Debates of Feb. 21st, 1997

Program For Older Workers Adjustment

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to put my question to the Minister of Human Resources Development, but I will direct it to the President of the Treasury Board.

Last March, the Department of Human Resources Development agreed to extend until March 31, 1997 the Program for Older Workers Adjustment, better known as POWA. In a letter to his Quebec counterpart, the current minister indicated his intent to set aside $16 million for this program. However, that amount is not enough to cover the workers who will lose their jobs up until the end of the program.

Can the minister tell the House if he will approve the request made by his Quebec counterpart and grant the $20.7 million needed to maintain POWA until March 31, 1997?

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

Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer the question put by the member opposite, since it concerns my department.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Unemployment insurance does not concern you?

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

The opposition seems surprised that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Human Resources Development are working as a team, because, on this side, we are a team. Of course, when we see what is going on in their own party, we understand why they are so surprised.

I want to point out that the Government of Canada is looking for other ways to help older workers affected by the changes on the labour market. That is why we have initiated discussions with several of the main people concerned. In March of 1996, the provinces and the territories were informed that, on March 31, 1997, our government was putting an end to the program as we know it.

I must tell you that, on December 9, 1996, I decided to increase by $12.5 million the POWA budget up until March of 1997, which brings the federal budget to $40 million.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the minister is asserting himself and holding his own.

Will the minister undertake to maintain POWA until an agreement is reached with the province of Quebec on the labour issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of labour, everything is going well. We are working hard to address several issues. We have undertaken several negotiations with the government of Quebec, which are going very well.

I want to say that we, as government, are very concerned about the situation of older workers, as we have shown in the past. We will continue our consultations with the provinces.

Canada Pension Plan

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, payroll taxes have a direct influence on employment and job creation. The higher the tax, the lower the employment growth and that is an economic fact.

The new Liberal job killing Canada pension plan payroll tax increase will result in the loss of at least 160,000 jobs. If this is the way Liberals keep their jobs, jobs, jobs promise, why should Canadians believe any Liberal promise like the one to kill, scrap and bury the GST?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I will have to repeat that the fund is now giving financial security to a large number of people for when they reach age 65.

We have reformed the plan. We have made it sustainable. We have prevented it from going broke in or by the year 2015. What we have done is helping the government to lower interest rates because people now know that we can afford to support our various programs at rates that make sense, at rates that actuaries will agree with, at rates the provinces support and at rates that the Canadian population supports.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a bad investment by the government on behalf of seniors is especially unconscionable, especially when it hits younger Canadians disproportionately hard. The most vulnerable Canadians,

employers and employees alike, will be badly hurt by this massive tax increase.

How can the Liberal government ask Canadians to pay 10 per cent of their income for a pension returning less than $9,000 which will be taxed back at 50 per cent, when Liberal politicians pay the same amount for MP pensions worth at least five times more?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, how would the hon. member know that it is a bad investment? Is it because it is an investment in senior citizens who will now have security for their future? Is it because it guarantees to the people in the Canadian population who are not that rich that they will be taken care of when they reach the age of 65? Is it a bad investment because it shows that we care in terms of the Canadian population, that we are ready to invest in their future?

It is a bad investment only if we are thinking of the rich people who can afford to pay more. It is not a bad investment if we are thinking in terms of common Canadians, of seniors, of those who want to live their old age in peace and security.

Airport Facilities

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke announced recently on the front page of the daily La Tribune the forthcoming payment of a federal grant of almost $1 million to rebuild the landing strip at the Sherbrooke Regional Airport. We checked it out and it seems that the announcement was premature, since no decision has yet been made on this issue.

Can the secretary of state confirm that his government is about to pay that grant and finally resolve this issue, which has been dragging on needlessly for several months already?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to keep repeating the same things but, as you know, when our government was elected in 1993, it proceeded with a number of reforms.

A special reform took place in transportation, the Canadian transportation reform, which transferred airport facilities to local organizations or municipal governments, which would then be able to manage them according to their local priorities.

In fact, the program covers all airports. If I remember correctly, in Quebec there are four or five airports that require further assistance. Before the Christmas break, I had the opportunity to meet with all the players, particularly the mayors who told me how important these airports are to the local economy. For now, we are examining the issue very seriously. We will proceed when the government is ready.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state has been repeating the same things for several months. I am wondering if I should not address my question to the President of the Treasury Board. I will take a chance anyway.

Why does the government not go ahead and announce the grant? Is it waiting for the election, placing its election minded interests over the interests of the people in the Eastern Townships?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, as for election minded interests, there is a marked difference between the opposition and the government.

The opposition has acted adopted a purely doctrinaire stance, that is to say that opposition members regularly act according to their party doctrine rather than in the best interests of the people.

As far as we are concerned, we insist on properly managing all the funds entrusted to us by the Canadian taxpayers. That is what we have been doing since 1993.

That is what we are doing on this issue. The position we will take will be in the best interests of the people, as always.

Pest Management Regulatory Agency

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

What assurances could the parliamentary secretary give that the minister will pay attention to the many concerns voiced by Canada's farmers and farm organizations and will make changes to cost recovery and Pest Management Regulatory Agency proposals?

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

Mr. Speaker, the department has already paid attention to some of those proposals.

After a year long consultation with all stakeholders, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency gazetted a fee structure that was

40 per cent lower than the one proposed by the government prior to the formation of the PMRA.

The member will know that these improvements are proof that the formation of a single agency has made a difference. Furthermore the PMRA has been designed one, to provide faster registration of products; two, to provide easier access to minor use products; three, to increase collaboration with other national agencies; four, for preparation of pest control strategies tailored to address specific-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for St. Albert.

Canada Pension Plan

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, listen to this. Yesterday in this House the Liberal member for Oxford said: "I pay so much income tax on what I earn that I cannot survive without my teacher's pension". The member is sitting over there, the Liberal member for Oxford. We do not have to go outside this House to find out what Canadians think, we can ask those people over there. They do not like high taxes. They cannot live on high taxes.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. If high taxes are killing that member's quality of life, what does the minister say to his colleague and every other Canadian who is going to have a 70 per cent increase in the CPP tax? It is going to reduce his income and theirs even more.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, with the reforms we have made, in about 10 years from now there will be an additional $100 billion invested in the Canadian markets in order to produce growth and jobs.

The Canada pension fund will be brought to stand on a firm and sustainable basis and will give security to people who knew that the pension fund was slowly going to dry up. Those among you who believe that this is wrong should perhaps go to see Mr. Klein during his present campaign and ask him what he and Albertans think about it. You will see that they are in favour.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board may be one of those rich people he talks about but we know the member for Oxford cannot afford to put money into $100 billion programs.

We do know that high taxes kill jobs, high taxes kill businesses, high taxes send people to the bankruptcy court in record numbers and high taxes extinguish the dreams of our children. Will the minister please tell us what advice he is giving to his colleague the Liberal from Oxford, to help the poor fellow pay his taxes and vote for a CPP tax increase at the same time?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, this government has now put together the tools to be able to choose.

Four years ago we were in a fiscal hole. There was nothing we could do but pay the interest on an increasing debt. Now we have finally stopped that. Within two years our borrowing requirements will be zero. At that point we will have our own money to deal with. We will be able to make the choice of reducing the debt or increasing spending on whatever priorities the Canadian people indicate or even lowering taxes.

Rcmp

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

On December 12, 1996, RCMP Sergeant Delisle learned that the Clerk of the Privy Council had invoked section 39 of the Evidence Act to make sure no vital information would be submitted before the RCMP disciplinary court, which held a hearing on January 20 on the violation of regulation 57 concerning the holding of a public office by Mr. Delisle.

How does the minister explain that section 39 was used in this specific case, since it had the effect of preventing Sergeant Delisle from submitting, for his defence, documents that had been public for at least two years?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is before the court. A majority decision supported the federal government's position. Mr. Delisle wishes to appeal to the higher court. We should wait for the outcome of these legal proceedings.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this reply does not answer the question, but the official opposition is getting used to that.

In June 1996, the Employment Insurance Commission, which is an administrative federal tribunal, recognized that Mr. Delisle's suspension had more to do with his attempt to unionize than with a violation of regulation 57.

Will the minister confirm that the real reason the government is after Mr. Delisle is because the RCMP is trying to "break" his attempts to unionize the force's members?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Quebec Court of Appeal is a higher court than the

employment insurance tribunal. I think we must accept the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal, which supports the government's position, until the Supreme Court of Canada makes a ruling.

At this point, the Quebec Court of Appeal supports the government's position, and we must accept that decision.