Jean Chrétien

[Manpower Training, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I just made a clear statement. We want to withdraw from manpower training and to transfer the funds needed to pay for training services that the provincial government will provide to unemployed people receiving UI benefits from the federal government. That is clear.

The federal government, however, is responsible for managing the UI fund. We pay UI benefits to unemployed Quebecers and we want to remain in charge because, as far as employment insurance is concerned, we are the ones who collect contributions from employers and employees across Canada and redistribute the money in all regions of Canada among those who are unfortunately without jobs.

[Manpower Training, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed the government's intention to withdraw from manpower training, but managing the UI fund comes under the responsibility of the federal government. As confirmed in the Canadian Constitution, we intend to leave manpower training to the provincial government and to pay for those who will receive this training without imposing, as Mrs. Harel herself admitted yesterday, any conditions with respect to the training itself.

The provincial government itself will decide the kind of training to be provided. We will pay for federal clients who receive training services, which are in fact and will clearly become the responsibility of the provincial government.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us take manpower training for example. We offered it to the provinces. As for health, all Canadians, including those in Quebec, want to be sure there is a national plan that provides people with the same services all across the country, because health has nothing to do with language. The day-to-day administration of health care, however, is the responsibility of the provincial governments and not the federal government.

However we believe there are values that belong to all Canadians, and I think the Leader of the Opposition with his accusations of a few seconds ago, has to realize that the federal government has cut spending more in federal administration than it did in transfers to the provinces.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, at the moment, the federal government collects income tax for all provincial governments, except that of Quebec. In the case of Ontario, it costs the federal government no more to do it for two levels of government than for one. At the end of the month, a cheque will be sent to the Province of Ontario. The taxpayer has only one tax return to complete, and he only has to fill in one line to indicate what he is to pay to the provincial government. It is a lot more efficient, and all the provinces have found the system works well.

So, we want to improve it and ensure it will be much more effective in the years to come. It has nothing to do with centralizing. We are already doing it and we want to do it more closely with provincial governments by including them more than they are at the moment in the administration of this department.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. What we want is to make public administration in Canada more efficient. Jurisdictions are being fully respected.

As far as the securities commission is concerned, the provinces that want to can be part of it. It will enable people who apply to issue bonds or shares on the market to get approval at one counter rather than having to apply to six, eight or ten governments. The aim is to make operations easier and more efficient. Matters of legislation will remain the responsibility of the provinces.

In the case of tax collection, it is the same thing. At the moment, income and sales taxes are collected in all provinces, except Quebec, by the federal government. This will make the job a lot easier for everyone. We want to make it even easier so that taxpayers do not have to go knocking on two or three doors, but

will have a single-window service that enables them to pay their federal and provincial taxes at the same time and place.

[The Budget, March 6th, 1996]

Be happy it is not gin.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

We have put in writing that the GST will not be there and will be replaced by a system that will be a better one.

As it is the tradition, I can table the red book and the hon. member can table the red coat and then she would be dressed in black which will show the future of the Reform Party.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have to deal with the bare facts.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a book that is quite well known across the country.

On page 22 it said: "A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenue, is fair to the consumers and small business and minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization". That is the promise.

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the bill not been passed yet.

When we formed the government there were 130 grievances between the two governments. The number is down to below 10 at this moment because we have done it in the proper fashion. We believe that if we have a civilized discussion with the Americans we will probably have a better result. Then it will be time to move if we feel we are going nowhere.

However, I do not think Canada will gain a lot in losing its cool.