House of Commons Hansard #110 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, that don't worry, be happy, somebody else is minding the store attitude of the minister shows that he has not learned a thing from the Krever inquiry.
If the albumin meets Canadian standards, why is the government still importing it under the emergency measures? The minister refuses to inspect and test its unlicensed albumin. Why not enforce the Canadian law, inspect the sites, test the samples, trace the lot, and just enforce the law?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the reason the Alpha product is being permitted into Canada under the special access provision is that all the licensed importers are out of product. Physicians have come to Health Canada and said “Please let us use this product”, even though they do not have a licensed importer. We looked at the product and it has been approved, as the Americans approved it.
The question is, is it safe? The authorities have examined it. They have applied standards and they have said it should be approved. That is the issue, not whether the product is licensed. Products are not licensed. They are either approved or not approved and this product has been approved.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I just heard the Minister of Finance say that he had created jobs in health care and education. I would like to tell that to all the doctors and nurses who have had to leave our part of the country and go to the United States to work.
We have been asking the finance minister to stop taxing jobs by keeping EI premiums higher than needed for two years. Back in my riding we have the highest unemployment rate that we have had in 30 years.
The EI fund is not supposed to be used to pad the government's books. Now that the EI surplus is at least $12 billion, will the government reduce this job killing tax to $2 today?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I hate to point this out to the hon. member, but in fact when the previous Conservative government took office from the Liberals the rate was at $2. I hate to do this but in 1989 under the Tories the rate was $1.95. In 1990 it went up to $2.25. Then it went up to $2.80. Then it went up to $3. When we took office it was going up to $3.30 and we would not let it happen. That is why it is at $2.70 today.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. finance minister that when we were in power we had 4,000 people working at the shipyard and now we do not have people working at the shipyard. We just lost Atlantic Sugar a week ago.
I want to say to the minister that the government's own actuary has said that the EI premiums need not be any higher than $2. Media reports indicate that government officials are saying that the finance minister will have to amend the EI act if he wants to keep padding the books at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers.
Is that what the minister is planning to do, or will he cut those premiums and put more money back in the pockets—
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate to have to correct the historical record, but in fact when the hon. member's party was last in power there was a deficit in the unemployment insurance fund of $6 billion.
I would also like to point out that in the Canadian economy over one million jobs were created in the last four years. In the last three years of the Tory regime there were over 200,000 jobs lost in the Canadian economy.
Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, in fact the only thing left in the $15 billion EI surplus is an IOU from the finance minister. Today when asked if he felt good about ripping off the surplus from Canadian business and workers he said that we have choices to make.
Why does the finance minister think it is such a good choice to continue ripping off business workers in the EI surplus when he knows very well that these payroll taxes are killing jobs and killing investment in this country?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, every year since we have been in office we have cut those premiums. We have demonstrated our desire to do so.
The choices have to be made. The one the Reform Party ought to face up to is that you cannot do everything at once and at the same time make sure that the country's books stay in the black.
I ask the hon. member when he stands up on his preamble, would he not have cut taxes? Would he not have put money back into the Canadian health and social transfer? Would he not have put more money back into education? Would he not have eliminated the deficit?
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, human resources bungling cost taxpayers $1 million and Newfoundlanders 124 jobs when the BPS call centre went belly up. Now we have learned that the $1 million earmarked for company salaries did not even get to the employees. The Newfoundland government is picking up the tab.
Since the minister is forcing taxpayers to pay twice for jobs that no longer exist, why will he not tell us where the money went?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, I have never heard of this particular case that taxpayers would be paying twice for jobs. This is a very vague and ambiguous question. I will look into the particular case.
I can tell the member that the transitional job fund has created thousands of very good and solid jobs in difficult regions in Canada. We are very proud of having created those jobs all over the country. I am very sorry that those members are not happy to see a government that is investing in helping unemployed Canadians to go back to work. That is what Canadians expect of us.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, when we raise questions about the dramatic drop in employment insurance benefits, the Minister of Human Resources Development says he has compensated for the drop by adding active measures directly linked to the transitional jobs fund.
Will the minister confirm that, despite his fine words and his promises, there is not one cent left for Quebec in the transitional jobs fund?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, the transitional jobs fund is clearly an extremely popular program that has created thousands of jobs in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
It is a transitional fund intended to last three years, that is, until March 31, 1999. It is to be expected that funds lasting until March 31, 1999 will be committed now, if they are to be spent by March 31, 1999.
The funds are committed, but they have not yet all been spent. They will be spent over the coming months until March 31, 1999.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, did the minister just confirm that a meeting was recently held for the heads of employment centres, where they were told that the fund that was supposed to last until 1999 has already dried up and will remain dry until 1999?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, what I said was that there are $300 million in the transitional fund, $95 million or 30% of which is for Quebec and has to last until March 31, 1999.
It is committed at the moment, because, understandably, if we want to spend it by March 31, 1999, we have to make commitments. There is nevertheless some manoeuvring room, because the costs of projects are sometimes less than forecast. So there is some flexibility, but less so at the end of the program than at its start. This is how responsible management works, generally.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, we managed to chase Andrew Thompson out of the Senate last fall, but it looks like Allan MacEachen just does not know when to leave. Legally he should have retired two years ago when he turned 75 years old, but we find out now that he is on Parliament Hill. He has an office, computers and free government telephone services. Surely 12 years is enough at the Senate trough.
I ask the Prime Minister, when will the Liberal Party pay back the taxpayers of Canada for this—
The SenateOral Question Period
The Speaker
The question is out of order.
The hon. member for Roberval.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development recognized that his government had deliberately made it harder for young people to qualify for employment insurance, so that they will stay in school.
The minister claims in all seriousness that the government made cuts to the employment insurance program for the good of young people.
My question to the Minister of Human Resources Development is this: Is it truly his government's intention, through its employment insurance reform, to deny benefits to three out of four young people, so as to force them to go back to school?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, we are also giving an insurance premium holiday to any business that will hire young people, in an effort to help young Canadians enter the workforce. That too is part of the employment insurance reform.
What I said yesterday is that we, on this side of the House, have ambitions for our young people. We want them to have access to the labour market, and we know that this will be achieved through greater skills and knowledge.
What I said yesterday is that, when it is too easy to get EI benefits, this becomes an incentive to—
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem to understand that these young people have worked, paid premiums and are thus entitled to employment insurance benefits, whether he likes it or not.
Does the minister not find it unacceptable that young people who decide to enter the job market and who unfortunately lose their jobs are forced to go back to school because the minister says so? If these young people are not entitled to employment insurance benefits, why does the minister make them pay premiums?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, if young people are not eligible for employment insurance benefits, it is precisely because they have not yet entered the labour market. This is obvious.
Pierre Pettigrew Liberal Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC
The fact of the matter is that those who have not accumulated the required hours of work do not qualify. I think that when—