Debates of Oct. 31st, 1997

Environment

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member why the Reform Party has abandoned its principled position where it says that the party believes that environmental considerations must carry equal weight with economic, social and technical considerations. What happened to the Reform principles? Have Reformers abandoned these principles? Is the position of the Reform Party nothing more than what was done by the tongue troopers in the Reform leader's office when they muzzled the Reform critic and said that anything he says is nothing more than a dopey mental hiccup?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for a government that is supposed to govern, the answers get weaker every day. Every day this government fudges the answer is another day that taxpayers worry about what position this government is cooking up behind the doors. Studies by the conference board say that the Kyoto deal could cost the average Canadian thousands of dollars per year. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers warns that it could cost a lot at the gas pumps.

So I ask again, and please just give us an answer. Canadians cannot wait for the Prime Minister to settle all these internal cabinet struggles. How much is this Kyoto deal going to cost the average Canadian?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the fearmongering is being created here by the Reform Party. All Reformers are doing is talking about taxes. They ignore all the other means available to deal with this problem without having to slow down the economy. Why does the Reform Party fail to adopt a position which recognizes threats and costs to human health, to the economy of western Canada, to future generations? Do Reformers not care about their children and grandchildren?

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has been here for a few decades so he should know by now that the opposition asks the questions and the government is supposed to answer them.

When the finance minister was in opposition, he boasted that the Liberals would cut carbon emissions to 1988 levels by the year 2000. But now the man who was then a radical environment critic is silent about the Kyoto deal. So my question for the government is this. With all the talk of taxes in the air, why has the finance minister been silent about the Kyoto tax attack?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are working on this as a team, unlike the Reform Party. The member for Kelowna questioned whether there is a problem, he questioned the science. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that there is a problem, but he does not like the process we are using to follow up on it. And their critic is muzzled by the tongue troopers in the Reform leader's office and is accused of being nothing more than a dopey mental hiccup.

Yes, the Reform members can ask questions. However they claim to be the next government in waiting and as such they have a responsibility to state their position.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, the government was supposed to be responsible and we are not getting any answers. The people who watch this are not stupid. They know a partisan evasion like that when they see one.

It was the finance minister who wrote the Liberals' 1993 red book which promised carbon cuts even bigger than those being proposed at Kyoto, but he has not said a word publicly about the Kyoto deal yet.

My question for the government is, what has the finance minister said privately about the Kyoto tax attack? On which side of the cabinet squabble does he stand?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's question, we know that although his party celebrated its 10th anniversary this week—

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they can applaud now because they know that 10 years from now they will not be here at all.

Employment Insurance

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is responsible for employment insurance.

Two important figures clearly stand out in this dossier. In 1997, there were 35% more people unemployed than in 1989, and yet there are 33% fewer employment insurance recipients.

Will the minister finally admit that his reform has gone much too far, and that it deprives the unemployed of the minimum income they require to support their families?

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

Mr. Speaker, our employment insurance reform was necessary, and all Canadians agree totally with it.

The situation was such that our system was totally unsuited to today's labour market. We therefore had to carry out an extremely significant reform, a courageous one, and what I can tell you is that we are following this reform very closely in order to ensure that it continues to serve Canadians well.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is showing his flagrant and unacceptable disdain for the unemployed, for those who cannot make their money last until the end of the month, who are unable to make ends meet to feed their families.

How, in light of the figures released yesterday morning, can the minister be proud of his reform, when only 36% of the unemployed draw benefits, the surplus in his employment insurance fund is up to $12 billion, and two-thirds of the unemployed are going hungry?

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition party obviously has an excessive attachment to a system from the past, a system which encouraged dependency on government funds.

Our reform focuses on active return-to-work measures. If we look at the concrete situation instead of just using big words, it will be seen that welfare figures in Quebec have not gone up since our reform, despite what they keep saying on that side of the House.

Poverty

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

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

A few weeks ago, anti-poverty groups gave a cry of alarm. Even the women in the Saint-Michel district, in the riding of the Minister of Human Resources Development, took to the streets in protest against increasing poverty.

When will the minister finally realize that these senseless cuts to employment insurance are simply increasing poverty?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is very aware of the poverty. I, for one, am proud to represent a Montreal riding that is dealing with poverty. It makes me very aware of the situation, because I am there every Friday afternoon. I see and experience this poverty with my constituents.

This is why our government made it a priority in the last budget to increase the child tax credit by $850 million effective January 1998 and why we will double this amount in the next term to help low income families.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a specific example.

Let us look at the case of Louise from Montreal. She worked as a clerk for five years. Her employment insurance cheque was cut by 27% because she took an unpaid three-month leave to look after her sick mother.

What is the minister's response to Louise's situation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can respond to Louise's problem with the solution we found for the problem of Yolande, Huguette and Maryse, who were not covered by the old system because much of the part time work in our economy is done by women. The fact that the current system is based on hours resolves the problem of many women who work part time.

Women are now covered from the first hour and not just after a number of weeks, which they could not accumulate in the past.

Trade

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Over the last little while we have been trying to get an answer from the Minister for International Trade as to whether or not Canada is seeking at the MAI negotiations to achieve a set of binding and enforceable core labour and environmental standards. The minister has been unwilling to give us a straight answer on this. Can he give us a straight answer on this today? If he is not willing to do so, will he at least tell us why he is not willing to give us and answer? Canadians deserve to know what the Canadian government position is, or why it is not willing to tell us.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, since assuming this portfolio the member knows that we have certainly provided as much information as possible.

The member has been briefed. His party has been briefed. All the trade critics have been briefed. We have sent packages to members of Parliament. We have been answering on the floor of the House in terms of the highest standards for both environment and labour, and the other key issues in the MAI discussions.

The member also has to recognize and let Canadians know that obviously, we as one of the 29 countries have to respect the process as well as respect the fact that we are also consulting with provincial governments who obviously share jurisdiction.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, other countries are on record as seeking binding, enforceable labour and environmental standards at the negotiations. Why is it that the Canadian government is unwilling to join other governments, the government of the U.K. and social democratic governments in Europe, in seeking these kinds of binding and enforceable standards?

The minister talks about high standards and low standards. We want to know if he is seeking binding and enforceable. Will he use the words binding and enforceable, and whether he is against them or for them? We want to know the answer to that question.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Government of Canada's position is that it is unwilling to commit to the very issues that he is talking about. That is the wrong assumption.

I said to the member there is no Canadian and no political party in this House that wants a lower degradation for our environment or lower standards of workers rights.

The question on the matter is that this is a negotiation with 29 countries. Canada is pushing for the highest standards. It is a situation that is evolving and we have to rally a consensus. That is exactly what we will do, despite how high he jumps or how low—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

Fisheries

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the government is on the Pacific salmon dispute between Canada and the United States.

The government will know that the principle of equity in this treaty is a key principle, as is the principle of conservation. I would like to know from the government whether or not it will ask envoys Ruckelshaus and Strangway to make recommendations to governments on ways where they could include a dispute settlement mechanism and also propose options for a binding mechanism as a way of ending the impasse on the equity principle?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, under the terms of reference that we negotiated with the Americans to establish the special envoy process, they can recommend anything they want. If they, on the basis of their consultations, are able to find the support for a variety of measures, including dispute resolution, of course the governments of both Canada and the United States would want to respond.

The mandate of the envoys is totally open to include anything the hon. member wants to suggest to them.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, the minister's answer is a good indication of what is wrong with the government's position on this. It does not seem to want to give any political direction. In fact, yesterday it met with the envoys and we learned nothing as a result of that meeting. Nothing new is on the table.

I would like to know when this government is going to show some backbone for the families on the west coast of British Columbia suffering in this dispute. Will it, yes or no, ask the envoys for an interim report when they will meet the prime minister and President Clinton around the APEC meetings? When will the government show some backbone on behalf of British Columbians and not be like Reformers and not care?