Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1996

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, we are moving toward a new employment insurance program precisely to break some old patterns that kept people in a state of dependency.

We chose to base the system on the number of hours worked, so that people can be protected, starting with their very first hour of work. People will no longer have to put up with employers who, in the past, would not provide more than 13 or 14 hours of work per week, because they did not want to pay premiums. I say to these workers that, as of January 1, this system will no longer exist and they will be covered from their first hour of work.

Canadian Airlines

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Auto Workers are not refusing to vote on the Canadian restructuring plan, quite the contrary. A significant number of the membership have now written to me directly asking for the right to vote, or have sent me copies of petitions to Buzz Hargrove telling him to allow the vote. Industry sources indicate that Hargrove would rather face decertification than face another

wage rollback. One man is not a union, but the government nor the NDP seem able to see this.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. How much longer is the government going to allow one man to block the democratic rights of union employees?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct to point out the importance of having the CAW onside not just with company management but with five other unions, with American Airlines and with the governments: the federal government, the government of the province of British Columbia and the government of the province of Alberta. It is important for them to be onside.

The purpose of that is so we can present a common front when the company is dealing with its creditors. When it is dealing with its creditors, it is important to have the clear expression of will. That is why we urge the CAW leadership to come on board with the restructuring program.

To engage in a long debate with respect to the change of legislation or something in the future is not productive at this particular time. What we want at this time is to have a common front of all the unions, the three governments concerned and the two companies so that we can negotiate successfully with the creditors.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if air travellers lose confidence in Canadian Airlines and book with another company perhaps from the U.S., that means lost revenue for Canadian Airlines.

This is not about big corporations. It is about the men and women whose financial security is at stake, people like the single mother of two who wrote: "Mr. Gouk, you must keep trying to help us. I love my job and I need it. Every day that this issue remains unsettled does irreparable damage to my company". To "my company"; that is how Canadian employees feel.

My question is for the Minister of Transport: When is the Liberal Party going to join with Reform in a non-partisan manner and tell that single mother that we are listening, that we care, and that we will act? How much longer can one person be allowed to cause this anguish and threaten the financial security of her airline?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I share with all members of the House the concern over the situation that the individual quoted earlier is in. It is a serious problem for the employees of Canadian, of whom there are 16,400 who have their employment threatened if the company is put in further jeopardy.

I am pleased, however, to announce that American Airlines has now agreed to take part in restructuring and to accept Canadian Airlines' proposal for a reduction of its fees as requested by Canadian. This will be the fees on such services as yield management, accounting functions, operations planning and support. This is a very positive step because it is the first time a creditor has indicated its firm support for the restructuring proposals put forward by the president of Canadian Airlines.

Retired Singer Employees

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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

Yesterday, the minister said, and I quote: "Had we reached an agreement based on humanitarian grounds, we might have been forced to reopen 2,000 other cases affecting an additional 70,000 people".

Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that the government has thus done an injustice to tens of thousands of retired people, and that it is now refusing to take responsibility for its actions?

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, we showed a great deal of compassion for Singer's retired employees. This is an extremely complex situation, and the case has been brought to my attention in recent weeks. It has been examined from every angle.

What I obviously said was that, had we reached an out of court settlement, as Singer's lawyers were requesting, any such settlement could have had an impact on other cases before the government, because it would not necessarily have reflected the very complex reality with respect to the rights, which are justified in this case.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is droning on again about compassion. We know how he defines it. When there is no cost involved, he is compassionate. But when he has to pay, his compassion is all gone.

The battle by Singer's retired employees against the federal government can be compared to the fight between David and Goliath. Everyone knows that all these retired workers abandoned by the federal government do not have the means to defend themselves before the courts, while the federal government can afford to.

The minister should admit that his decision is heartless and unfair for Singer's retired employees, and for the tens of thousands of other retired workers that he has abandoned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the House that, if the former Singer employees take their case to court, our department will proceed with all due speed. I have asked my

colleague, the Minister of Justice, to act accordingly, in order to facilitate matters.

As minister, I must ensure that the Canada Pension Plan is administered in accordance with the act and for the benefit of all citizens. Although we also find this situation regrettable for citizens, we cannot do better in this case at this time.

Agriculture

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Yesterday the NAFTA panel presented a very favourable ruling with regard to the supply management sector in agriculture, the dairy and poultry industries.

I wonder if the minister would outline the results of that panel with particular reference to the continuation of tariff levels on imported ice cream and yogurt.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I was in Geneva in December 1993 in the final hours of the Uruguay round. I know of the dramatic impact on our supply managed farmers of relinquishing old article 11 under the old GATT in return for comprehensive tariffication under the new World Trade Organization.

We negotiated a solid economic environment for supply management under the WTO and we promised to defend that. We kept our promise. We succeeded in a very strong NAFTA panel ruling yesterday. That ruling says our tariff equivalents are consistent both with the WTO and the NAFTA and that it applies to ice cream and yogurt.

Taxation

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question about the need to reduce taxes for the working poor, the Minister of Human Resources Development said: "Very often low income families do not pay taxes which is the reason we are looking for a more sophisticated system".

A single income family of four earning less than $23,000 now pays over $1,700 in federal taxes. Why will the minister not do something to help these families and lower their taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will look at the vast range of measures which the government has brought in-the working income supplement, help for poor families, help for caregivers-she will see that we have done exactly that.

If she will also look at her own numbers, she will find that those low income families for whom she is now saying she would provide relief will receive a minuscule amount of relief compared to the amount of relief the Reform Party is prepared to offer upper income Canadians.

By cutting health care and by cutting equalization she is probably taking money away from low income Canadians to give it to their rich friends. That is simply not on.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done nothing for these families. Under Reform's plan these families would pay no federal taxes and would instead receive a refund of $690.

Contrary to the minister's statement yesterday, 6.1 million low income Canadians now pay taxes. We do not need a new, sophisticated system or a new government program, as the minister suggests. Anyone can see that these Canadians are being crushed under the burden of taxation. Will the minister just lower their taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party owes it to Canadians to put the true facts forward on what its plan is.

If those low income Canadians lived in one of the seven provinces receiving equalization, they would not get the same level of public services to which they are entitled now as a result of what Reform has said. If somebody in a family happened to get sick and the province in which they lived had to absorb a $4 billion cut to the Canadian health and social transfer that the Reform Party has advocated, they would be in deep difficulty.

If that family required the Canadian pension plan or help in old age it would not get it because what the Reform Party has put in front of the Canadian people is a pension plan for upper income Canadians and would deprive lower income Canadians.

It is time Reform laid the facts on the table about what it is suggesting.

Credit Cards

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

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

The average difference between the rate of interest on bank credit cards and the Bank of Canada rate is 13.25 per cent. The rate of interest on retailers' cards borders on the indecent at 28 per cent, where it has remained essentially since 1981. In 1991, the federal

Liberals, who were then in opposition, were tearing their hair out over a difference of 10 to 12 per cent.

Given that each 1 per cent reduction in the interest rate on credit cards enables Canadian and Quebec consumers to save at least $10 million a month, why is the minister not acting to put a stop to these indecent rates?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are faced with several hundred credit card choices. Many of those credit cards have very low interest rates below 10 per cent, some as low as 9.25 per cent. Canadians have that choice.

There is also a wide variety of items on credit cards: discounts on goods, airline points and all of these various things. It is not that Canadians do not want those choices. Canadians do want those choices. The cost of credit cards is a very small proportion of consumer debt. I believe that something like 3 per cent of the total consumer debt is on interest bearing credit cards so it is really a very small proportion of that.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1994, three members have tabled bills in this House to cap credit card interest rates: myself, the member for Simcoe North and the member for Davenport, a few weeks ago. Furthermore, there are more than 140 members of this House from all parties demanding that the banks and major stores lower their interest rates on credit cards.

If this effort does not pan out within a few weeks, is the minister prepared to support Bill C-351 tabled in this House by the member for Davenport on November 21?

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with capping credit rates is that it reduces their availability to consumers. Hundreds of thousands of consumers would not have credit cards available to them.

Canadian consumers are smart enough to chose the right cards. When they go out to do their Christmas shopping they are going to get the best deal for their families. When they go out looking for credit cards they will also make the best deal for their families.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, just a little correction for the minister. I am sure he somehow missed this but the Reform plan would take one million low income people off the tax rolls. That $4 billion would be put back into health care. If this plan did help wealthy Canadians then the millionaire finance minister would be in favour of it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I ask the hon. member to be very judicious in his choice of words. He is repeating the words he used yesterday. Please be judicious.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if people want to know how much importance the Liberals place on parenting, they should check out the government's family tax policy. It is a tax policy that forces the single income earner with a $60,000 income to pay $7,000 more in tax than the same family where both parents are working outside the home. In other words, the government policy on parenting is to tax parents $7,000 more, a parenting tax.

When will the minister recognize the gross injustice of this inequity in the tax system and quit punishing families who choose to raise their children at home?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the one million families referred to by the hon. member would end up paying for that tax reduction in lowered services if they lived in one of the equalization receiving provinces. When a party cuts equalization, it is saying that Canadians who live in those provinces are not entitled to the same level of public services.

The hon. member says that his party will put $4 billion into health care which is simply not the truth. The fact is it would take $4 billion out of health care at the very beginning. Then it would ask Canadians to trust that it would put it back, but Canadians will not do that.

On the issue of millionaires, I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defending the member for Calgary Centre against the attacks from one of his own.

[The Speaker]

It goes both ways so please be very judicious in your choice of words.