House of Commons Hansard #91 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, only 36% of the unemployed in Canada now qualify for benefits. Things have been going from bad to worse since the Liberals took office.
Does the Minister of Finance, who always makes fine-sounding speeches in response to our questions, not realize that the thousands of jobless people who no longer qualify for benefits cannot feed their children with the minister's rhetoric or statistics?
Bob Nault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the member that the benefit to the unemployed ratio has gone up in this last month. The reason why it is going up is that more people are qualifying for benefits. Yes, there are fewer people on benefits for a number of reasons.
As the Minister of Finance has said, we have created over a million new jobs since the government came into office. Unemployment is going down substantially since we came into power in 1993. As sure as I stand here, the unemployment will continue to go down with the kind of policies we are implementing.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, in regions like the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, more than 40% of young people are unemployed and the vast majority of them do not receive any benefits.
Could the Minister of Finance, who is good at pocketing money but not so good at answering questions, come down from his ivory tower and explain to the thousands of penniless young people that, this year, he will pocket over $6 billion in surplus from the employment insurance fund?
Bob Nault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my hon. colleagues that obviously the BU ratio is bothering the government, bothering people of all persuasions, this side and that side.
When we implemented the EI act, that is the reason we brought in a process of monitoring reports every year to look at the changes under the new EI system.
There has been one monitoring report so far. There are another five to go. When those monitoring reports come forward we will be able to tell the government and the people of Canada just why it is that certain changes are working or not working.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Income Tax Act is bigger than the average phone book. It is so complicated that every year more Canadians just throw their hands in the air and hire professional help to file their taxes.
Under the Liberals the tax act probably needs only two lines. Line one, how much do you make? Line two, send it in.
Canadians pay the highest income taxes in the G-7. Is that why the finance minister is smiling?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were following what is happening at Revenue Canada he would understand that we are streamlining. We are simplifying the administration. Up to eight million Canadians can file their tax returns right over the phone. We are trying to improve. We are trying to simplify and make it easier for people to file their tax returns.
I know it is very difficult for a lot of Reformers to follow the tax form. I am sure we have volunteers who can help them do that this year.
Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I guess streamlining means that the size of the phone book goes from the size of the Toronto area to the size of the Edmonton area.
When tough questions come up the Liberals will try anything to avoid answering them. It would be great if Canadian business owners could register their companies in the Bahamas to avoid high taxes. But for most Canadians that is not an option.
Again, why do we pay the highest personal income taxes of the G-7?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the total burden that any taxpayer in any country has to pay we have to look at all. As an example, our payroll taxes are substantially lower than the G-7 average. In fact, they are lower than in the United States.
It is true that we want to bring personal income taxes down and we did so in the last budget; 83% of Canadians saw the 3% surtax eliminated and 400,000 Canadians are no longer paying taxes. We have made it very clear that as a result of the increasing fiscal dividend we will return that money back into the pockets—
Maurice Dumas Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, today the government was caught in an undeniable inconsistency.
While the Minister of Canadian Heritage is subsidizing the Canadian book industry to the tune of $30 million, the Minister of Finance is pocketing over $120 million by charging GST on books.
On this World Book Day, can the Minister of Finance tell us when he will finally get around to abolishing the GST on books?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, we have put subsidies in place to support literacy in Canada and help Canadians learn to read.
If provinces, for instance the Atlantic provinces, want to reduce the tax on books, they have a right to do so.
The tax on books was imposed by the previous government, but that money is being used to help Canadians learn to read.
Carmen Provenzano Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The United States has continuously relied on Canada as an ally in international disputes. Yet as quick as the Americans are to call on us for assistance, they long delay in giving Canada an exemption to the United States' invasive new entry laws.
Will the minister advise if the U.S. government has offered any explanation for its delay in acting on this matter which is of great importance to my riding of Sault Ste. Marie and all Canadians?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. member and his constituents. It is important to point out that it is a concern expressed by many Americans on the other side of the border. This is a matter of mutual concern.
Through our efforts at our embassy in Washington we have been able to organize a very broad based collaboration. One of the results of that is that right now there is an amendment to Section 110 of the U.S. immigration Act before the judiciary committee of the Senate. We hope to see its eventual passage.
We had very intensive discussions with Secretary of State Albright when she was here. We intend to follow up very shortly. I can assure the hon. member that we will exercise every possible effort to ensure that we keep an open border.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, all members of this House certainly support the use of vaccines and other protective measures against chemical and biological threats to our military personnel. However, we also want to ensure the safety of these vaccines. Since the American manufacturer of the anthrax vaccine was cited for violations by the food and drug administration over a year ago, did the Department of National Defence conduct an independent inspection of the vaccine before it was issued to Canadian troops?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the vaccine is safe. It has been re-tested. It was re-tested before I took it myself. I did take it myself and our troops did as well. It was provided for them for their own safety and it is keeping them safe.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, it would be a matter of opinion as to whether the minister suffers any ill effects from the vaccine. I think the minister should get a second opinion.
Health Canada granted the department permission to use the anthrax vaccine. Before it was granted that permission, was Health Canada aware that the food and drug administration in the United States forced the production plant to shut down because of these safety concerns?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to offer the hon. member a vaccine that may do him some good.
There has been re-testing. This matter has been properly looked into. The vaccine is safe and has been administered to our personnel to safeguard them.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, with this government's changes to EI, plant workers and fishers in New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces no longer qualify for benefits.
This is crab fishing season and the government is taking its time coming up with a plan for the fishery. These plant workers and fishers have no income and are waiting for the government to wake up.
Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ready to unveil his fishery plan today, with the same agreement that was in place last year for plant workers and fishers, i.e. the solidarity fund?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, the plan for gulf crabbers will soon be in place.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of plant workers and fishers, I thank the minister.
This government always waits until it is too late before taking action. Thanks to the Liberals' reform, 64% of the unemployed people in the country did not receive benefits in 1997. What has the government done? It has done the same thing it did in the case of the fishery, which is to say it has dragged its feet. Is it waiting for another fishery crisis?
My question is for the Prime Minister. With a surplus of close to $20 billion, is the government going to put an end to the social catastrophe it has created and review EI eligibility criteria?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, in 1997, we had a co-management agreement with south gulf crabbers. This agreement provides for a percentage split with non-crabbers in order to help the traditional fleet achieve a break-even point. Each year, the size of their share depends on the price and the size of the TAC.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, I want you to listen carefully to this one. If you were infected with hepatitis C on December 31, 1985, you would not be eligible for compensation. However, as crazy as it seems, but it is unfortunately the truth, if you were infected one day later, on January 1, 1986, you would be eligible.
Simply put, how can the minister stand in this place and defend such a bogus compensation package?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the ministers of health of Canada looked at this situation, made a difficult decision and said that the principle of who should be paid cash or compensation should be determined by who was infected at a time when it was avoidable, if we had acted as we should have.
Every commentator who knows about this chronology, who looked at it, has said that the beginning of 1986 was the time when we could have taken steps to avoid the infection. Before that it was a risk in the system, like all the other risks people face. That is what sets the period apart.
In answer to the member's question—