House of Commons Hansard #149 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was sentence.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, simply following up on those allegations, I checked that out today. Basically the foreign affairs people, your own people, are saying exactly what you say, that they have looked at this—
Foreign AffairsOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would ask the hon. member to address the Chair.
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, CTV also stands behind its story. What Canadians want to know is whom should they believe. Should they believe—
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, let me first clarify that I sent officials over to the hon. member to brief him. He did not check it out. We made sure that he was fully informed of what went on. That is exactly how we deal with it because we want to make sure people have full available information.
The point of the matter is CTV said allegations were made. Yes, they were. We checked out those allegations to the best information we could ascertain. By the way, one of the handicaps of ascertaining it is that the individual in question would not allow us to use his name when we went around to check out the sources and the basis for that. He is now clearly going public.
The fact of the matter is that if there is any new evidence, if there is any new—
Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB
Mr. Speaker, I asked for a briefing at 6 o'clock last night and again at 10 o'clock. A briefing was set up at 9 o'clock this morning which was cancelled. Finally I got a briefing at 1.15 this afternoon.
Canadians need to feel confident in their passports. We also are against terrorism but not with the Canadian passport. Let us get it straight. The minister is saying that the allegations made by W5 last night are untrue. Yes or no.
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what I have said four times in a row is that the allegations were made. We checked them out to the best of our ability. There were a variety of agencies talking to a number of other agencies involved in the business. We could not find any corroborating evidence to support the allegations that were made.
In fact as much as we could ascertain was that the event he was talking about happened last fall before the assurances were given. That is as much as we have been able to know.
If the hon. member has more information we will look into it, but I want to make the point that we have in place a system where every five years we review the passport system. We are presently bringing in a new system. I believe it is the most secure passport in the world.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government has long been looking for a way to raid the employment insurance fund surplus, which it believes it has now found. The solution is all very simple: do away with the separate employment insurance fund and bury it in the government's general accounts. Out of sight, out of mind.
With this sort of sleight of hand, how can the Prime Minister look the unemployed in the eye, when he has both hands in their pockets digging out the employment insurance surplus?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were to look at the facts, he would see that, in 1986, employment insurance was included in the consolidated fund of the government of the day. This is not new, this is how it has always been done.
Sometimes accounting revealed that the employment insurance fund was in a deficit position, and the government absorbed the deficit. Now, because the economy is in better shape, accounting procedures reveal a surplus because there is less unemployment. The figures are as they have been for the past 12 years in the government's consolidated fund, as required by the auditor general—
Employment InsuranceOral Question Period
The Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, any surplus is due to the fact that only 42% of those who pay premiums are eligible for benefits when they are unemployed. That is the reality.
This is why the Prime Minister is at a crossroads. Either he returns the employment insurance to workers, the unemployed and businesses or he tries to hide the reality to avoid the risk of illegality or immorality. What will he do?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, our friend from the Bloc Quebecois wants to continue befuddling everyone and causing Canadians anxiety over the employment insurance system.
Seventy-eight per cent of Canadian workers who lose their job or who leave it for a valid reason are covered by the employment insurance system. That is the reality, and not what the Bloc is peddling on the other side in order to cause Canadians concern.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, at the risk of offending our friend across the way, the figure appears on page 47 of his report. If he checked the reports, he would find the same figure.
The government would rather use the EI surplus from employer and employee overcontributions to reduce income taxes for everybody.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that this choice does not make sense when he as Prime Minister could benefit from a tax reduction at the expense of the unemployed even though he pays no EI premiums?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am subject to the same payroll deductions as the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I think that I pay EI premiums just as he does. I think that all members—
Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC
At any rate, if we are not contributing, if I am not covered, it does not bother me personally. Still, I am not treated any differently from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Why is the hon. member engaging in demagoguery when he is in the same boat? He is trying to blame the Prime Minister for a situation that also applies to himself and to all members of this House.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. I do not begrudge the Prime Minister his salary, far from it. I am simply saying that, in our society, there are many people who, like us parliamentarians, do not pay EI premiums.
Why should he or I benefit from a tax reduction at the expense of the less fortunate? That is unacceptable.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the great opportunity the hon. member is giving me.
Over the past five years, we in this House have steadily reduced contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, which is now known as the employment insurance fund. Instead of rising to $3.30 on January 1, 1994, as planned, the contribution rate dropped to $2.70 last year. There have been four consecutive reductions in employee premiums.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The best way to protect Canada is to reinvest now in the health sector. Canadians across the country are saying it. All the premiers are saying it. But the federal government does not listen.
If the Prime Minister cares about the health of Canadians, if he cares about Canada, what is he waiting for to reinvest $2.5 billion in health?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why, in the last budget, we raised the level of cash contributions to provincial governments from $11 billion to $12.5 billion.
We also said that we intend to invest in health in the next budget, in February.
We do care about Canadians' health, but we are not like the leader of the New Democratic Party who cares about Lucien Bouchard's health.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are starving for cash contributions from the government and as a result our health care system is in a deep crisis.
The single most important thing that the government could do for the health of Canadians and for the health of the federation is to reinvest $2.5 billion now in our health care system. What is the government waiting for?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we said that last year the budget was an investment in education and training for the young people of Canada and innovation, and we said the next investment the government will make will be in health care. I said that long before the member got up. I said that in September in a speech in Saint John, New Brunswick. She is a bit late.
We made that commitment months ago and we will have a budget in February, as we have every year.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, a C.D. Howe Institute report states that high payroll taxes hurt Canadian workers and the economy. The report also suggests that the increase in CPP premiums should be offset with an EI premium cut.
The finance minister once told Canadians “payroll taxes are a barrier to jobs”.
Will the finance minister tell us why he now insists on killing jobs by keeping EI premiums high, much higher than they need to be?