Debates of Nov. 19th, 1996

Tokamak Project

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as it is a matter of finding the meagre $7.2 million required to maintain Tokamak in operation and ensure we do not lose the substantial

economic benefits of this project, the Bloc Quebecois will take the liberty today of making a suggestion to the government.

Since the Minister of Natural Resources claims-she just said so herself-she can no longer afford to fund this project out of her department's budget, why does the government not draw on the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec and the National Research Council of Canada, as it did for the TRIUMF project in British Columbia?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me reiterate that fusion research is not a priority for this government.

Let me on a more positive note remind the hon. member that for every CANDU reactor that is sold we create over 4,000 person years of employment in the province of Quebec, primarily in the area of Montreal.

Let me remind the hon. member that for every CANDU reactor we sell we spend over $150 million in the Montreal area, in its economy.

In fact, by repriorizing the activities of AECL in terms of selling CANDU reactors in the export market we are directly contributing to the economy of Montreal and Quebec.

Health

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in August 1984 senior scientists at Health Canada were sounding alarm bells about the danger of HIV and AIDS. At the same time that legislation was drafted to protect the blood supply, the Liberal government of the day ignored the warnings in the legislation because it did not want to touch such a hot potato just before the election.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the government hiding the fact that it had warnings and draft legislation prepared that would have protected the blood supply and saved thousands of Canadian lives in 1984?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member ignores the fact that the government has co-operated completely with the investigation being conducted currently by the Krever commission.

The government has put all of its cards on the table in a very serious way to resolve a problem which has been ongoing and which preceded this particular administration.

The member will also recognize that in the interim report the recommendations that related to the federal jurisdiction were immediately addressed. The Government of Canada is doing its very best to co-ordinate all factors that come into play in ensuring that such a tragedy will not happen again.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some co-operation. We have a legal challenge, we have an end run with transfusion Canada and now a gag. That is co-operation?

Justice Krever thinks this information is vital for his inquiry. The blood supply killed thousands of Canadians, yet this government refuses to give him the information. Cabinet secrecy, it says. Nonsense. The only secret is this government's trying to keep from the public that Liberals could have protected the blood supply in 1984. Instead they chose to do what was politically expedient. They chose to do nothing.

My question, again, is to the Prime Minister, who was deputy prime minister in 1984. Why will he not release these documents to Krever? What is the government trying to hide?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the documents referred to are documents related to the operation of the cabinets of previous governments, not this government, and under the law the Prime Minister cannot release cabinet information from previous administrations.

I have nothing to hide. It is the law of the land that I am respecting.

Employment Insurance

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: "I will confirm this: Starting January 1, 1997, an additional 500,000 Canadians will be covered by unemployment insurance, because they will now qualify for coverage under this system". I must be dreaming. Did the minister spend time in his constituency office? Did he look at the bill? Did he read his department's documents? These documents are clear: 500,000 more people will pay premiums, but not one additional person will qualify.

Does the minister recognize that paying premiums does not equate being covered by the system?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, what I do recognize is that we have a modern employment insurance system which indeed covers an additional 500,000 people. I checked again, since it was the fourth time that this question was put to me.

I checked yesterday afternoon to make sure that the data I had was accurate. In the course of this verification with my advisers, I found the same thing I do when I go, every Friday, to my constituency office, which is also in eastern Montreal. I can tell you

that, out of these 500,000 Canadians who now qualify under the new system, which is based on the number of hours, and who work part time, 270,000 are women. We are very proud of our reform.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, it does not apply now but only as of January.

Does the minister recognize that, to be covered under the system, one has to qualify, and that the new legislation which will come into effect in January triples the basic requirements for all those who are currently not in the workforce, particularly young people and women, including those of Saint-Michel, and others, and that it doubles these requirements for all the others, including pregnant women? This is the new economy.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest shown by the hon. member for Mercier regarding this reform. I am perfectly aware that the new requirements will come into effect on January 1, 1997, and I also realize that people are anxiously awaiting the implementation of this employment insurance reform.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am reading from a finance department document entitled "Revenue Measures". It shows that the finance minister has raised taxes 12 times in 1994, 11 times in 1995 and 7 times this year. This is a $1,500 increase in federal taxes for the average taxpayer and a 19 per cent increase in federal government revenues. It is a far cry from the minister's claim that he has not raised taxes.

Can the finance minister explain why a document produced by his own department shows he has raised taxes 30 times? Will he explain why he refuses to cut government waste and permanently lower taxes as Reform has proposed in its fresh start election platform?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, between 1993 and 1997-98 the revenues will have increased by some $23 billion, $600 million of which is from excise tax increases. I would remind the hon. member there has been no increases in personal income taxes. Of that, $2.2 billion is from closing tax loopholes. Does the hon. member object to the closing of tax loopholes? Does he object to the fact that we have perhaps closed some of the loopholes used by his wealthy friends for the betterment of the average Canadian?

The vast majority of the increase, $17.1 billion of the increase, has arisen due to increased economic activity. The country is working and that is what it is all about.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, he has not raised personal taxes, he has raised taxes on persons. According to the Fraser Institute there has been a $3,000 national pay cut since the government came to power.

Let me provide some areas where the government can cut its spending so that it can indeed introduce lower taxes. How about the $3,600 grant this government gave to the Mary Kay distributor in Midland, Ontario? I know the industry minister will say it was for research and development but frankly I do not buy it. There was $10,000 for the tattoo shop in Vancouver. I am sure that was very vital spending.

Why does the minister squander tax dollars on these boondoggles while families, seniors and low income Canadians desperately need tax relief? And could I have the answer without the waving of the arms and the aneurysm?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Just wave your arms and all things will be revealed unto you.

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about tax cuts. Let us talk about the reduction of $500 that somebody who is going to buy a $15,000 car will get this year compared to last year. Let us talk about the $3,000 reduction on a $100,000 mortgage for somebody who rolls their mortgage over today compared to a year ago. Let us talk about the reduction in the cost of refrigerators. Let us talk about the increase in disposable income that Canadians have as a result of this government's activities, this government's budget and this government's economic management.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development must certainly be living in another world when he says that he has met a lot of people who are looking forward to the implementation of the employment insurance reform. I think he must work for the conseil du patronat. Leaving aside the arrogance and fine words, I have a very simple question.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

Arrogance?

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

Leaving aside the arrogance, because in order to say people are keen, one really has to be cut off from reality.

Leaving aside the fine talk, I have a very simple question. We will use the example of a person from Papineau-Saint-Michel,

who has been laid off after 50 weeks of work, who has worked eight hours a week for a total of 400 hours in the year. Working for 52 weeks at six dollars an hour, this person has earned $2,400. I am asking him this question to make sure I am right, if the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel understands properly.

Is it not true that this person will pay premiums for each of the 400 hours worked, whereas none were paid before? Is it not true that this person will receive no benefits after being laid off, for having worked only 400 hours instead of the requisite 910? Is it not true that the premiums paid will not be reimbursed?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, excellent written question. I can explain, and I think the official opposition will understand. As regards the people in my riding, when you talk about the new employment insurance system, they appreciate that the system focuses on active measures and that they may be covered from the first hour they work.

That is, people who were not working 15 hours a week because only 10 or 12 hours were available did not pay and were not covered. Now, from the time they pay and have worked even only eight hours in a week, it counts. These hours will of course be added to other hours they do in other weeks, where the average is better. So, from the moment the system is in place, coverage is expanded and flexibility is greater.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is not written, because I followed the debate, and I know how it went, and I was here when we debated the reform now under the minister's responsibility.

I repeat my question. With 400 hours worked in a year at the rate of eight hours a week, paid six dollars an hour for an annual salary of $2,400, the person will have to pay now where he did not before. This person is not eligible for benefits and will not be refunded his contributions, because he earned more than $2,000. Will the minister confirm that this person will now be a contributor but not a claimant? That is the question.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the show of support, it brings back fond memories.

I will repeat that the new employment insurance system promotes a return to work and encourages people to work as many hours as possible-it promotes employment, in other words. We see this system as a way to encourage people to return to work and do as many hours as possible to improve their coverage.

Highways

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Last month I was pleased to meet with the minister to discuss a number of transportation issues of importance to Labrador. most important of course is the completion of the trans-Labrador highway system. Does the minister recognize the important contribution the trans-Labrador highway system would make to the people of Labrador, to Newfoundland and to Canada as a whole?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and as we discussed, the trans-Labrador highway is not part of the national highway system and is essentially a provincial responsibility. However, under two of the current Canada Newfoundland and Labrador contribution agreements, $32 million has been approved for improvements to the trans-Labrador highway. Of that $32 million, $26 million is the federal contribution.

Taxation

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continually harps on its crime prevention agenda and measures. Unfortunately its actions do not speak louder than its words.

Professionals across the country say that the best way to prevent youth crime is to make sure children are being raised in caring stable homes by a primary caregiver or someone the child knows in the neighbourhood. Reform's fresh start for the family includes a child tax benefit so parents can better afford to raise their children in this way.

Because tomorrow is National Child Day and since this Liberal government claims to be concerned with preventing youth crime, will it take some real action and extend the child tax benefit to anyone with children under 12 regardless of how they are caring for their children?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, forgive me but this is my first question from this member. I am not quite sure how to handle it.

As was very clear in previous budgets the whole issue of parenting and children is of uppermost concern to the government. We have brought in a number of measures including the doubling of the working income supplement, broadening the eligibility for the child care expense deduction, and the extension of the age limit for children. We will continue in this vein.