Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Professional Sport

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. minister not to name the member.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood and all the members who worked on the first report taking an in depth look at what the added value of sport is in Canada. They speak of investing in health, in the quality of life, in offering hope to young Canadians.

I hope we will have the time—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Fraser Valley.

Canada Pension Plan

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not rely on the government to tell them the truth about the Canada pension plan. That is why we have an independent chief actuary to give us the numbers. When that actuary warned finance officials that the CPP rate would have to climb above 10%, he was hauled on the carpet and it was suggested, and I suggest none too sweetly, that he change his report or else. Six days later he was out of a job.

Why did the finance minister allow his officials to pressure Mr. Dussault into changing the numbers on the CPP report?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. There is an interim chief actuary who has been appointed, Mr. Hakeman, who is extremely well qualified. In addition, the government has gone to the Institute of Actuaries and asked it to suggest names of people who would be able to conduct an independent review.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to watch the forces of extremism that this minister employs to protect his empire. The auditor general, for instance, says that his accounting practices are not right. He says that is too bad. When the actuary for the EI fund says to lower the rate to $2, he says no way. When the chief actuary for the CPP says that the numbers are wrong, he says too bad, you're fired.

Why keep Canadians in suspense? Since he is going to do whatever he wants anyway, why does the finance minister not just tell us, is the rate for the CPP 10%, 11%, or 12%? What has he decided today?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again to simply demonstrate the extent to which the hon. member is spouting nonsense, as the Minister of Human Resources Development and I confirmed the other day, a recommendation was made in terms of the EI premiums to the independent commission and the independent commission looked at that recommendation. It then made a recommendation which the government accepted.

Poverty

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

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

In 1989, the Canadian parliament unanimously adopted a resolution to completely eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Now, thanks to the nice job done by the government, there are 60% more poor children in Canada than in 1989.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that, given his massive cuts to employment insurance and to the unemployed, he is the primary responsible for child poverty in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a demagogic exercise about an issue as important as that of child poverty in our country.

We took office in 1993. We faced an extremely difficult situation. Child poverty is a problem about which we care a great deal, and this is why we introduced, as part of the employment insurance program, the family income supplement, specifically for children. We also negotiated with provinces a national child benefit, which came into effect in 1998 and whose impact will be felt—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Mississauga West has the floor.

Status Of Women

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.

Even as we sit in this House, somewhere in Canada women are being scalded with boiling water, burned, strangled, bludgeoned or beaten, often to death. In the nine years since the brutal murders of 14 young women in Montreal galvanized this nation, can the minister honestly tell this House that there has been any progress at all in the fight to stop violence against women?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, many governments have taken a great deal of action over the years to end violence against women. But we know it is not enough. That is why this summer in Iqaluit the federal and provincial status of women ministers came together and declared that it is time for all governments to cross political barriers, as well as federal and provincial barriers, and take comprehensive and co-ordinated action to end this.

Their proposal is based on five clear principles. To live without violence is a right, not a privilege. Violence is not a private matter, it is a criminal matter.

Social Union

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in a 48-hour period, this government's response to the social union has gone from opposing it to supporting it and back to opposing it, from a willingness to compromise to refusing to compromise. This government has more positions than the Kama Sutra .

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

In an effort to determine the government position, I ask the Prime Minister whether this government is really sincere in negotiating a social union agreement.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

I would like to have a motion for details, Mr. Speaker. I am no expert in the matter.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I respectfully suggest that the hon. member switch books.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will emphasize the positions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in August the premiers made their negotiations public. The federal government responded 30 days later but unlike the provinces, it has kept its response secret.

What is in the government's response that makes it feel it cannot share it with Canadians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are negotiating with the provinces at this time. We are making some progress.

For more details on the other problem, I will inquire when I visit Japan, sooner or later.

Highways

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to switch topics, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

The auditor general said that in 1993 to 1997 the federal government spent some $1.06 billion on highways. Three Liberal provinces received some 66% of that money while my province of Saskatchewan got only 3% and the west some 11.2%.

Why this shortcoming for my province and western Canada? Is it because we do not elect Liberals in the west?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, there were payments made to the member's province and other western provinces under the western grain transportation fund. There is of course the fact that money has lapsed in the highway funding for Manitoba and provinces west. This is something that has to be addressed at some point in time. That accounts for some of the differences. There were longer term commitments for some of the eastern provinces that were made before this government ever came to power.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, then why in the next six years is the Department of Transport going to spend $988 million on highways but only 1.34% of that goes to the west?

I want the minister to explain why the west, with 30% of the population and a large geography, is only getting 1.34%. Why are we getting this highway robbery in western Canada?