Debates of Sept. 29th, 1998

Veterans Affairs

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, since being elected to represent West Nova I have worked diligently with World War II veterans and residents of Cornwallis for the return of their stained glass windows.

These memorial windows were donated to CFB Cornwallis by naval recruits who wanted to commemorate all those lost on our navy ships during the battle of the Atlantic.

Since the closure of the base the residents have demanded the return of the stained glass windows for display in their new naval museum. Sadly the Minister of National Defence has steadfastly refused to return these windows to their rightful place.

I ask all members of the House to look up at the beautiful windows and imagine what this place would look like if they were removed and replaced by a sheet of plexiglas. Perhaps now they understand why the residents of Cornwallis want so desperately to display the windows in their chapel.

Mr. Minister, perhaps you believe the battle over the stained glass windows is over, but let me tell you, for the residents of Cornwallis the battle has just begun.

Employment Insurance

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the law on employment insurance is clear. If there is a surplus because the government has been overcharging employers and workers, then the money belongs to them and it is illegal for the Prime Minister to take that money and use it for something else.

Why does the Prime Minister not obey the law and give those excess funds back to the workers and employers to whom they belong?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there is a debate going on at this moment in preparation for the budget and how to deal with the finances of the nation in the next budget. Some representations have been made to the government that it would be more advisable perhaps to cut income tax than to do that because it will go into the pockets of the taxpayers and not to the corporations.

There is a debate. I know that the Leader of the Opposition does not want that money to be used to cut income tax. We know that. It is part of the debate.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, why is the government even contemplating breaking the law? If the Prime Minister loots the employment insurance fund, who precisely is he taking this money from? He is taking it from the small business person, the factory worker, the construction worker, the clerk, the waitress, to whom these funds belong.

Who will stand up for the rights of these workers and employers if the Prime Minister will not?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty nice to have a problem like this one when we have run the nation in such a way that we have a problem with surpluses. If we had operated a government the way that it was operated before, we would still be at a 11.4% unemployment level. Now we are at 8.3% and it is going down, and 1.2 million new jobs have been created in Canada in the last five years.

We have the problem that the government has probably been too good to the satisfaction—-

[The Speaker]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about to whom do these surpluses belong. We are talking about obeying the law. We are talking about funds that were contributed in trust. We are not talking about general revenues and we are not talking about some Liberal slush fund that the government can spend however it pleases.

Will the Prime Minister tell his tax addicted finance minister to keep his hands off the employment insurance fund?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Finance has been pretty good. I see that we have reduced the deficit from $42 billion to zero. I see that we have less than 1% inflation. I see that the Financial Times of London has said that in terms of finance management, we are the top dogs of the G-7.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is calling for a debate to cover up its planned raid on the $6 billion EI overpayment. We are no more entitled to debate the raiding of the EI fund than we are entitled to debate the raiding of the Prime Minister's own personal RRSP. The EI fund is not his money to spend. That is what the law says.

Why does the Prime Minister not respect the law and give workers and employers that money back? Respect the law.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the consolidation of this fund with the consolidated revenue of Canada was done long before we formed the government. There is no slush fund. It is just the money available to the government for the operation of the government. The Minister of Finance and rightly so is doing something that did not exist before, having a public debate before preparing his budget.

As usual, like the past five years, the Reform Party is all over the place.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is saying is that the end justifies the means and they will break any law they have to in order to get their hands on taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, if the government cannot—

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member to go to his question, please.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, instead of trying to change the law to raid the money they are not entitled to by law, why do they not just obey the law and give that money back to workers and employers? Obey the law.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, there are some people who think it would be better if the money was to go into the taxpayers' pockets rather than into the coffers of some corporation. Sixty per cent of the money is going to the corporations and 40% to the taxpayers. Some think it might be better to give it to those who earned the money working on an hourly basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance was caught helping himself to the EI surplus, the only excuse he has managed to come up with is that a broad debate is necessary to determine the use to which this surplus should be put.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the real debate, the one that is urgently required, is not about what to do with the money lifted from the pockets of workers, the unemployed and small businesses, but about why the Minister of Finance took money that was not his to take?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that, if we had stuck with the legislation passed by the Conservative government, premiums on January 1, 1994 would have been $3.30 on every $100, but we reduced them in successive budgets to $2.70.

Before taking any further decision, the Minister of Finance wants to have everyone's opinion. But apparently the Bloc Quebecois would like the money to go to companies rather than employees.

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

Mr. Speaker, my reading of the situation is that the Minister of Finance—aided and abetted by the Prime Minister—dipped into the pockets of workers, the unemployed and small businesses.

He should realize that the only reason there is a surplus is that there are unemployed workers who no longer qualify for benefits, even though they have paid their premiums, and that some workers are paying more than they need to. These are average folks whom the Prime Minister probably does not know, having spent so much time on Bay Street.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, people understand that 1.2 million new jobs have been created since this government was elected in 1993. They understand that the level of unemployment has dropped from 11.4% to 8.3%.

And they understand that, because the fund has been very well administered, we now have a surplus, which we are going to administer, as we have always done, with care so as to serve the interests of all taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development said in this House that he was trying, with the help of Statistics Canada, to figure out why the participation rate in the employment insurance system has been dropping, to the point where only two out of every five Canadians out of work now collect benefits.

Does not the minister not yet realize that, while he is trying to find out why an increasingly smaller number of unemployed persons qualify for benefits, his colleague, the Minister of Finance, has already made off with the fund and is now wondering how to spend money what belongs to the unemployed?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we must understand that contributions to the employment insurance fund are not made exclusively by workers, but also by employers and major businesses. So, enough of the Bloc's demagoguery.

We are fully aware that we must take—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development has the floor.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

So, we are aware that the participation of workers in the employment insurance system is extremely important to ensure the program's integrity, and that is why we want to make sure we fully understand the figures and numbers before taking appropriate action.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I understood is that the Minister of Human Development Resources is holding the bag while the Minister of Finance is digging into it with both hands.

How can the minister explain that, with the powers vested in him by law, he was unable to stop the Minister of Finance from plundering the employment insurance fund?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to Bloc Quebecois members that a decision has yet to be made.

Also, we have been working closely with the Minister of Finance for a number of years. This co-operation between the Minister of Finance and myself, under the direction of the Prime Minister and together with the support of our colleagues, has led to the national child benefit, aimed at eliminating family poverty.

We have also set up a transition program, the Transitional Job Fund, in regions where the unemployment rate is too high. We have created a fund to help students who had problems completing—