Debates of June 13th, 2001

Access To Information

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the government is committed to access and openness. Let me say again that the information commissioner had some very positive things to say, not only about the access act itself but about the actions of the government.

As the Deputy Prime Minister already pointed out, the information commissioner said that out of 1,337 complaints he received in the year 2000-01 against the government, only two could not be resolved to his satisfaction. I think that speaks to the openness of the government.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this session, the opposition has complained about non-compliance with the Access to Information Act.

Today, for the second time, the commissioner's report comes down very hard on the government. In any parliament anywhere in the world, people would be astonished that a government did not respect the law. Here we have to accept that the minister responsible for seeing that the laws are enforced is going along with the government.

I am asking her—and there is still time—to stand up and, in compliance with her oath of office, ensure that the government is respecting the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the government is committed to openness and to its obligations under the existing access legislation.

However, because we acknowledge that there might be room for improvement, in terms of the legislative regime or in terms of the administration and management of access requests, we have undertaken a review. We hope to report back to the House in the fall in relation to the review.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, economists are expressing growing concern that federal spending is running out of control at levels unseen since the current Prime Minister drove Canada into debt in the late 1970s. However it has not stopped the government from proposing a new $4 billion mega project.

When working families need tax relief and the health care system needs more resources, why is the government planning to spend billions of dollars on its Internet mega project when the private sector could take care of that situation perfectly well?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to know that the spending in this area will be within our projections and will be well controlled.

It is amazing to hear the dinosaur party opposing all those things that are modern, all those thing that will enable the Canadian government to better serve their people and all those things that will make the Canadian economy the most modern in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is a news flash for the finance minister: The government did not invent the Internet. The private sector knows best how to deliver services like that.

Modern values are not about government intervening in this critical new area of the economy and spending billions of tax dollars. Instead of doing that, why does the finance minister not cut taxes further so that Canadians can procure their own Internet services and so that the private sector will have the resources to invest in it?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash for the finance critic: The Internet is in fact a product of the Pentagon. The last time I looked at the Pentagon, it was part of the U.S. government. It is a fact.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport acknowledged the promises that were made to the unemployed during the election. However, he is hiding behind the minister in order to justify the government's refusal to honour his promises, when his own colleagues have signed a unanimous report calling for these changes.

Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport intend to stand up and honour his commitments to the unemployed or will he admit that he does not have enough political clout to influence his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development?

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

Mr. Speaker, two things should be clear to the House by now.

First, the government is prepared to monitor and assess the impact of employment insurance and to make changes when changes are necessary.

Second, Bloc members have finally realized their serious error in voting with the Alliance against the government on the amendments to Bill C-2, which now supports their constituents, seasonal workers and parents.

It will be a long hot summer for Bloc members who go back to their ridings and try to explain to their constituents why they did not support the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, everything is in place to have this question settled quickly.

The unanimous report was made public on May 31. The money is available, and there would have been ample time to act before the House adjourns.

In conclusion, are we to understand that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport made their promises to get votes, without the political weight to deliver the goods?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members sit there and say that they want to vote today. They had a chance to vote on amendments last fall and they chose not to take it. They had a chance to vote on amendments to the Employment Insurance Act this spring and they voted against it.

There is nothing clearer than the fact that the members of the Bloc Party now know they were wrong in blocking this government. Thankfully we were able to pass the legislation, but with no help from them.

Taxation

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1961 the average family paid $1,675 in taxes from an income of $5,000. Today the average family earns $51,174 and pays $24,309 in taxes. That is 47.5% of their entire income. That is more than is needed for food, clothing and shelter combined.

How can the finance minister justify this gross overtaxation?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would see us go beyond what is the largest tax cut in Canadian history.

The fact is that throughout this whole session virtually every spending measure that has been recommended has come from the Alliance. The Alliance has essentially said that it wants the government to spend massively and yet it wants us to cut taxes. That would put us into deficit. Is that the Alliance's official position?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are being taxed to death and they resent the wasting of their money on foolish things, like sending heating rebates to prisoners.

On behalf of Canadian families I ask: Why is their tax bill relative to their income 50% higher now than in 1961?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians' real disposable income this year has achieved a record level. That is the real fact.

Is the hon. member calling for further reductions in taxes? There is only one of two things that will happen: Either we will go back into deficit or, if we were to accomplish the Alliance plan, the government would have to cut back in health care and old age pensions. Which is it?

What is the Alliance recommending? When will the Alliance members lay their real agenda in front of the Canadian people?

Employment Insurance

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The government made significant changes to the employment insurance program with Bill C-2. Yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois said that the minister did not want to make any changes beyond Bill C-2.

Can the minister assure the members of this House and all Canadians that she firmly intends to monitor and assess the employment insurance program and will continue to make whatever changes are necessary?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and again, the Government of Canada monitors and assesses the impact of the Employment Insurance Act on Canadians and we make changes as changes are necessary. That is why we doubled parental benefits. That is why we introduced and passed the amendments in Bill C-2. That is why just last Sunday we published in the Canada Gazette a proposal to change EI regulations that would guide the treatment of undeclared earnings.

Those changes were proposed so that the EI program would be more reflective of the work patterns of claimants. It is an idea that was presented to us by the FTQ, as well as other stakeholders. Again I point out that we make changes as warranted.

Electoral Reform

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

A recent poll done by the Canada West Foundation showed that some 70% of western Canadians are interested in the idea of proportional representation. Also, the Liberal Party itself will use proportional representation on a riding by riding basis to select delegates for the next leadership convention.

If PR is good enough to select Liberal delegates, why is PR not good enough to elect some members of parliament? To that end, will the Deputy Prime Minister strike a special all party committee to study the various models of PR that might be mixed or blended into our electoral system so that people's votes are reflected in the House of Commons?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the way the House is shaped that the people's votes are reflected in the House of Commons. This is confirmed by public opinion polls.

I noticed that when my hon. friend's party was in power in provincial governments it would not touch proportional representation with a 10 foot pole.

Foreign Affairs

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.

Earlier this year the secretary of state stated that Vector Aerospace had no military involvement whatsoever in Colombia. Yet yesterday the chief executive officer of Vector Aerospace stated “We are working on both civilian and military aircraft”. Said another Vector official “We are repairing engines and components and other items for the Colombian military”.

What actions will the government take to put a stop to this Canadian corporate complicity in the Colombian military, one of the most brutal and repressive militaries in the hemisphere?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the member has just said, I learned about it today. If it is a civilian aircraft no export permit is required. If it is a military aircraft one is, but if the work is being done outside Canada by Vector or one of its subsidiaries no permit is required.

I am concerned about what the member is saying and I will look into it to see where this work is being done.

Health

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal inaction is harming the environment and human health. We know that Canada's pesticides act is over 30 years old. A year and a half ago I asked the health minister when Canadians could expect to see a new act, and the minister said legislation was forthcoming.

A new act must test all ingredients including their formulants. It must also test the toxicity of pesticides in regard to the health of our most vulnerable populations such as children and elderly. When will we have a new pesticides act that does just that?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, what has happened in the interim is that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of the House of Commons has looked thoroughly into the question of how Canadians are best served by pesticides legislation. Recently the government filed its response to that committee's report.

I can tell the member and the House that we will soon be tabling legislation which will reflect those recommendations and protect the health of Canadians.

Taxation

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, further on the pesticides act, over a year ago I complained to the Minister of Health about two electronic devices known as the phoenix squawker and the phoenix wailer which make noises to scare birds away from oil spills and airports.

The Department of Health has designated these electronic devices as pesticides so that it can charge a tax. They are not pesticides and should not be subject to tax. Will the minister reverse this designation so that I can stop wailing and squawking?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we are quite used to wailing and squawking from that corner of the House. It is something we would miss if it were not there.

Speaking of pests, I can tell the member that I am quite concerned about his wailing and squawking. I want the House to know that this is something we take very seriously.

The member has been kind enough to raise this issue directly. He knows I am working on it. I think together over time we can solve the problem of wailing and squawking in the country.