House of Commons Hansard #129 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was health.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what we are debating at this time is not very complicated. Is it better to return 60% of the money to the companies and 40% to the employees or to give the employees a tax reduction?
If the hon. member prefers that the money goes to the companies, fine, we will take note of that.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that 95% of businesses in Canada today are small businesses, a group that the Prime Minister and the Liberals across the way say they support. Now we want to see them prove it.
Statistics Canada is reporting today that economic activity has fallen for the fourth straight month in a row. I know the Prime Minister wants to wish that away, but the reality is that the economy is starting to slow down.
Why does the Prime Minister not move today to stimulate the economy by returning that $7 billion EI overpayment to workers and small businesses?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are debating. The difference between our position and the position of Reform Party members is that we would like to give the money to the workers, but they want us to give it to the companies. That is fair, but I think we will be on the side of the workers before we will be on the side of the companies.
Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Prime Minister to wake up. The dollar fell dramatically today. The economy shrank for the fourth month in a row. We know the government has been in a coma for the last six months.
What we want now is for the Prime Minister and the government to wake up and give that $7 billion overpayment back to workers and employers.
We know what they said in the red book: It is small business that creates jobs in this country. Why do they not follow their own advice?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have done with small business. We have said that they create 85% of the jobs in Canada. In the last five years since the Liberals have been in government 1.2 million new jobs have been created. So 85% of that is one million. One million have been created by the small corporations because they have been well treated by the government.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the EI fund has a surplus in the billions, while three out of five unemployed workers do not qualify for benefits, I repeat, three out of five.
What makes the Prime Minister think he should have a free hand in spending money that in fact comes from unemployed workers in the worst straits, those who do not qualify for benefits, even though they paid premiums?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, if the facts are examined, it becomes clear that those who do not qualify include new job market entrants. An individual who finishes his studies and does not find employment has not paid into the fund. There are many cases like that.
The proof, as I said yesterday, is that not only has the number of unemployed workers in Canada dropped, but the number of Canadians on welfare has also decreased in recent years. This is because the economy is much stronger than when we first formed the government.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is telling us there is nothing wrong with young people having to work 910 hours, nothing wrong with making them pay premiums and refusing them benefits when they lose their jobs. That is the message the Prime Minister is sending young people.
Does he realize that an insurance salesman who followed his example and overcharged for his policies, compensated two claimants out of five and pocketed the excess premiums would have the courts to answer to and might even end up in jail?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, because 1.2 million jobs have been created, fewer people are receiving EI benefits. We have also lowered premiums from $3.30 to $2.70 in the course of our successive budgets. Right now, we are talking publicly about what we should do in the future. Once again, I am happy to hear that the Bloc Quebecois wants to see the surplus go to employers rather than employees.
Employment InsuranceOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would again ask the hon. members to kindly listen to the question and the answer. The member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may want to talk about the future, but our position is clear. The Bloc Quebecois wants half of the annual surplus in the employment insurance fund to be used to reduce contributions and help small business create jobs. We also want the other half to go towards improving the current system to support those who lose their jobs.
My question is simple: Which part of this approach does the Prime Minister dislike? The part about helping small business, the part about helping the unemployed, or both?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at right now is what the government's priorities should be.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development said yesterday, we have set up programs to help those already in the labour market find new jobs, get training, and so on. But we must also take into account all government priorities and determine whether or not we should put more money into health care. There is a debate under way, and there will be a budget.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Bloc Quebecois is not interested in health care—
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, even though the Prime Minister can now afford to treat the unemployed fairly and decently and to be sensitive to the real difficulties they are facing, he refuses to do so. Are we therefore to understand that, when he called unemployed Canadians beer guzzlers in 1994, the Prime Minister expressed what he really thought of them?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what we have done for Canadians is to strengthen the economic situation. Since we came to office, 1.2 million new jobs have been created. The unemployment rate is now 8.3%, down from 11.4% when we took office.
According to this morning's economic forecasts, next year, Canada will lead the G-7 in job creation, just as it is doing this year.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The involvement of the Prime Minister's Office in the APEC matter is clear. Pelletier, Carle, Goldenberg, Donolo, the list is growing. The trail leads to the Prime Minister, and there is growing evidence that they considered the comfort of a dictator justified the repression.
Why this undemocratic choice?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, here again the leader of the New Democratic Party is making false accusations.
We invited people to come here for the APEC summit. These people included Jose Ramos Horta, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. He came to the parallel summit at the invitation of the government and over the protests of the Indonesian government. Here is what this famous individual had to say about Suharto's arrival in Canada.
“Canada should welcome Suharto with dignity, but also take a hard line on human rights. They can have—”
Apec SummitOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had a choice. He could have stood up for fundamental democratic rights or, for the sake of currying favour with a brutal foreign dictator, he could have trampled those rights. Why did did this Prime Minister choose to side with Suharto?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, one of the claims of the NDP is that we should have refused President Suharto access to Canada. I would like to inform the leader of the New Democratic Party that before he came to Canada, President Suharto was the guest of Nelson Mandela in South Africa, where he was treated as a head of state.
He came to Canada as an APEC member. It was not a bilateral invitation. It was an invitation like the invitations made to any other leaders who belong to this international organization.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, like the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General cannot or will not answer questions about APEC. He cannot cite a single section of the RCMP Act which extends the commission's mandate into the Prime Minister's office, nor can he explain to Canadians why they should trust the independence of the RCMP complaints commission which is almost entirely selected by the Prime Minister himself.
I ask the solicitor general: Why should Canadians trust a minister who understands little, says less and covers up for the Prime Minister?
Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, unlike my hon. colleague I believe that people who choose to serve their country do not park their integrity at the door.
Regardless of political affiliation, I do not accept the premise of the question that someone cannot serve their country independently because I believe they can. I believe they do.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, would the solicitor general perhaps accept the fact Elections Canada has indicated that five members of the Public Complaints Commission made a financial donation to the Liberal Party of Canada in—