Debates of May 31st, 2001

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, for years now, the Bloc Quebecois has been fighting for unemployed workers and against government cuts to the EI system. Today, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development has just approved the Bloc Quebecois' position and is recommending substantial changes in the EI system to the government.

Will the minister accept the recommendations of the all-party committee, convince the Minister of Finance that he must stop raiding the EI fund to the tune of $6 billion a year, and use this money for unemployed workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank and congratulate members of the committee for their work on employment insurance. Indeed today they tabled their report and in it are included a number of recommendations that they ask the government to consider.

As is always the case, I will take the time to review the report in detail and respond to the committee in due course.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has the money, the minister now has the recommendations, and unemployed workers need changes to be made to the EI system now.

Would the minister agree to proceed by unanimous consent by the end of the session so that we can pass the necessary legislation by the end of June?

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House and the hon. member that it was Liberal members on this side of the House who worked with the government to ensure the changes presented in Bill C-2 found speedy passage.

I would remind the House that it was the Bloc members who voted against the intention to repeal the intensity rule, who voted against the changes to the clawback provision and who voted against the changes to the re-entrance provision for parents. I think they have a lot of answering to do to their constituents.

Census Records

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the census information is supposed to be private and confidential. Imagine the dismay of one of my constituents to find that his neighbour had access to every personal question on his census form.

Why was that personal information made available to neighbours?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the census information in question was made available to a census official who was sworn to secrecy and subject to penalties if the information was made public. This was somebody doing a job. I think it is a disservice to describe those officials as a neighbour. This was someone working.

If any Canadian does not want to provide information to the census that way, they have an opportunity to send their information through the mail or through a 1-800 line. There should be no question about privacy in this regard.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should tell that to Grey Alexander, my constituent. He got a phone call from the census worker and he said “Trudy, is that you?” Trudy said “Yes, it is me”. Trudy has quit her job because it is so intrusive.

Grey Alexander says that he will not fill out that information, and I say it is intrusive, so my question stands. Why is personal information being made available to neighbours and acquaintances? It should never happen.

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the member has now gone from describing the individual in question as a neighbour to being a census official.

There is provision that anybody who wants to provide census information in an anonymous fashion can do so. Unless it is the position of the party opposite that there ought to be no census information, that we can just assume that we all began with alligators in the swamp, I think we should stick with the census.

Official Languages

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the minister responsible for official languages told us that he was closely monitoring the situation at Air Canada and Nav Canada, and that the government was very concerned by it. But, through its various spokespersons, the government has been repeating the same thing for 30 years.

It is time to act. Can the minister tell us what concrete measures he intends to take to correct this totally unacceptable situation that is dragging on?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages issued a very disturbing preliminary report. Air Canada said that it would act on it. It is in its interest to do so, because it is being accused of not respecting the law. This is a very serious matter. We will follow it up very closely and so will the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should stop following.

If he is serious about settling this matter, what is he waiting for to table a concrete plan of action to bring permanent solutions and put an end to a problem that has been dragging on for over 30 years?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter and this is why we will not develop a plan based on a preliminary report, but on the final one.

The Economy

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a growing number of business leaders are expressing concern about the so-called productivity initiative being led by the Ministers of Industry and Human Resources Development, the Bonnie and Clyde of the federal treasury.

Catherine Swift of the CFIB says that this initiative is “potentially some big black hole”.

Why is the Prime Minister again undercutting his finance minister by allowing these big spenders to invent new bureaucratic programs? Why will he not listen to the business community which says that productivity in this country will not go up until capital taxes, EI premiums and marginal rates go down?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we work together in a collaborative fashion for the benefit of all Canadians.

On that side of the House the Leader of the Opposition has the advantage of your advice and support and we all know where that has led in terms of productivity.

[The Speaker]

I hope the Minister of Industry was not suggesting that the Speaker was taking sides in supporting anyone in this House with his expression of “your”. I know the hon. member intended to address his remarks through the Chair and I have a feeling they were not.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that his leadership rival chose not to answer the question. He talks about productivity. Under this government productivity has fallen by seven points against the U.S. Personal disposable income has gone from 83% of U.S. levels to 55% of U.S. levels. Productivity is going down three times as quickly as it is in the United States.

How will a whole array of new Ottawa style bureaucratic spending programs solve this serious problem? Why does the government not get its priorities straight, listen to the business community and bring our taxes down so that our productivity and standard of living go up?

[Brian Tobin, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I think the House will acknowledge, as certainly everybody on this side acknowledges, that under the leadership of the Minister of Finance and the government we now are in a position where we have a more competitive capital gains tax rate than the United States, better treatment of stock options and more flexibility than the United States.

We have a front end loaded five year tax reduction brought about by the Minister of Finance. I am proud to say he is the greatest minister of finance in Canada's history, a great man.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. Hon. members must know the Speaker has a cold. I cannot quell a disturbance by yelling as much as I usually do. I am asking for some co-operation.

Tobacco Products

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The tobacco industry is selling light and mild cigarettes as safe cigarettes.

Can the Minister of Health tell hon. members of this House what he is doing to ensure that the tobacco industry can no longer use the terms light and mild to market its cigarettes?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, a very large number of Canadians wrongly believe that mild and light cigarettes are safer and less harmful. This is not true. The tobacco companies have created that impression. They have disguised the reality through their marketing strategy.

As a government, we believe that Canadians are entitled to have access to the true facts. This is why I have today asked the companies to withdraw these brands. If they refuse, we will take action.

Employment Insurance

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Human Resources Development received a copy of the additional report on the employment insurance program tabled by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

Last November, the Liberal government admitted that the program was too rigid and required changes.

Is the minister going to give serious consideration to the recommendations contained in this report, and will she commit to making significant changes to the employment insurance program, to at last correct the errors of the past?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government understands the importance of employment insurance to Canadians. I think it is clear to the House and to Canadians that this is important to us, because every year we monitor and assess the impact of employment insurance on citizens across the country.

As part of the informed debate, the work of the committee will be considered and the views of the committee are part and parcel of the monitoring and assessment of this very important program.

Health

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have limits on mercury in fish in this country for purposes of health protection just like we have limits on mercury in fish all around the world.

The government has decided that some fish with dangerous levels of mercury are okay because they will only harm some of the people some of the time. It gives no information to fish sellers and tells pregnant women “Don't worry. There is a warning for you on the Internet”.

Will the health minister stop such negligence and disregard of human health and accept his responsibility for ensuring all species of all fish are safe for all people every day of the week?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the health of Canadians is protected by the government. Health Canada does have strict limits on all these toxic ingredients and we enforce them.

We let consumers know what the safe limits are for eating certain fish where the levels are elevated. That is the way to protect the health of Canadians. The member and those who raise this issue should stop scaremongering, or is it fishmongering?