Debates of Sept. 28th, 1998

Employment Insurance

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I may be brand new here, but I am capable of reading the act and of realizing that it is illegal to divert the employment insurance surplus.

Instead of looking for ways to do what the legislation forbids him to do, why does the minister not simply lower contributions? That is what small and medium sized business wants.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member spent a little more time here, he would know that, last year for example, we put $50 million into helping small and medium sized businesses, to help these businesses with the millennium bug problem. That we have a tax deduction for small and medium sized businesses, from which they benefit, instead of big business.

That, between 1980 and 1987, we lowered employment insurance contributions only for them, and that last year we eliminated contributions for young people, the bulk of whom are hired by—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Skeena.

Indian Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, six months ago after the department of Indian affairs breached Bruce Starlight's confidentiality and privacy, the minister apologized and promised it would never happen again.

On August 24 Leona Freed of the Dakota Plains Band wrote a confidential letter to the Indian affairs minister and the health minister complaining about the sewage system on her reserve. Three weeks later Mrs. Freed received a letter from the chief's lawyer threatening a lawsuit. This is exactly the same thing that happened to Bruce Starlight.

Can the minister tell us, since she promised this would never happen again, how Mrs. Freed's privacy and confidentiality was violated?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to clarify the record here because indeed the Winnipeg Sun wrote an article that was misleading and incorrect. It would have us believe that the letter that Mrs. Freed was referring to was written recently and that in fact her confidentiality had been breached recently.

The initial letter was written in 1995. Indeed the letter did find its way to the band council and that is why we have changed our approach, why we have entered new requirements in the department to manage that information.

So we are making progress. We do respect the confidentiality of information and we will ensure in my department that it is protected.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is badly misinformed. This is the second time that Leona Freed's privacy has been violated.

The first time she got a letter from the minister of Indian affairs apologizing and saying it would never happen again. Now it has happened again. She wrote the letter on August 24 of this year. Three weeks later she was threatened with a lawsuit. This is six months after the minister said that this kind of stuff was going to end, that she was going to make sure to take steps.

How could this possibly have happened after she promised it would never happen?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, let me carry on with the clarification.

The letter the member was referring to, dated August 24, was sent to the Ministry of Health. That is not the ministry of Indian affairs.

In my ministry we have taken action to deal with confidential information. We understand that as it is received by my department, so it should be managed effectively. It is my belief that the Minister of Health will also take such precautions because it is important that all constituents of this government feel that their information can be protected.

Scrapie

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

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

The massive destruction of sheep to eradicate scrapie is killing Quebec's sheep industry.

If the minister really wants to save this industry, what is he waiting for to stop the massive and useless destruction of sheep and offer the producers affected a financial compensation that is fair, adequate and, above all, retroactive?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our discussions with representatives of the sheep industry in Canada and following the explicit instructions they gave us many months ago. They want this disease to be eradicated.

We are working to eradicate this disease and we are treating those affected by it in exactly the same manner in which we treat the owners of all reportable diseases in our livestock herds and flocks in Canada.

Fisheries

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization recently held its annual meeting in Lisbon, Portugal.

For the sake of moving forward with enforcement and conservation measures necessary for the recovery of the northwest Atlantic fish stocks, I now ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans what was accomplished at this meeting.

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that Canada achieved virtually all of its objectives at the NAFO meeting. We achieved a continuation of 100% observer coverage past 1998. We have also achieved moratoria on a number of stocks at risk, including groundfish and other species.

We are very pleased with the results. We believe NAFO to be a very important part of the international management of stocks in the Atlantic.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, the revelations of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were very enlightening to the House today. She just stated that it is her belief that the leak took place in the office of the Minister of Health.

Leona Freed took the minister at her word when she said awhile ago that her government could be trusted by the aboriginal people. Look what happened.

I ask the Minister of Health, since it has been revealed that the leak took place in his department, what is he doing about it?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can clarify things a little more.

There was an article written in the Winnipeg Sun that talked about letters received by my department. I want to clarify to the House that the letter that was referred to was written in 1995 and that, indeed, it did find its way to the band council. But we have subsequently introduced a whole new regime of controls and management for confidentiality.

Now opposition members are getting confused. They do not really understand that all departments of the federal government have a role and a relationship with First Nations.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us really clarify this issue. The letter in question was not written in 1995, as the hon. minister would like us to believe, it was August 24 of this year. That is about a month ago, not a long time ago.

I ask the Minister of Health again. Did the leak take place from his office or did it take place from the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, this government believes that confidential information should be protected. That is why in my department we implemented a whole new strategy of managing work that comes from First Nations so we can control confidentiality.

What is confusing here is that the opposition does not understand that different departments of government have relationships with First Nations. In this particular case the letter which is being referred to was not sent to my department but indeed to the Department of Health.

Employment Insurance Fund

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to deduct money from a person's paycheque for a specific use and then to use it for something completely different would be nothing short of fraudulent, yet that is exactly what the Minister of Finance is proposing to do with the EI surplus.

Will the Minister of Finance agree that using the EI surplus for anything other than income maintenance and training would mean that EI premiums are nothing more than yet another tax on the employers and employees who pay for it?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what I would agree with is that we have to have an important debate in this country. The government has essentially said that health care is important. The government has said that lowering taxes for low income and middle income Canadians is important. The government has said that making sure this country does not go into deficit in the midst of enormous global volatility is important.

I can understand that the Reform Party may not want to debate unimportant social issues; I am amazed to understand that the member from the NDP does not.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in the Liberal cabinet is sort of a clash of the Titans. The Minister of Human Resources Development is sitting on this absolute windfall of money that is growing at $500 million a month and the Minister of Finance cannot wait to get his hands on it.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us today that he is going to fight for Canadian workers and make sure the money is used for its intended use—unemployment income, maintenance and training—and not for the leadership aspirations of the Minister of Finance?

[The Speaker]

The last part is getting a little close again. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I have already been very clear in the House. No decision has been made on this specific issue, but as a government we have insisted on having good, active labour market measures to help unemployed Canadians reintegrate into the labour market. That priority will not change.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the EI fund is wholly funded by workers and employers. The government has a legal and a moral obligation to give the surplus back to those workers in the form of lower premiums.

The minister has said that breaking the law and raiding the EI fund is simply a matter of choice, a matter of political priorities.

Will the minister do the right thing today and simply lower EI premiums, or will he pillage the fund like Genghis Khan the finance minister and his marauding hordes of Liberal backbenchers?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Last week we had Jesse James and Bonnie and Clyde. Today we have Genghis Khan. I think we are getting a little carried away in our statements and our questions. I am going to permit the hon. Minister of Finance to answer the question.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's idea of Genghis Khan is somebody who in each of the last four years has reduced EI premiums, then what would he call the previous Conservative finance ministers who every single year increased those premiums?

Is it Attila the Hun? Is it Tamerlane? Or is it other things which are equally unparliamentary?

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has made it open season on anybody who disagrees with it, including students at APEC or public actuaries.

The finance minister says that the CPP actuary, Bernard Dussault, was fired for management differences. Since then the EI actuary, Michel Bédard, has publicly disagreed with the minister's plans to raise the EI fund.

Will Michel Bédard's management differences with the minister result in his being fired?