Debates of Nov. 1st, 1999

Merchant Navy Veterans

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

Mr. Speaker, various sources within the Ministry of Veterans Affairs have told reporters that the total cost of a $20,000 package for merchant navy vets would be a $160 million.

We know, and the minister should know, that the total number of registered merchant seamen in question is 1,700. Those that are not registered are around 600, for a total of 2,300 for which a $20,000 settlement would total at the most $46 million.

Could the minister explain why his department is so poor at basic math? Is it just playing games with these veterans?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quoting from newspaper accounts and articles concerning the merchant navy and the various veterans organization that had agreement and apparently according to the press have now broken down in their agreement.

I will not comment on that. I just remind the hon. member that when members of the merchant navy were finally recognized as war veterans in 1993 it was because of the actions of Liberal members of the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, as everyone in the House knows, it was Minister of Veterans Affairs Gerry Merrithew who first brought the situation before the House.

Veterans Affairs Canada has begun to employ scare tactics to sell the so-called half-baked plan. First they told the reporters that a fair package would cost $160 million. Then they implied that if the merchant seamen did not play ball, they would not get any assistance.

Now that Hallowe'en is over, will the minister stop trying to scare the Canadian public and our merchant vets? Will he give them the compensation package they deserve at $20,000 maximum for these seamen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on newspaper accounts of this matter.

The hon. member is right. It was the Tory administration in 1993. But it was because of the pressure brought to bear by the Liberal members of parliament that it happened. We might say it was one case of where the Tories did giveth and they will never have a chance to taketh away.

Revenue Canada

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the government planning a $47 billion millennium blowout, but today it is celebrating $47 million in new spending to make the biggest bureaucracy in the government even bigger. That is how much it is spending to give the biggest facelift in history to the revenue department.

If the government really wants to improve the image of Revenue Canada, instead of spending millions of dollars on a facelift, why does it not just cut taxes for Canadian families?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, the number referred to by the hon. member is exaggerated by far. We have spent money on the transition of the agency, but most of the money has been invested in our human resources. We have been working for three years in order to achieve what we have done today in the official launching of the agency.

This government is proud of what it is doing in order to achieve its aim and goal. The aim and goal is to provide people in Canada with much better services.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if it is not $47 million, how much is it?

Why is the government throwing a million dollar party today to celebrate new spending on human resources in what is already its biggest bureaucracy? Does it not think a 44,000 person bureaucracy is big enough? Why does the government not get its priorities right? Instead of spending more on this facelift for its mega tax collection agency, why does it not give Canadian families a tax break?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

Mr. Speaker, again the number referred to with regard to the celebration is exaggerated.

We are proud of what we are doing. It took three years to build this agency. We have been working with all the employees, with the stakeholders and with the unions. We will keep working with them. We want to make sure that this government provides people with the highest standard of service when it comes to talking about revenue.

Air Transportation

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the more time passes, the more clearly we see in the Onex-Air Canada business.

Since his appearance before the Standing Committee on Transport, the minister has left the clear impression that he supported the bid by Onex by opening the way to an increase in the rule of 10%.

We learned recently that, on August 23, on the eve of the bid by Onex, its president, Gerald Schwartz, told two union executives that he had been promised by Ottawa that the rule of 10% would be withdrawn.

Can the Minister of Transport tell us whether this information is correct?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question.

On August 23, the representatives of Onex and Canadian informed my department of their intention to put forward a proposal on Tuesday. Air Canada did the same six weeks ago.

That means that Air Canada and Onex are treating our government with the same courtesy.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the question. The issue is commitments.

How can the minister deny having made commitments, when Gerald Schwartz told the president of the Air Canada pilots association, and I quote, “This angle is covered?” Who but the minister could have given such confirmation?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I suggest the hon. member put this question to Mr. Schwartz and the other representatives of Onex in committee tomorrow.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the government is sitting on a $21 billion EI surplus that it built by gouging and overcharging Canadian workers and businesses on their EI premiums. The government's chief actuary has said that it could lower those premiums to $2.05, sustain the fund and still provide for a rainy day disaster.

Why does the finance minister not listen to the government's own chief actuary and lower the EI premiums from $2.55 to $2.05? Why does he not just do that?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when we took office EI premiums were at $3.07 and they were going to go to $3.30. Since we have taken office, each and every year we have lowered those premiums and today they are at $2.55. That is for four and a half to five years. That is the longest series of reductions in EI premiums since the plan was brought in.

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

Mr. Speaker, the $21 billion surplus still sits there. The $2.55 rate still sits there. The chief actuary says $2.05 is more than enough to sustain the fund and provide for a rainy day disaster.

The finance minister ignores the government's chief actuary. Why does he do that? Why does he not lower the premiums to $2.05 as the chief actuary has said? What is his problem?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government acts with regard to the total health of the government's finances. If one looks at what has happened over the last five years, not only have we had the largest reductions in EI premiums in the history of EI, but at the same time we have reduced income taxes by some $16.5 billion, and last year we made the largest investment in this government's history back into health care. That is what we are in the process of doing.

Young Offenders Act

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the government of Mike Harris initiated project Turnaround to fight recidivism among young offenders. We learned recently that 40% of the young people taking part in this program have committed repeat offences.

Despite the failure of the Conservative policies, why is the minister persisting in her efforts to satisfy the right by totally demolishing the Young Offenders Act?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know if he has reviewed the legislation that we do not intend to continue in the vein he described.

If the member would look at our youth justice package, it reflects a balance of Canadian values in terms of accountability and responsibility. As the hon. member knows, part of our package is premised on ensuring that we divert more young offenders out of the formal justice system so they receive the rehabilitative and reintegrative help they deserve.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, no one wants the changes the minister is proposing, and rightly so, because, in Quebec, we have had very good results applying the Young Offenders Act just as it is.

When will the minister listen to stakeholders in Quebec, who succeed where her allies on the right are failing?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member should know, we have indeed listened to those in Quebec who work with young people. That is why much in our youth justice proposal reflects that which has been done in the province of Quebec. That is why our youth justice package presents flexibility. It is respectful of the local needs of the province of Quebec. However it is also important to remember that we must be respectful of the local needs of others.

Agriculture

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the audacity to tell farmers last week that their problems are not as bad as they think. The agriculture minister keeps saying that limited emergency funds are available but forgets to mention that almost all of the funds are still sitting on the cabinet table.

Now we find out that the government is pressing ahead with a $47 billion shopping spree. What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that farmers are a priority too, another 1,000 foreclosures or how about another eight suicides?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that before last year's budget, the government put forward $900 million to assist producers.

I find it very interesting that in previous questions Reform members have told us that they do not want us to spend money. Now they stand and tell us to spend money.

We have already recognized the need that is there. We are continuing to work on changing programs and being innovative and flexible in programs. We will continue to find all the resources we can in order to assist as many as we can.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has its head so deep in the sand it does not understand the problem.

The problem in western Canada has not been addressed by what the government has done to date. The premiers of two provinces were here. People out west are crying out. They are hurting. Some have even committed suicide. The major reason is the farm income crisis.

Does the government not understand? I am pleading. Try and do something. Do it now. Listen to the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That is all I ask.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is taking the matter very seriously. As the minister of agriculture has said, we are continuing to work on this matter.

I say to the hon. member, if he is to be taken seriously he should have the support of his leader, which he obviously does not have. In light of the Reform members' questions, they should be ashamed of themselves for not having a similar position in support of farmers.

Social Policy

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to eliminate child poverty, the National Council of Welfare is urging the government to adopt an integrated family policy, while praising Quebec's approach in that regard.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that Quebec's family policy is a true model for the rest of Canada and will he pledge to allow Quebec to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation?