Debates of June 1st, 1998

Supply

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

This makes no sense at all.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

What this means is that the Minister of Finance, who said he wanted to reduce taxes, did not dare to make everyone pay, all those who do not necessarily earn income from a job, but from profits and speculation. They do not contribute. They benefit from the overall tax reduction, but they do not contribute.

Big corporations with their huge profits are not contributing either. The redistribution is done on the back of those earning $39,000 or less and the businesses who pay their salary. This is absurd. This is even borderline illegal. How do they explain to workers and SMEs that they are the ones carrying the load of economic stabilization and redistribution? There is something utterly illogical in there.

The finance minister says “Our clients are the underprivileged”. Since when should workers alone have to look after redistribution?

Again, even without touching the $12 billion surplus, there is still another $6 billion planned surplus. After paying everything, half of it could go to improving the plan and the other half to reducing contributions, particularly those of the SMEs.

The EI surplus must somehow bother the consciences of all my colleagues, including the Liberals. When the finance minister boasts he is redistributing, they conveniently forget that those who are paying for it are those who make $39,000 or less. Yes, workers are ready to do their part, and so are SMEs, but not alone.

It is illegal, scandalous, it does not make any sense, it is economically counter-productive. There are many questions which are not raised in this country, including why we do not seem to be able to eradicate high unemployment.

Canada is at the point where it will be at head of the pack when it comes to unemployment, and at the tail end with regard to social spending. Under this government, Canada will have the worst of both worlds.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Mercier for her speech. In the last session, she worked with us on Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. Clearly her heart is with the unemployed. She is still very much aware, she experiences it, she still talks about it and she moves us.

I wish she could continue. I imagine there is no point asking the House for unanimous consent to allow her to continue longer, but I will offer her time.

I would like the hon. member to educate the Liberals a little about the system, the $39,000, the cutoff point. Before it was $43,000. But I think there was something more hidden away in all that.

Was it not also to try to staunch the flow of money from out of the system, since now the limit is not $43,000 but $39,000. Is it not bad enough that the Liberals are double dipping?

On the one hand, they set up a procedure that costs them less and, on the other, they establish a limit. I would ask the hon. member to continue on this.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is drawing attention to is the fact that, prior to this reform, the maximum amount on which a worker could be required to contribute was $42,500. For some incomprehensible reason, the Minister of Finance cut that back to $39,000.

We asked the reason when we were in committee, with an approximate French translation, and the answer we got was that people earning between $39,000 and $42,500 did not make much use of employment insurance. What an answer. So the people paying into the program should be only those most likely to use it?

That is not all. The reform has surprised a lot of people, particularly many workers in new sectors. There are sectors that involve contract workers. People get hired for a set period of time, and can earn a fairly high income during that time. In the past, there was a weekly maximum on which deductions could be taken. Now, for such cases, there is no weekly ceiling. This means that a young person who earns $5,000 in one week, for instance, would have to pay EI on the entire amount.

Curiously, an older person working in another sector and earning $5,000 would have his deductions stop once $39,000 had been reached.

This comes pretty close to being illegal. I would not say it is a program that favours the middle wage-earners, but it is one intended to fill up the employment insurance coffers.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day or a week or a year or four years makes.

I remember not that long ago a government that sat in this House with a $6 billion deficit account in EI. That deficit account was of tremendous concern to every Canadian. Who was making the payments for that deficit account? It was clearly the Government of Canada. Just a few short years before that there was a surplus of $2 billion. What caused the change from a $2 billion surplus to a $6 billion debt? Obviously it is a cycle that does occur from time to time. It is a cycle of good employment, steady growth and then a downturn.

There is absolutely no question that the responsibility of government is to smooth out those tremendous downturns and peaks into some realistic form to make sure workers have fair and equitable treatment whether it is in a difficult time when many are laid off or when we are doing well.

We have established several programs to smooth out the cycle of work and the business practice changes in this country in order to make sure that is done. EI is one of those programs.

When I look back to 1993 and the economy at that time I did not hear Conservative members suggesting reductions in premiums. As a matter of fact, the premiums were at $3.07 and they were suggesting an increase at that time. They were suggesting that the premiums should rise to $3.25 or more.

[An hon. member]

$3.30.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

The parliamentary secretary points out that it was $3.30.

Had the right wing element of this House been elected there is absolutely no question that the premiums would have increased and the cost of business would have increased.

I also recall that we had a deficit of $42 billion at that time and the Reform Party, more than any other party, was clamouring that we should cut spending and make programs responsible. It said we should do the things that needed to be done to get this country back on a business scale that was reasonable. Yes, that is what it was suggesting. What would it have done with EI? We might not have an EI program in place today if the Reform Party had its way.

The EI program was very much in jeopardy, as well as the social programs in this country, from a to z . The Reform Party was clamouring for the government to cut and chop, cut and chop.

I recall the debate. Mr. Speaker, you were involved in that debate, so you can certainly recall it too. These fellows who are mourning today the fact that we have only cut EI premiums four times were saying we would have to increase those premiums and cut everything out from the support programs to make this government operate properly. They have totally reversed themselves.

I have been in the House for three years watching the Reform in opposition. I heard them say three years ago “Chop and burn. Slash and burn”. I remember Liberal government members saying “It is bad news. The slash and burn policies they are suggesting will destroy the economy of this country”. That was what the the finance minister said. I do not think anything could have been more true than his statement that slash and burn would do no good.

We had to set reasonable targets. We had to look at each program and deal with each program. We had to move the agenda ahead in a proper and orderly way.

In four years we took a $42 billion deficit and reduced it to zero. Why is the government being challenged today? It has had tremendous success. It has taken a program of overspending by $42 billion every year and reduced it to zero. It then, with the EI program, took a $6 billion deficit, turned it around and now there is a surplus. Building that surplus will cushion the unemployed, businesses and people who need support so that in the future when business plans change, when we run into a minor recession or when some other problem arises we will be prepared.

Liberals have always looked very carefully at what is happening in the economy at any specific time and have made certain that in good, solid years of business we do not bring in programs that will hurt people. Instead we plan for the future to guard against the difficulties that will come downstream. That is exactly what we are doing with the EI program. We are guarding against the potential of difficult times in the future.

Clearly it is very responsible to do that because so many businesses suffered so badly during the recession when the Mulroney Conservatives had to jack up the rates again and again because of the tough times.

They are in the House today, these Reformers who were the Tories. There is no question about that. This weekend in London their leader said “Unite the right, but call them Reform. Don't call them Tories”. That is interesting. Call them Reform and make Preston Manning the leader. He wants the old Conservative Party—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is an experienced member. He knows that he must not refer to an hon. member by name, but by constituency or title. I would invite him to do that.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I got so caught up in this that I went a little overboard.

However, the hon. leader of the Reform Party suggested that he wanted to unite the party. In other words, he wants to take the old right wing party, the Progressive Conservative Party, put in a new leader in, the present leader of the Reform Party, and call it the Reform Party.

I have some problems with that. I have some problems with how day by day, month by month, year by year the policies of the parties opposite change dramatically. There is good reason that has occurred.

When it comes right down to it, we have been extremely successful at turning the economy of this country around. We have been extremely responsible in our actions toward small business, in our actions toward business in general in this country and in our actions toward preparing for any problems in the future. We are not leaving it to chance, pulling the support out and running at a full run.

Can anyone think of any reason the finance minister of this country would be prepared to do anything that would not be beneficial to the business of this country? Clearly he is working. He is consulting. He is getting input from people right across this country on a regular basis.

He knows that the smoother the ride the better the opportunities will be for business to compete. The better prepared workers are for any ups or downs in the economy, the better off this country will be. Stability is really the key.

Our finance minister has brought stability to this country. He has stabilized our finances so that other countries are now looking at Canada and saying “What a remarkable transition. What a remarkable change has occurred”.

Canada was really at the bottom of the G-7 as far as its economic outlook and prosperity for the future because of its spending. We are now envied by everyone. Canada was struggling, but we now have a positive, well-prepared structure for the future.

The Prime Minister pointed out just a short time ago, before we eliminated the deficit, to all members of the House that governing gets tougher and tougher as we pay down the debt, as we pay down the deficit and move toward the situation where we have positive moneys coming in because quickly the opposition will latch on to spending. That is what I am hearing now. The opposition is saying that we should spend, cut taxes and do things which will alter the whole economic structure of this country.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the time will be expiring at 6.30 p.m. I wonder if the hon. member would give me one minute or 30 seconds for a question.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the intervention quite incredible because I have never had a Reform member give me time to speak. If that is a practice of the House, it is an interesting practice, but I have some issues that I want to bring forward and I believe I have 15 minutes to bring them forward. Now I am being asked to cut my time to 10 minutes and to give part of my time to the opposition.

Quite frankly, they have spoken all day. They have had all kinds of speakers up. If they have omitted something, I am not going to relinquish my time in order to give them extra time.

Let us look at where we are with our EI reforms. We have modernized the system and we have made it far more fair to everyone. In reality the thrust in this country has to be to create more jobs, to do things to get people to work and not to focus on unemployment totally. We must focus on job creation because that runs hand in hand with EI.

EI premiums have been talked about a tremendous amount today. But let us look at the other programs the government has put in place to support business and to help business down the line.

The new hires program very clearly makes an issue out of what is happening in this country. We have actually given businesses who are going to hire youth between the ages of 18 and 24 a premium year off so they will not have to pay those extra premiums.

We have made benefits available to women who are among the largest number of part time workers in this country and we have extended the plan to 68% of the people who were not eligible for benefits before. We have extended our programs. We have tried to do everything we can to give the worker the best opportunity.

Quite frankly, when we look at programs for youth and the programs that we have put in place to help them, they were not the people who got major support from EI programs, but we are certainly doing what we can to get jobs for the young people of this country.

We have done what we can to make sure that women, who form the major part of the part time workforce in this country, will benefit from the opportunities in the EI program.

We are building a fund which will make certain that there will be stability for those people who will need stability when they are laid off. We have downsizing, company changes and an EI support fund that is in a positive economic position that will be able to help those people in the future.

We have made certain we are not going to take small business down a trail of pumping up its rates when there is a turnaround in the economy. These are the kinds of measures the finance minister and the government have taken to make certain there is stability, a level playing field for everybody and fairness for all those in the system. The fairness issue is extremely important.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being 6.30 p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Parks Canada Act

[The Speaker]

We will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-29. The question is on Motion No. 1.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 182

[The Speaker]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken on Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 3.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker]

I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 4.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.

[The Speaker]

Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote no to this motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members oppose this motion.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote yes to this motion.