Debates of Sept. 28th, 1998

Employment Insurance

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say that no specific proposition has been made to cabinet. We have, however, had an important debate, a debate which has existed since 1986 when the auditor general insisted that the EI account be consolidated with the government's general funds.

Let me point out that governments have to make choices and those choices involve a reduction of EI premiums, absolutely, but they also involve a reduction in personal income taxes and they involve spending in important areas like health care.

We must have that debate and the government looks forward to having that debate in the House and across the country.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about choices any time. We are happy to do that. However when it comes to employment insurance there is no choice. The law says that the minister must give that money back.

Is he going to change that law to get his hands on the money that the law says he is not entitled to?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the debate that is required in this country in an era of considerable global volatility when country after country outside our borders is in recession is: Is the government going to give up that area of its financial manoeuvring which prevents us from going into a deficit? Is the government going to maintain a balanced approach? Are we going to reduce debt? Are we going to reduce personal income taxes? Are we going to reduce EI premiums? Are we going to invest in health care?

That is the debate. I would suggest the Reform Party ought to begin to gauge it on that basis.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to the chief actuary Canadians are paying 33% more than they have to. This is a $6 billion a year tax grab.

Why does the finance minister not just give the money back? Why does the minister not just drop the money and walk away, slowly, and keep his hands where Canadians can see them?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what is the debate the Reform Party is afraid of? Our payroll taxes are substantially lower than those of most G-7 countries including the United States. Our personal income taxes are higher.

Why will the Reform Party not engage in a debate as to the proper allocation of those fundings? Why will the Reform Party not debate the future of health care? Why will the Reform Party not take a proper attitude toward the global economic crisis that surrounds our borders? Why will the Reform Party not deal with the real issues?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance does not understand. The employment insurance fund is not his personally, and amending the law would change nothing. The Minister of Finance cannot use this money to build up his slush fund.

How can the Minister of Finance justify pocketing the money of Canadian workers and employers?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member saying that employees in Canada are not going to benefit from the protection of the Health Act? Is he saying that they will not benefit from tax cuts? Is he saying that employees in Canada would not suffer should we face another deficit? Is that his position?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing the finance minister just simply cannot understand a direct question. It is clear that the finance minister is thinking about changing the law that deals with the EI surplus. We are talking about $6 billion here. That is a lot of money out of the pockets of Canadian workers and employers.

What we want to know, what they want to know, what all of Canada wants to know is: Does the minister intend to change the law so he can get his hands on the $6 billion of EI surplus he is not entitled to? Is he going to change the law or not? It is real simple.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, government is about choices but so is parliament about choices. We ask the Reform Party—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I appeal to you once again. The question has been asked. We have heard the question and I am sure all of us would like to hear the answer. I invite the hon. Minister of Finance to take the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, government is about choices. The government's choice is to proceed on a balanced approach.

I ask members of the Reform Party if Canadians are entitled to know their position? Are they in favour of health care? Are they in favour of lower income taxes for Canadians? Are they in favour of reducing debt? Are they in favour of reducing EI premiums to the extent we can afford? That is the issue.

Why is the Reform Party afraid to basically say what it wants to do, or in fact do we now know?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has been saying for over a year now that employment insurance premiums should not be used to increase the government's budget surplus. The chief actuary at the Department of Human Resources Development is now saying that the surplus essentially belongs to the workers and businesses that have contributed to the fund.

Now that the actuary is saying the same thing as we are, will the Minister of Finance finally use the $20 billion surplus to improve protection for the unemployed and to lower premium rates?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to office we have lowered employment insurance premiums every year. Last year, we reduced them by 20 cents, for a total of $1.5 billion.

We intend to continue with a balanced approach. This means that we will invest in health. It also means that we will lower personal taxes for Canadians. We will reduce the debt and provide the economic activity and development that our country deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance tells us about choices, he forgets an essential reality, namely that three out of five people who are currently unemployed and who paid premiums—in some cases throughout their working lives—never qualify for benefits.

Does the minister not think that it is illegal and also profoundly immoral to act in such a fashion?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois leader talks about morals. The Bloc wants us to lower employment insurance premiums by $5 to $6 billion. They want us to reduce taxes by $10 billion while at the same time making a massive $11 billion investment in transfers to the provinces. The total cost would be in excess of $25 billion. I wonder what planet these people live on.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the latest statistics are shocking.

Only 42% of the unemployed manage to get employment insurance benefits.

Now that everyone can see the damage done by the employment insurance reforms, how can the Minister of Human Resources Development tolerate that his colleague, the Minister of Finance, is preparing the legalize the misappropriation of billions of dollars from the fund's surplus, when 6 out of 10 unemployed persons are not entitled to benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated repeatedly in the House, our government is concerned by the drop in participation in the employment insurance system over the last few months and the last few years.

This tendency has existed for the last ten years. It has reached a point where I have asked Statistics Canada to tell us why the participation rate has fallen over the last few years. I hope the information we obtain will be useful to us, in October, so that we can understand the problem better and take appropriate steps to correct the situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, by waiting for the results of the Statistics Canada study and letting the Minister of Finance do as he wishes and misappropriate the surplus in the employment insurance fund, are we to understand that the Minister of Human Resources Development will once again submit to his colleague, the Minister of Finance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the Minister of Finance has been very clear on this: no decision has been made in this regard.

It is absolutely obvious, and you have my assurance, that in discussions concerning the surplus in the employment insurance fund, in my capacity as Minister of Human Resources Development, I will continue to apply the policy of the government, whose priority is to help Canadians get back to work, because that is what the unemployed expect from us. And I will continue to ensure that the employment insurance system serves Canadians wel l.

Apec Summit

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps giving assurances that the Public Complaints Commission will get to the bottom of the Prime Minister's actions and those of his staff in the Spray-PEC fiasco, but the government's own lawyer says that documents from the Prime Minister's Office are not even relevant to the inquiry.

How does the Prime Minister explain the contradiction?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction.

The commission hearings will open on Monday. I am sure they will look thoroughly into the matters that have been brought before it by the protesters who have made complaints.

How does the hon. member explain that she once again said something to the House on Friday that was inaccurate, and fails to get up to apologize, when she claimed that Mr. Goldenberg took an initiative to contact the president of the University of British Columbia and it was just the opposite?

Why does she not get up and apologize? Explain that contradiction.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today a motion was filed with the Public Complaints Commission seeking assurances that the commission would include the actions of the Prime Minister and his staff.

In view of the Prime Minister's stated commitment to co-operate fully, will the government instruct its lawyers to immediately support this motion?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, under the law setting up the commission, its terms of reference are set by the commission itself and not by the government.

Therefore I am sure the commission, which is at arm's length from the government, a non-political and non-partisan body, will listen carefully and make the proper decision.

I do not think it is appropriate for the leader of the NDP to call on the government to in effect instruct the commission.

Veterans Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really nice to be back in Wayne's world over here in the corner.

Tomorrow there will be merchant navy vets on a hunger strike on the steps of Parliament Hill. After World War II they were denied veterans job preference, rehabilitation grants, free university education and land grants that went to all other veterans.

Today these merchant navy veterans want to know if the veterans affairs minister will bring in corrective legislation and compensation to make them equal with all other vets.