Debates of Nov. 4th, 1998

Employment Insurance

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, when we looked at this issue together with the provinces we did not agree with the short term impacts cited by the hon. member.

One thing we did agree with in terms of the report was that had we not taken steps together with the provinces we would not have been able to secure the Canada pension plan for our retirees today and for future generations of Canadians. We acted and we are very proud we did.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the effect of the CPP premium hike will be to take away a week's wages from a person earning less than $35,000 a year.

The finance minister could lower the tax burden on these Canadians by offsetting the CPP hikes with a more substantial EI premium cut than he has been willing to make to date.

Even the government's watchdog states EI premiums should be much lower than they are.

Why does the finance minister insist on taxing Canadians who can least afford it?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange coming from the Tory party a call for EI cuts which under its regime went from $1.95 up to $3.30. I find it passing strange it is criticizing us for having acted to secure the Canada pension plan for all Canadians when it ignored it totally for nine years and stuck its head in the sand.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, enough rhetoric from the minister. The C.D. Howe Institute is saying that the government's CPP tax hike will cost 200,000 jobs. He can offset the impact of those hikes by cutting EI premiums by the $7 billion recommended by the actuary.

Will the minister obey the law, cut the EI tax hike by $7 billion and preserve 200,000 jobs?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, for the last four years the sole obsession of the Reform Party has been to get us out of deficit. Now that we are out of it, it wants to put us back into deficit by irresponsible tax reductions.

We refuse to follow these irresponsible policies. We will act in a balanced and sane way for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is already $4 billion over budget this year. That is where it can find some savings.

The government will do anything to stay in power. We have the finance minister who is saying payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation. Yet the government raises payroll taxes. He said this spring that the EI fund belongs to workers and employers. Now he is setting out to raid it.

When will the minister quit this cynical, political manipulation of the government's finances and put jobs ahead of his own political ambitions?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of EI cuts, let us be very clear about what Reform is advocating.

In its fresh start document, its election platform, it said cut the premiums 28% but for employers only. Last January it told us we could use the surplus in the EI to help pay down the deficit and the debt.

We intend to act responsibly and take a balanced approach. We will continue our program of cutting EI taxes. We will continue our program of reducing personal income taxes. We will pay down the debt and we will invest in health care.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all the cuts his government has made to employment insurance, the Prime Minister knows full well that the gap between the premiums and the benefits is such that the fund will never again show a deficit.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the employment insurance plan has become a real cash cow for his government and that he is trying desperately to get his hands on it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Bloc Quebecois members are having a hard time living with a surplus. They are much happier when there are deficits, and the fund is in difficulty.

Our government takes a balanced approach, because we are careful and realistic managers and had the courage to reform employment insurance, something that has been helpful to many workers. The Bloc Quebecois claims to be defending the unemployed, because they like it when they are suffering and are unemployed for a long time, whereas our government aims at returning them to the labour market. That is what we want.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister would like to have us think that he is putting thought into what he wants to do with the employment insurance surplus, which is not his.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that the decisions have already been made and that his thoughts at the moment are about ways to get hold of the fund surplus at as low a political cost as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this government will continue to work for the workers in this country and to invest in helping them return to the labour market, including in the regions where unemployment is too high.

We will continue to help the young gain work experience in business, which will enable them to integrate into the labour market, because this is what they lack. Our government will continue to do its job to help young people remain longer in school by investing in the education strategy. That is what we want to do.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the social insurance number system is, according to Canada's auditor general, rife with errors, fraud and abuse.

I ask the minister responsible for cleaning up this mess to stand up and tell us when he intends to get this system overhauled.

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

Mr. Speaker, my department has the responsibility for the SIN cards with some of the departments, but we are the lead department on it.

From what I understand, my official's comments in the article reported this morning were taken out of context completely.

We agree that there are important administrative improvements to be made and we have begun to take action. Today we have a meeting in Montreal held by a number of officials precisely looking into this file. We need to clean up the register. We will do it in collaboration with the provinces.

I have asked our standing committee of the House to look into it. I hope it will find the time to do what the auditor general asked it to.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been asleep at the switch on this for over five years.

About one million deceased Canadians still have active social insurance numbers. When can living Canadians expect this do nothing government to restore integrity to the SIN system?

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

Mr. Speaker, they must have been sleeping at the switch too because they never asked any questions on this subject.

My department has set up five working groups to fix the problem. We want to clean up the register and that will require working with the provinces because they are responsible for part of it. We want to improve the security features of the cards.

We have another working group on increasing our investigations, on examining penalties for fraud and on improving proof of identity. These are things already underway.

Health

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the federal government is toying with the idea of making any of its future investments in health contingent on its public servants' approval of any projects the provinces might wish to carry out.

When the government tells us that health is one of its priorities, are we to understand that what it is primarily interested in is maximum control and maximum visibility, with a minimum outlay of funds?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health have had occasion to state a number of times that we will be working with the provinces in the health field.

However, if the Bloc Quebecois really wants some examples of interference and centralization, here is a quotation from Michel Boucher, professor of economics at the École nationale d'administration publique:

Rather than following the North American trend, which is strongly pro-decentralization, the Parti Quebecois government is ignoring the municipalities' pressures for greater independence and continues to meddle in their operations.

Now that is centralization.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that has nothing to do with this.

On what moral principle are these people in federal government, who have never looked after a single patient, now setting themselves up as judges and telling the provinces what to do and how to do it with the health funding to which they are entitled?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, on what moral principle did the PQ government cut funding to health, post-secondary education and social assistance between 1994 and 1998, to the tune of 3.2%, when the other provinces in the country were adding 3%?

National Defence

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when warrant officer Matt Stopford joined the Canadian forces he made a deal. He promised to put his life on the line to protect his country. In return he expected his country, if he was hurt, to look after him and his family.

Now Matt Stopford is seriously ill as a result of radiation exposure on his last tour to Yugoslavia. This government broke the deal and is not looking after him.

My question is to the defence minister. When will he provide treatment and compensation to Matt Stopford as he promised?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of that individual was brought to our attention. It is being thoroughly investigated. The matter will be dealt with accordingly.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a deal is a deal. Matt Stopford is sitting in the House right now. He is listening to and watching this defence minister. He represents over 1,000 soldiers who have been injured by the same radiation exposure.

I urge the defence minister to be cautious in his reply. When will he uphold his part of the deal, provide compensation and treatment to this soldier and to all the others who were injured?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this government cares very much about the men and women who serve in the Canadian forces.

We recently commissioned a report that deals with the injured in our services. We provided that to the Standing Committee on National Defence. It has formed part of the many recommendations the committee has made on how we can improve the quality of life for our service people past and present.

They should be ashamed of themselves for trying to exploit this difficulty that many people find themselves in. We are trying to deal with the matter properly.

Employment Insurance

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

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

We know how big the EI surplus is because there are two separate accounts.

Are we to understand that the government—and I want a clear answer—is considering changes and that this will no longer be the case?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has a very clear answer. No decision has been taken. That strikes me as a perfectly and absolutely clear answer.

The Prime Minister explained that, in 1986, the auditor general asked the government to combine the two accounts and simply include an accounting line to explain the situation. However, it was the auditor general who asked, in 1986, that the two accounts be combined.