Debates of Sept. 24th, 1998

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Minister of Finance this week proposed to his cabinet colleagues that they circumvent the Employment Insurance Act in order to be able to use the huge annual surpluses of $6 billion for purposes other than employment insurance.

In so doing, is the Minister of Finance not simply seeking to legalize the misappropriation of employment insurance surplus funds in which he has been involved for several years now?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to look at the government's record for the past several years.

When the previous government came in, its intention was to raise the employment insurance contribution rate to $3.30. We froze it at $3.07. Every year since then, we have decreased employment insurance contributions. Last year, we brought them down 20 cents. As well, we did away with employment insurance contributions for those under the age of 25.

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

Mr. Speaker, can the minister deny that the siphoning-off operation he has been involved in for a number of years, and which he plans to continue, will have to be considered illegal, if he does not soon make a quite substantial cut to EI premiums?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has choices to make, and make them we will.

The choice of the Bloc Quebecois is to decrease taxes and increase spending, or in other words to ensure that Canada will again fall into a deficit position. That is not our choice.

Canada Pension Plan

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister said Bernard Dussault was fired over “management issues”. This is a public servant with an impeccable record as Canada's chief actuary for the last seven years.

I have a question for the minister. Was the decision to fire him now related in any way to his forthcoming report on the solvency of the Canada pension plan?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has already answered that question. He has said that the answer to that question was no.

Let us be very clear. The Minister of Finance was not involved in the decision and did not make the decision.

I would simply ask: Is the Reform Party saying that the Minister of Finance ought to hire and ought to fire the chief actuary? Is it saying that we ought to have the politicization of the finest public servants in the world?

I hope that is not the case, because that is not what the government would do.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is accountable to the House for the Canada pension plan. He is in charge, not Mr. Palmer.

We want to know what the finance minister knew about this. He said already that he knew ahead of time that there were management problems. Surely he does not expect us to believe that he did not bother to inquire as to the nature of those problems, and we now need to know what the nature of those problems were. If he does not know then what is he doing in that chair?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, of course I knew that there were management difficulties between the superintendent and the chief actuary. It is within the Department of Finance but I was not involved in the decision.

The whole world knows that there is chaos and management difficulties within the Reform caucus, but I am not going to deal with it.

Scrapie

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food.

The minister has already ordered the slaughtering of 11,000 sheep in Quebec, in an effort to eliminate scrapie, and it appears that thousands more will be destroyed without any further assessment.

Should the Minister of Agriculture not suspend the slaughtering and assess the situation, along with the producers and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, before taking any further action?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as I said the other day and as I will continue to say, we are certainly not pleased that we have to do what we are doing in order to move to the eradication of a reportable disease in our livestock herd.

It is a reportable disease in the world and it is important that we eliminate it from our livestock herd. When we do so, we compensate the producers for the loss of the animal and we pay for the disposal of the animal.

We are working with the industry to make this as easy as possible for producers. I again ask for the co-operation of the Quebec government in doing so.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that, if Quebec's best sheep producers are facing such a serious situation, it is because their flocks were infected by animals from the federal experimental farm, in Lennoxville?

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I correct the hon. member. There has been no proof of the statement she just made.

I also remind her that in the last three years the government has given the province of Quebec $200 million to assist in the farm safety net income program in Quebec. Had it used that in the same manner as other provinces have used theirs, it would have been able to assist its producers in Quebec.

Employment Insurance

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the EI commission is about to force the government to lower EI premiums.

It appears the Minister of Finance does not want to let his golden goose get killed quite yet. He is planning on changing the law to allow him to keep fleecing the multi-billion dollar EI surplus.

The finance minister talks about choices. I ask him to make the right choice today and say that he will not change the law, that he will comply with the EI commission and that he will lower EI premiums? Will he do it today?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to an early question, the government has reduced the premiums each and every year since we took office. Not only that. In the last budget we eliminated the premiums for companies that were to hire young Canadians. It is important to understand that is the principle the government has followed and will continue to follow.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows very well that there is about $6 billion over the allowed surplus which he can make a decision today to put toward lowering EI premiums. Incidentally that will spur the economy, will create jobs and will make Canadian workers and businesses a lot happier. Let us make the right choice today.

Does the finance minister intend to comply with the directive of the EI commission to use that surplus to once again lower EI premiums? Yes or no.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning when the country had its back to the wall we eliminated the deficit by following a balanced approach. That balanced approach involved the reduction of EI premiums, the lowering of taxes, spending in areas which were important for the country's future, and the lowering of debt.

That is a program that has worked and will continue to work. We will stay the course.

Canadian Economy

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just went through three consecutive months of economic slowdown. The composite index shows a zero rate of growth for August. Companies' backlogs of orders are dwindling. Bankruptcies are on the rise. Employment in commercial services is down. Forecasts for 1999 are being revised downward.

How many more indicators of this type does the Minister of Finance need to get his head out of the sand and to quickly table a special budget providing for tax cuts and an increase in social transfers to the provinces?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I think that we should simply consult the experts. Allow me to quote one of them: “To state things clearly, we must not panic but maintain the discipline that we worked so hard to acquire in recent years. Otherwise, we would very quickly find ourselves with an even weaker currency, higher interest rates, lower investments and higher unemployment.” That is what Ken Courtis, the chief economist of the Deutsche Bank, said. The hon. member is suggesting we go back to a deficit position. But that is not our intention.

Agriculture

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Canadian trucks carrying appropriately traded agricultural products continue to encounter unwarranted inspection and delay at some U.S. state borders.

What action is the minister prepared to take to put a stop to this situation and stop it now?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the secretary of agriculture for the United States debriefed our ambassador on last evening's special cabinet session in Washington. Regrettably the response was simply not good enough.

As a result, in consultation with the minister of agriculture as well as the minister responsible for the wheat board, and effective at 2 p.m., Canada has given official notice to both the United States and to the WTO that we will be seeking remedy as a first step through NAFTA and the WTO, and that we have every expectation to resolve this issue once and for all.

The Senate

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for days now we have been asking the justice minister about the Alberta Senate election but she just lies still and lets the Prime Minister attack Alberta. If she sits so idly by while he is attacking us in public, I can only guess how she is selling Albertans short in private.

I would like to ask the justice minister today, if she is allowed to answer, just what is it under section 24 of the Constitution that she is objecting to that she will not support and respect the Alberta Senate election.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I know we have been away for a little while so we may have forgotten that questions are actually posed to the government and anyone on the government benches may answer them.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in the House for some time. She must know that it is not proper to ask the Minister of Justice to provide a legal opinion. That is why obviously she is declining to answer the hon. member's question and she does not have to answer it.

In any event, I do not know why in the name of democracy, the hon. member is asking for approval of undemocratic conduct, electing somebody for life without any accountability, without any need to return to the people and see whether the so-called elected senator is to be returned.

Why does the hon. member not take a stand for democracy rather than supporting this truly undemocratic process if we look at it right to the bottom?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, frankly I had never guessed that an election might be undemocratic. Forgive me.

I would like to ask the government again about how it always resorts to section 24 of the constitution. There is absolutely nothing in section 24 of the constitution which does not support an election. There is nothing either that says that the prime minister has to be directly involved.

I would like to ask the justice minister who is from Alberta why she will not stand up and support and represent Alberta in our Senate election, which is legal, on October 19.