Debates of Sept. 28th, 1998

Veterans Affairs

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I met with the veterans shortly after they arrived on the steps of the House of Commons and I discussed the situation with them.

In particular, I was concerned about their health and welfare so I described the amenities that were available for their sustenance on this strike.

The hon. member knows that legislation passed in 1992 gives these veterans exactly the same benefits as armed forces veterans to recognize the tremendous contribution they made to the freedom and security of this country.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in April the minister at the committee meeting stated that he would be bringing in a new bill to make them equal, probably by the end of June. It is almost October and we have not seen it.

This minister and this government have squandered enough taxpayer money to compensate the surviving merchant navy veterans several times over. The cancellation of the Pearson airport deal cost taxpayers over a billion dollars, enough to compensate 53,500 vets. There are only 2,300 of them.

When will this minister have the courage to compensate these vets if they have—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the legislation that was passed was not retroactive. She also knows the legislation gives these veterans exactly the same benefits she is asking for.

I wrote her a seven page letter on August 12, explaining her 40 points. If she wants to know any more, she has to go back to her Conservative cronies because it was they who passed the bill.

Canada Pension Plan

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the finance minister protested loud and long that there was no political interference with the work of the chief actuary of Canada.

Was the minister aware of the high level gag committee chaired by his assistant deputy minister that was set up to censor the work of Mr. Dussault for “political sensitivity”?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no gag committee. Given the changes and the establishment of an independent fund within the Canada pension plan, it is incumbent on the provinces and the federal government to work together to basically determine new ways of operating, ways that are really open to all the provinces.

Let me simply say one thing. There is no doubt that the chief actuary's reports will be available to all the provinces and to all Canadians. There will be no blockages or inefficiencies placed in the way of Canadians or provinces dealing—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on June 4 in a letter to the province of Ontario, Canada's chief actuary wrote that requests for actuarial estimates on Canadians' pension plan “are now channelled through and reviewed by a case review committee which is responsible for determining whether the request must be disregarded on account of its political sensitivity”.

How can the minister pretend the chief actuary is independent when the government's censors are controlling the information he gives out?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat there will be no blockage or obstacle placed in the way of provinces or Canadians dealing with the chief actuary.

Second, I understand that the superintendent of financial institutions has indicated that he will be available to meet with the media later this week to discuss all these issues.

Third, a subcommittee has been struck by the House of Commons finance committee to look at all these issues and the superintendent would be delighted to appear before it.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to be having trouble deciding whether to use EI surpluses to lower premiums and help contributors, or to lower taxes generally. It appears to be leaning toward the second course of action.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does he realize that, by opting for a general tax reduction, he would have decided to slough off the cost of the tax break for everyone, including the rich, on those earning $39,000 and less, which is complete nonsense?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what I realize is that, by lowering taxes, we will be easing the burden for the elderly, who are living on a fixed income and do not derive any benefit from reduced EI premiums.

There will be a tax decrease for self-employed workers who do not benefit from reduced EI premiums.

I put the following question to the hon. member: Since he has put the two choices on the table, will he have the courage to tell us which he would favour?

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

Mr. Speaker, I take the side of the most disadvantaged and the middle-income earners of this country, because of the $37 billion in taxes the minister has wrung out of them.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

They do not have boats to sell.

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

Is the Minister of Finance telling us that he will do everything in his power to change the Employment Insurance Act so that it is legal to take the money of unemployed workers and low-income earners and use it to lower the taxes of the richest members of Canadian society?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for the hon. member to get so worked up.

The question is this: Is he in favour of lowering taxes for the middle class and the most disadvantaged members of society? Is he in favour—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

—of other investments in health for the provinces and to help the middle class, or does he want to make empty speeches?

Apec Summit

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general loves to tell us that the public complaints commission is going to get to the bottom of the APEC affair. Under that commission it has been demanded that protester Jones release between 800 and 1,200 documents to the public complaints commission, including private correspondence even with his girlfriend.

By contrast, the Prime Minister's office has released one thin binder. Are we to believe a 33 year old student protester has more documentation on this than the Prime Minister?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member, after all of last week, will understand that the public complaints commission is the instrument that has been established by parliament to get to the truth. I think most Canadians would appreciate allowing it the opportunity to find that truth, as that is ultimately what we are all after.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to be very candid, I do not believe the solicitor general is interested in getting to the bottom of this affair. I believe he is blocking it by using the public complaints commission.

How is it that a 33 year old student has more documentation demanded of him by the public complaints commission than the Prime Minister to this point has revealed? How can he explain that this is not a cover-up by the Prime Minister's office?

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I do want to get to the truth and I think most people are aware of that. The instrument to do that is the PCC.

On the question of availability, the PCC makes the decisions as to where to get its information. It is its job to get to the truth and it will get there.

Employment Insurance

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

While the Prime Minister is literally up to his neck in the employment insurance fund surplus, everyone is denouncing the contribution rate, which is far in excess of needs. By artificially maintaining employer and employee contributions at a high level, is the Minister of Finance aware that he is directly harming job creation, as well as slowing economic growth considerably?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, allow me to offer my congratulations, and those of my colleagues I am sure, to the hon. member on his election.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I understand that the hon. member is brand new, and therefore perhaps not familiar with all the facts.

When we came to power, as the hon. member will learn, contributions were about to be raised to $3.30. We froze them at the $3.17 level, and have brought them down every year since then. Last year we cut them by $1.5 billion.