Debates of Nov. 17th, 1999

Employment

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, was that her final answer? The unemployment was at 6.5%, as far as I know. That answer is wrong, I am afraid. She should have used a life line, maybe, when she had the chance.

Cabinet ministers do not need to play by the rules so maybe we could give her another chance. She got a half million dollars from the minister's special reserve. That needed more than 12% unemployment, and she knows that hers was 6.5%.

Let us ask her one more time. Here are the options: (a) she broke the rules, (b) she fudged the numbers, (c) who cares, it is other people's money, or (d)—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely none of the above.

What we find in this circumstance, as well as in other circumstances across the country including in Reform ridings, is that there are pockets of very high unemployment in particular areas.

The transitional jobs fund is precisely for those areas of high unemployment. Indeed, our unemployment levels are coming down in Brant and in other ridings where the transitional jobs funds have been used.

That is because of the approach of the government to work in partnership at the community level to focus on the issues that will make a difference for citizens in those ridings to use their skills and abilities to diversify the economy. That is what it is about and that is what is happening.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a multimillion dollar annual fund within the Department of Human Resources Development called the minister's reserve. There are $5 million in this reserve. In other words, the minister has been handed her very own multimillion dollar slush fund to spend any way she wants.

This fund really is not about creating jobs, is it? Is it not really about creating special privileges for certain highly placed Liberal ministers and their friends?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. That is why, as I said earlier, we invested in the riding of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast with moneys from the minister's reserve.

In fact that is why we invested $250,000 of reserve funding in the area of British Columbia where there was a strong need for youth employment programs.

If the hon. member would just talk to some of her own caucus members, she would find that money is in their regions and helping the citizens of those communities: young people and people who have not been able to find employment. That is what it is all about. It is a way of managing funds so that we can—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government is spending millions by overtaxing Canadian workers on EI on the so-called jobs fund.

For months now we have seen misuse and abuse of these public moneys for political purposes in the Prime Minister's riding, and now we find the HRD minister had a cool half million given to her riding even though she could not meet the criteria.

Are Canadians just supposed to accept that a minister of the government does not have to play by the rules?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, do you know what Canadians accept? They accept the fact that the government invested $300 million in the transitional jobs fund and turned it into $1.2 billion.

They accept the fact that for every dollar we put into it we leveraged $9 to create work in ridings of high unemployment across the country.

They accept that this money does not just go into the ridings of Liberal members of parliament but into ridings of members of the NDP, the Tory party, and even of the Reform Party.

What Canadians accept is the fact that our unemployment levels have continued to come down. They are now at the lowest—

[The Speaker]

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Transfer Payments

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

Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Minister of Finance are choking the provinces, which are suffering from a flagrant lack of resources to meet their responsibilities. The Minister of Finance prefers to initiate new programs rather than re-establish, in health care and education, essential services which the public has been denied since 1994.

Will the minister acknowledge once and for all that the priority is to re-establish transfer payments at the 1994 level, as all of the provinces have in fact asked him to do?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we very clearly recognized the priority of Canadians in our latest budgets.

The member referred to health, for example. I have said it repeatedly in the House, there has been an increase of $11.5 billion over five years to the provinces for health.

I am convinced that we will be discussing this when the ministers of finance meet in ten days' time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I repeat yet again, he has not given an additional $11 billion. He cut $33 billion instead of $44 billion. This is a fact of his own budgets. It is time he read them.

In the latest throne speech, we got a shopping list of ways to spend the surpluses he accumulated on the backs of the unemployed and the provinces. The provincial finance ministers have clear priorities, as does the public.

Could the Minister of Finance tell us today what his own priorities are?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my priorities are those of the government, which are those of Canadians.

It is clear in the speech from the throne that the provinces are in agreement as well. They endorsed the 50-50 formula. They endorsed the Government of Canada's red book. The throne speech spoke of the infrastructure program. Even the provinces spoke of it in their meeting two days ago.

They also spoke of tax cuts, a reduction in the debt, reflected in the throne speech, reflected—

[The Speaker]

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for some months now, the alarm bells have been sounding to warn us of an imminent crisis in the health sector.

Yesterday, all of the country's ministers of finance sent a clear message to the government: We want our money back.

Does the Minister of Finance realize that, in making drastic cuts to transfer payments to the provinces for health care, he has created a situation that is about to explode? Is he waiting to see victims before finally consenting to listen to us?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, once again I repeat, at the request of the provinces, we have restored transfer payments as far as health is concerned. We did so in last year's budget.

But the question is this: Do the provinces intend to restore to the municipalities what they have cut from them?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when enough is enough.

Since 1994, this Minister of Finance has cut $21 billion from health care and social services. That is a fact. And he is going to cut another $12 billion by the year 2003. That too is a fact.

Will this minister, who has accumulated $8 billion in surplus in the first six months, bow to the arguments of the provinces and give back $3.7 billion to fund health and education? That is what he is being asked, nothing else. alternative?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have just said that within ten days I intend to discuss all this with my provincial counterparts.

Now, when the hon. member speaks of cuts, if they are so busy tearing their hair out over this, at least it is saving them money in hair cuts.

Child Poverty

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are now one week away from the 10th anniversary of the Broadbent resolution to eliminate child poverty, a resolution supported by every member of the House including the member for LaSalle—Émard. Here is what the Liberals said at the time:

I never hear the finance minister talk about the real deficit in the country—one million kids in poverty.

Will this finance minister rise in his place and resolve today, in his now famous phrase, to eliminate child poverty, come hell or high water?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, we talked about this yesterday, but I was reminded that there is probably no one who spoke more eloquently on the issue of children than our Prime Minister in his responses.

In other venues the Prime Minister talks about wanting to do in the early part of the 21st century for Canada's children what we have been able to do as a country for our seniors. I cannot imagine a more strong commitment to Canada's children than the words of our Prime Minister.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was the finance minister who was in the House. It was the finance minister who made the solemn pledge, and where is he now on this? Last year the finance minister was prepared to say:

We should establish the elimination of child poverty as a great national objective, not unlike what we did...with the deficit.

Why will the finance minister not now commit to targets and timetables to eliminate child poverty, come hell or high water?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made it clear on numerous occasions the terrible tragedy of child poverty and the terrible cost it is going to inflict upon this country in the future. That is why we have brought forth the number of programs we have. We have brought forth the increase in the child tax benefit, the increase in the child care expense deduction and the basic revolution that was represented by Head Start, all of which are initiatives that have been pushed very strongly by the government.

If the NDP is sincere in what it is saying, then it will join the government as we battle to eliminate child poverty against those who do not care.

Csis

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general says that he does not micromanage CSIS and he hides behind a technicality that he is under no obligation to contact the head of SIRC when a breach of national security occurs. CSIS director Ward Elcock obviously has no respect for SIRC at all or for any parliamentarians or even for the minister. The director, aided by the minister, has undermined the role of SIRC and it appears that he deliberately covered up the theft of the CSIS plan.

When will the solicitor general advise us of whether he or the director of CSIS informed the adviser of security and intelligence review for the PCO of this breach of national security?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated a number of times in the House, this is a very serious matter and when the director of CSIS informed me he indicated that the inspector general was conducting an investigation, that CSIS was conducting an investigation and that SIRC, which has access to CSIS files, with a mandate from this House, would be conducting a review. That is exactly what is happening.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we know it is a serious matter, but when will the minister get smart? He refuses to take any responsibility for what has taken place, for himself or his employees. The CSIS board has had vacancies since this summer and the inspector general's role was only filled days before this fiasco at the Leaf's game.

Has the solicitor general given any instructions to the director to remedy this complete breakdown in communication within his department?