Charlie Penson

[Supply, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member agrees that some people who have to pay employment insurance premiums, such as self-employed workers and farmers who work off farm, can never apply for employment insurance. It seems to me that something should be done about that.

We also have people who are self-employed and sometimes find themselves having to work off the farm in other areas. Would the member agree that something should be done to fix that? It seems unfair to me that people who have to pay premiums never have the opportunity to collect employment insurance.

[Supply, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate and surely the Liberal member who just spoke is not denying that workers and employers have made contributions to the EI fund that are far in excess of what is needed to survive any economic cycle of downturn.

It is clearly documented that the overcharges have contributed about $3 billion a year to the fund, and sometimes it has been even more. In the 10 years since the Liberal government took office, the so-called surplus in the EI fund is in excess of $40 billion. Numerous studies have suggested that those contributions should be dovetailed more closely to the economic reality of what it takes to survive an economic downturn. That means that the EI premium rates for workers and employers need to be decreased and they needed to be decreased several years ago. The fact remains that the Liberal government has taken over $40 billion more than it needed from the employers and employees, which has contributed to this huge overpayment.

As we know, the EI premiums go into general revenue, so there is no fund because the government has spent it on other things.

I would ask the member to admit that there has been overpayments from these two groups in excess of $40 billion in the last 10 years.

[Softwood Lumber, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the obvious question is: Why? Why continue to negotiate when we are winning the dispute and the dispute mechanism system is working well?

About $2 billion in duties have been paid by the Canadian softwood lumber industry and this money is sitting in U.S. coffers. When we win at NAFTA this money will be repaid, but if the minister insists on subverting NAFTA and striking a side agreement with the Americans that $2 billion will be up for grabs.

How much of this $2 billion is the minister planning on leaving on the table to sweeten the deal for the Americans?

[Softwood Lumber, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week Canada scored a clear win on the softwood lumber dispute at NAFTA. Therefore, it might come as a surprise to some that the Minister of International Trade seems to be adamant on bypassing this with some kind of negotiated settlement.

The government negotiated with the Americans last fall but the proposed agreement was so bad that the provinces and the industry rejected it.

Why is the minister insisting on going down this road again when we are winning this dispute at NAFTA?

[Softwood Lumber, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us again today what he told us last Friday, that there is no prevailing view in Canada as to what type of negotiated settlement would be acceptable.

Surely the Prime Minister understands that there are basic sovereign rights that cannot be put on the table in this discussion with the United States.

Why can the Prime Minister not stand today and state clearly that giving the Americans veto power over Canadian resource policy is unacceptable and not negotiable?

[Softwood Lumber, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister travels to Washington, Canadians working in the softwood lumber industry will be looking for strong leadership in this longstanding dispute.

The Prime Minister knows that both NAFTA and the World Trade Organization have clear rules in place to settle disputes such as softwood lumber.

Would the Prime Minister pledge to the House that he will not agree to any softwood lumber deal that would make the U.S. Department of Commerce judge and jury over our forest management policy in Canada?

[Softwood Lumber, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, any deal has to respect Canadian sovereignty and according to news reports the trade minister believes a deal may be close. However the December proposal from the U.S. would have given the American softwood lumber companies about half of the $2 billion paid in duties by Canadian companies. This is not only insulting, this has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.

Does the government not realize that handing over softwood lumber duties to our American counterparts is no way to achieve free trade in softwood lumber?

[Softwood Lumber, April 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, days before the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade travel to Washington, Canadian softwood industry groups are sounding the alarm that the government is willing to sign a deal that will sacrifice Canadian sovereignty. The U.S. Department of Commerce wants to dictate to the provinces how to manage their resource.

Do the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade not realize that accepting this deal will mean the surrendering of Canadian economic independence?

[Westbank First Nation Self-Government Act, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me that we have to keep our debate level civil here and that is simply not happening when we are talking about garbage from members of Parliament. That is not in order. I would think that the member should stay away from that kind of comment.

[Petitions, April 1st, 2004]

I have one further petition, Mr. Speaker, to present, with 28 signatures. The petitioners call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that materials which promote or glorify pedophilia activities involving children are outlawed.