal government in Quebec. This is one reason. This is great news. Quebec's economy is doing well.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since he does not want to talk about equalization, let us talk only about the transfers for health, education and social services. These have increased by 37% over 10 years in the other provinces, as compared to 8.3% over the same period in Quebec, all that because this Prime Minister changed the formula in 1995, and this formula puts Quebec at a disadvantage.

I am asking him if he will be working on eliminating this fiscal imbalance—at least, that is what it is called by everyone except the Liberals—at the October 26 meeting.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to read the full report that the hon. gentleman is referring to, but I certainly will do that.

In a preliminary way it appears that the report relates to a period of time when first of all, a limitation was placed on the payments under the Canada assistance plan to certain provinces, most especially Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia under Mr. Mulroney's government. Later on that limitation was taken off. Again, the effect was largely felt in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. It did not affect the flow of revenue to Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the same thing. We are talking about the measures taken in 1995 by the former finance minister, now the Prime Minister. Those measures penalized Quebec.

The study by Professor Godbout of the Université de Sherbrooke clearly shows, with statistics to back it up, that Quebec has been penalized far more than any other Canadian province by the changes the current Prime Minister made in federal transfer payments.

How can the Prime Minister claim that the meeting on October 26 will deal only with equalization, when it should be discussing the entire question of transfer payments?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again let me say it is important to examine the period of time that is referred to in the report. It is a period of time when the flow of certain revenues to certain provinces other than Quebec was reduced and then increased again. In relative terms that showed a shift in numbers from one province compared to another.

Through all of that period of time, Quebec was unaffected by the limitations. Quebec always received its full fair share of equalization and the transfers for social and health purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the changes we are talking about date back to 1995, when the new Canadian social transfer was introduced, based on need, to be calculated as a per capita payment. That penalized Quebec first and foremost. That has been the issue since 1995.

I ask the Prime Minister, can he admit the obvious and agree to correct this fiscal imbalance once and for all by transferring the income from the GST, for example, instead of giving out small crumbs like this?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, apart from health care where we are contributing $41 billion more, and equalization where we are contributing $33 billion more, the Government of Canada also contributes in a whole variety of ways to relieve the financial pressures on provinces, Quebec included. I can think of highways. I can think of infrastructure. I can think of housing. I can think of the campaign against homelessness. I can think of the contributions we make to children, to the well-being of families and senior citizens.

The Government of Canada provides its full fair share.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is watering the gas again, with respect to the environment and our Kyoto commitments. He thinks it is acceptable to do whatever one wants and then wait and see whether the necessary goals have been met. Because of that, we are the worst country in the industrialized world with respect to our greenhouse gas emissions.

I ask the Prime Minister: does he think that this kind of laissez-faire is an adequate response to this environmental crisis?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his appointment as Kyoto critic. That shows that his leader has confidence in him, at least.

I would also like to tell him that he should quote me correctly. It would improve our debates. I never said that it was fine to do whatever one wants. I said that we had to do the best we can, find the best practices, because the Canadian government has made a 100% commitment to Kyoto.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the government that the Speech from the Throne has addressed the whole question of Kyoto. Two sentences were all we got on the biggest environmental crisis facing the entire planet, and yet we have had 11 years of inaction that has left us with a record as the worst polluter in the industrialized world. George Bush does a better job, quite frankly, at achieving environmental objectives than the government does.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he think it is quite all right to have no rules to govern our--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard the question.

Is it not action when we invest $645 million to improve energy efficiency, or when we include $63 million for energy efficient transportation, $340 million for energy efficient buildings and $240 million for energy efficient manufacturing and industrial processes? The government will work with the planet to fight climate change and to ensure that Canada will always be a good citizen of the world.

National Defence

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's global influence continues to be diminished internationally because of the Prime Minister's lack of emphasis on our armed forces. We welcomed the news about our troops going to Haiti and now we find out that they were “prodding and begging” for basic equipment like gloves, boots and vests. There is a gap now between our expectations and our military capacity and it is hurting us internationally.

Has the Prime Minister allowed this gap to increase as a deliberate policy or simply because he is delinquent? Which one is it?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of visiting our troops in Haiti and the foreign affairs minister did as well. Nobody complained about their equipment. What they were proud of was the job they were doing. They had boots and they had fragmentation vests. These were in the course of being changed and transited the way we do with our troops. We will continue to do that.

The fact of the matter remains that as the Prime Minister has said, since 1999 we have invested 10 billion new dollars in the armed forces. We have promised $7 billion in new equipment. We have not finished yet, just watch the budget to come. We are delivering for our armed services.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just last weekend the Liberal MP for London--Fanshawe said, “We cut too deeply. It has done damage”. He was talking about the armed forces.

The Prime Minister may be interested in another quote. It goes like this: “The current gap between expectations and our military capacity is too large and truth be told, it affects our international credibility”. That is not my quote. That is from the Prime Minister's own mouth when he was out on the hustings blaming Jean Chrétien for the cuts in our military.

Our influence is being diminished abroad. What is the Prime Minister going to do to restore it?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would read some of the Prime Minister's other speeches.

Since he has been Prime Minister, he has delivered on what he said on the campaign trail. We are delivering on a promise of 5,000 new troops for our services plus 3,000 to be added to our reserves. We are delivering on a new gun for the army. We are delivering on a promise of new ships. We are delivering on promises of new equipment for our military.

Of course there are going to be problems, but every single military in the world is readjusting to the changes out there. This government is readjusting our military in a positive way.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the government has delivered are submarines that do not go down and helicopters that will not go up. That is what the government has delivered.

In a best case scenario, Sea King helicopter replacements might be here by 2010, just in time for the Vancouver Olympics, but Canadians should not hold their breath. On September 1 the Minister of Public Works and Government Services was sued over the helicopter purchase because “to avoid political embarrassment...the minister structured and carried out the helicopter procurement...so as to ensure the EH-101 was not chosen as the successful bidder”.

Why did the government play politics with giving proper equipment to our troops?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are very much looking forward to providing our Canadian military with the best possible helicopter at the best possible value for the Canadian taxpayer. In fact, the open and fair procurement policy that led to the selection of this helicopter did exactly that.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard those promises in 1993, and what did the government do? It cancelled the EH-101 program. It cost taxpayers $500 million and our troops' lives are in danger because they are flying 50 year old helicopters that do not work.

These kinds of answers are not good enough for our troops. I want to know, taxpayers want to know and our troops want to know if, because of this lawsuit, the helicopter procurement and helicopter replacement is going to be pushed back even further, further endangering the lives of our troops. They want to know. Is it going to do that?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we intend on continuing with the contract process beyond October 26. We have waited in view of the legal process in respect of that.

This is actually a very positive initiative. This Prime Minister acted very quickly to ensure that the procurement process proceeded and that in fact once again our brave men and women in the Canadian armed forces get the helicopter they need at the best possible value for the Canadian taxpayer. That is what this process delivered. We are looking forward to delivering those helicopters to our men and women in the Canadian armed forces.

Aerospace Industry

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Industry rejected the notion that there is a sense of urgency regarding the assistance that should be provided to Bombardier.

How can he dismiss the notion of urgency in this issue, considering that 5,000 new jobs are at stake in Montreal and that competing offers, including from American states, are already on the table? What will it take for the minister to consider this an urgent matter?

[David Emerson, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, my officials have been working closely with Bombardier officials and members of the aerospace industry across Canada.

We are giving top priority to developing an aerospace strategy for all of Canada and we are going to do it responsibly and efficiently. We are going to take care of the aerospace industry in Canada.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as for the Minister of Transport, he said last week that we should not give in to a bidding war regarding Bombardier.

How can the government explain that, in the case of Bombardier, it does not seem to be in a real hurry to make an offer of assistance, but that during the election campaign, it took very little time to announce that half a billion dollars would be allocated to help Ontario's automobile industry? Is this not a double standard?

[Jean Lapierre, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will realize that the case of Bombardier is a priority for this government. We did not wait for his questions or his party's interest in this issue to deal with it. We will make sure that this is done responsibly. We said there would be no public bidding war and there will be no such war, because we are talking about taxpayers' money here.

Petro-Canada

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Valeurs mobilières Desjardins, which is a subsidiary of Quebec's largest financial institution, has been excluded from the most important public share issue in Canadian history, that of Petro-Canada, to the tune of $3.2 billion. No justification was given for the fact that Desjardins is not among the 22 firms retained by the federal government.

Could the Prime Minister provide some explanation regarding this mysterious decision which, to this day, remains unexplained?