Debates of Sept. 25th, 1998

Apec Summit

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing to do is check the accuracy of the hon. member's assertions. It will likely turn out that they have no more value than what she wrongly asserted yesterday.

Canada Pension Plan

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the top watchdog of the employment insurance fund sent an e-mail to all of his buddy actuarials around the country defending the former actuary of the Canada pension plan and calling for EI premiums to be reduced: “The simple way to return the UI surplus would be to just drop premiums which would help to offset the rising CPP costs”.

Could the minister of HRD tell us today whether the government is planning to fire the top expert of the EI fund for telling the truth the way it fired his colleague for the Canada pension plan? Is he going to be fired?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, when we took office the deficit was $42 billion. EI premiums were going to $3.30. We capped them at $3.07. Since then we have had four consecutive reductions in the EI premiums.

In the last budget they went from $2.90 down to $2.70. This represented a $1.4 billion decrease in EI premiums. We have had additional tax decreases. In the last budget we began the process—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having the secretary of state not have an answer.

The finance minister has made it clear that he wants to spend the surplus EI fund. There is absolutely no question about it. He wants new funding for new projects for the Liberal government and he wants it perhaps to pave the way for the leadership. Will the government give those dollars back to the employees or is he going to fire the person who suggested that they go back to the employees?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we have been on a course whereby we have consistently reduced EI premiums. This is a question of choice. In three and a half years we have gone from a $42 billion deficit to a surplus budget. At the same time we have chosen to reinvest in those most deserving in our country, the disabled, children living below the poverty line, working families with low incomes, the charitable sector, the voluntary sector.

We have chosen a balanced approach for paying down the debt—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Wanuskewin.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, all week long the finance minister has pompously claimed that he does not politically interfere in the work of the chief actuary of the Canada pension plan.

The truth of the matter is there was major political interference. A special committee was established to deny requests for information if thought to be politically sensitive.

Why did the finance minister allow his department to establish a special committee to gag the chief actuary? Mr. Dussault objected to this political interference. Is this not the real reason why he was fired?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the superintendent of financial institutions has made it very clear that this was a difference of management styles within his own department.

If what the hon. member is saying is that individual members in our public service should have the right to determine who they report to, no matter who, and that issue should not be set by management within the public service, then that would be a—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, when the question is asked I believe we should give the person who is asked the question a chance to respond. I appeal to you to please, if at all possible, keep your voices down so we can hear.

I am sorry to interrupt. There is still some time if you would like to complete your response.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just as I accede to your jurisdiction in the Chamber, this is what happened in this particular case. Individuals within the public service have to be responsible to their superiors within the public service. We would not interfere with that.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, even after giving the hon. member two chances to answer the question, he still failed to answer the question.

Management style is not the issue. The chief actuary is supposed to be independent. Finance officials wanted him to compromise that independence.

I ask again, and this time we would really like the answer, which has nothing to do with management styles, isn't the real reason he was fired because he refused to sell out to finance department officials?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the press release of the office of the superintendent of financial institutions: “Mr. Bernard Dussault at OSFI has been terminated. This action follows a long period of continued differences between Mr. Dussault and OSFI management. These differences have been over issues of management style and do not in any way touch on the professional work of Mr. Dussault or his staff on any actuarial projections or opinions.

The people charged with running those departments are independent professional public servants and have the right, independent of the political arm of government, to make management decisions. It was their decision. It was not ours.

Employment Insurance

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

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

The Minister of Finance indicates that his government is preparing to sink its claws into the employment insurance fund surplus, and thus to divert billions of dollars from its intended purpose, which is to ensure earnings for those who lose their jobs.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if it is indeed his intention to table a motion suspending part of the legislation, the part concerning determination of the contribution rate, yes or no?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, with the deficit problems we experienced in 1993, steps had to be taken. At the same time, we decreased employment insurance contributions every year. We decreased them over four years, with a freeze the first year. Every 10 cents of contribution costs us in revenue more than—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go through you, if I may, to wake up the Minister of Human Resources Development, and to ask him whether he is going to get up and announce to us that he is going to ensure that the employment insurance fund is not going to be misused and if he is going to be the defender of the unemployed. Yes or no?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, what is done with federal revenues is really a matter of choice. For our part, we have adopted a balanced program, which is to balance the debt, decrease taxes, and invest for the economic and social future of Canadians.

That is the same thing we had to do—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

But we had such a nice day yesterday. The hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is showing utter contempt for the laws that govern the EI surplus and he is showing utter contempt for hardworking Canadians.

Because he cannot get his hands on the money legally, he is simply going to change the law, something like Jesse James making bank robbery legal.

[The Speaker]

A little too far. I ask the member to put his question right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, why is the finance minister so intent on ripping off Canadian workers and employees? Why is he so intent on being some sort of modern day version of Bonnie and Clyde?

[The Speaker]

I asked the member to tone down his language. I will permit the secretary of state to answer if he wants. If not, I will go on.