House of Commons Hansard #43 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I am reluctant to continue this because I do not think the hon. member's submission is relevant to the question of privilege that is before the House.

If the hon. chair of the committee wants to say something more about the proceedings in the committee, I am more interested in hearing on the procedural question of privilege that has been raised, which may in fact be a point of order. We have an allegation of contempt and that is the one I want dealt with, not other more extraneous matters because I think we have strayed a bit from the point.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I simply want to say for your benefit, because some of the members have been saying, and it has probably bewildered you, that this item should be referred back to our committee.

I want to simply confirm that it is my intention, as chair of the committee, to table this report today. The report essentially says that we should continue with the existing system until such time as the Special Committee on Modernization and Improvement completes its business and reports.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, I intend, unless I am directed otherwise by you, to table that report today.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I think we have heard enough on this point. I will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House in due course.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB

Mr. Speaker, I put some questions on the Order Paper in reference to an advertisement that has been carried out by the Royal Canadian Mint in which the word “Christmas” has been substituted with the word “giving”. I think there are many members as concerned about this as I am.

However we do have the opportunity in this place to put questions on the Order Paper, and we do that for a number of reasons. Some questions are very detailed and require more than just a 30 second response and, to be very honest, we sometimes are reluctant to bring matters like this before oral question period. We want to ask those questions that are deemed very important, that are of international importance and whatnot, and so we have the opportunity to put questions of, you might say, minor significance or less significance on the Order Paper. That is not to say that they all are, but often times they are detailed and we do demand answers to them.

The difficulty is that yesterday I submitted these questions to the Journals Branch. Mr. Speaker, I want to go through the detailed list of questions so you will get a sense of what we are asking and what it is all about.

I will from my letter to the Journals Branch yesterday:

Order Paper Question--Minister responsible for the Royal Canadian Mint

Did the Royal Canadian Mint use an advertisement changing the words of the traditional Christmas carol “The Twelve Days of Christmas”, and if so;

a) what words were used;

b) why were the words changed;

c) is it the policy of the Government of Canada to abolish government references to Christmas;

d) has the government instructed Canada Post to cease the use of Christmas postage stamps;

e) what other steps has the government taken to remove references to Christmas from its programs and publications;

f) is it the intention of the government to amend the Holidays Act to include Christmas;

g) is it the intention of the government to introduce a motion in the House of Commons to amend Standing Order 28(1) to remove the reference to “Christmas Day” as part of its modernization initiatives;

h) whose decision was it to take the “Christ” out of Christmas?

Much to my surprise, and I guess much to the surprise of many members to whom I brought this forward, some of these questions were ruled hypothetical, unacceptable and in fact the word inflammatory was used.

For example, question h), “whose decision was it to take the “Christ” out of Christmas?”, was ruled inflammatory by a clerk in the Journals office.

The reason I am bringing this again to the floor of the House of Commons is simply that we have many people employed in this place whose only job, it appears, is to block members of Parliament from doing their job. It does not involve you, Mr. Speaker, because if we go through Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, I think it is pretty obvious that the rules that I followed were the rules to which you ascribe, if you will. Those very questions would not have been ruled out of order if they had been asked in question period. That is my belief.

The reason I am saying that is, and I will quote from Marleau and Montpetit at page 441:

A written question is judged acceptable if it satisfies the general guidelines for oral questions and the restrictions provided in the rules.

It goes on to say:

A question must be coherent and concise and the subject matter must pertain to “public affairs”; “no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same”.

Mr. Speaker, I think I followed that rule.

On page 124 of the 6th edition of Beauchesne's, article 428 states very clearly:

It has been observed by a Speaker that “one need only look at citation 171 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, in which will be found numerous, and in many cases, inoperable, restrictions covering the form and content of questions. I suggest that if each and every one of these restrictions were applied in every case, very few questions would ever reach the Order Paper”.

I am quoting from the Journals of March 30, 1965, pages 1193-94. The citation the Speaker used at that time referred to a list of prohibitions. I do not want to go through those prohibitions, Mr. Speaker, because the list is very lengthy and I know that you will legitimately and for good reason cut me off.

The fact of the matter is that those questions were not out of order and they would not have been deemed out of order by you, but yet someone hidden in the bowels of this institution, in an anonymous way, in anonymity, rules against a member of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I believe they were wrong in doing that. If we want to use the rules of the House for the reasons that they are there, for the public good, if you will, to represent our constituents, to ask legitimate questions of the Government of Canada, I believe that we have to exercise a level of generosity, and I do not believe that it is fitting that someone not elected, who does not have to be accountable to their peers, as you do, Mr. Speaker, would rule in that fashion.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking you to make a very quick decision on this one. I have abided by the rules of the House, and it is very unlikely that you would rule a question like that out of order during question period. As we go through Beauchesne's and Marleau and Montpetit, if those rules do apply and we stick to those rules as best we can, I am urging you to reconsider that decision made by the clerk in your office and rule that in fact members do have the right to put questions on the Order Paper. If those questions are good enough for oral question period, they should be good enough for the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:40 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair is quite prepared to deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member. I note that he filed a question which had eight parts. It was found that five of the parts were acceptable and three were not.

On review of the situation, I think that I am prepared to allow parts 6 and 7, that is (f) and (g), to be included, but I agree with the exclusion of (h) since it appears to be argumentative. It contains inferences. It is “ironical, rhetorical, offensive, or contain[s] epithet, innuendo, satire” or whatever, as stated in Beauchesne's in the citations to which the hon. member has referred so ably in his argument.

Accordingly I am allowing (f) and (g), but continue to disallow (h), and the Order Paper will be amended accordingly.

Report on Rural CanadaRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Parry Sound—Muskoka Ontario

Liberal

Andy Mitchell LiberalSecretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the third annual report to Parliament on rural Canada, entitled “Celebrating Success in Rural Canada”.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:40 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of National Defence is sitting on a report from the military ombudsman concerning Corporal Christian McEachern, whose trial is ongoing in Edmonton at this time. I believe that this particular document could have an influence on that trial.

Corporal McEachern is a young military man who was administered the anti-malarial drug mefloquine. It may bear on this issue. The ombudsman promised in his report of last February that he would have this document available in nine months. I understand that the minister has it and I would ask that this document be tabled.

Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not know what the point of order is. It sounded like a question. I am sure that the Minister of National Defence will take the hon. member's representation under consideration.

Sex Offender Information Registration ActRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Malpeque P.E.I.

Liberal

Wayne Easter LiberalSolicitor General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-23, an act respecting the registration of information relating to sex offenders, to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Eugène Bellemare Liberal Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first official report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Tax Fairness for Persons with Disabilities”.

More than a third of adults with disabilities say that they must cover additional costs associated with their disability that are not reimbursed by any public or private program.

The committee recommends, among other things, that the government review the eligibility criteria for the tax credit, as well as federal tax measures targeting the disabled.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I should explain, given the discussion previously, that I will be presenting two reports today. The first report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is actually the 13th, refers to the private member's bill of the member for Lethbridge.

I have the honour to present the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding private members' business. This report recommends that one of the bills from the first session, reinstated in this session, be made votable since it was never considered by the subcommittee on private members' business prior to prorogation.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this 13th report later this day.

The second report is one I mentioned earlier. I have the honour to present the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the rules governing private members' business.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the chair of the procedures and House affairs committee advise the House whether that report is in both official languages?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this report is in both official languages.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements ActRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (work for welfare).

Mr. Speaker, the bill would require all provinces to implement a work for welfare program.

We must not forget that the money used to fund welfare programs comes from hardworking taxpayers and they deserve a guarantee that their generosity is not being abused. Welfare fosters a cycle of dependency among those who abuse it. People who are capable of working but choose not to should be denied entitlement to welfare.

The government should promote personal responsibility and end welfare dependency by people who are capable of working. We should give people on welfare a hand up, not a handout.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

December 11th, 2002 / 3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-335, an act to amend the Criminal Code (child pornography).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill today. It is simply an act to amend subsection 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code to eliminate the defence of artistic merit with regard to child pornography, and to have the government indicate to all Canadians that it is not prepared to entertain the artistic merit defence, for the public good, as it does not apply to child pornography, which Canadians want stamped out. That is the intent of the bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Taxpayers' Bill of RightsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to confirm the rights of taxpayers and establish the Office for Taxpayer Protection.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reintroduce this bill, entitled the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which is an iteration of a similar bill I have introduced in previous sessions. It seeks to enshrine in law the due process rights of taxpayers when dealing with the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, to place the burden of proof on the Minister of National Revenue when it comes to actions taken against taxpayers who have demonstrably acted in good faith.

It furthers creates an office for taxpayer protection, which would act as an ombudsman to assist honest taxpayers who are being unfairly and unduly harassed by the revenue agency.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Paul Forseth Canadian Alliance New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Criminal Code (murder of a firefighter).

Mr. Speaker, this enactment amends the Criminal Code to add the murder of firefighters acting in the course of their duties to the list of offences that constitute first degree murder.

With the growing prospect of urban terrorism, it is often firefighters who are the first into harm's way of a created, premeditated, dangerous situation. Also, our International Association of Fire Fighters has been asking for this measure for some time, and I hope the House of Commons will soon oblige with this appropriate recognition and protection.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Chuck Cadman Canadian Alliance Surrey North, BC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-338, an act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing).

Madam Speaker, two years ago, Irene Thorpe, just out for an evening stroll, was struck and killed by a car involved in a street race in Vancouver. Last fall, RCMP Constable Jimmy Ng was killed by a car allegedly in a street race in Richmond, British Columbia. Last weekend, there was a horrendous crash in Winnipeg allegedly again involving street racing.

I am introducing legislation to amend the Criminal Code specifically to provide that street racing is to be considered an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing a person convicted of dangerous operation of or criminal negligence involving a motor vehicle.

In addition, the bill provides that any person convicted under these provisions who was involved in street racing be subject to a regime of mandatory national driving prohibitions ranging from one year to life, to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Prostitution ActRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

moved for leave to introduce C-339, An Act to decriminalize activities related to prostitution and to implement measures to assist sex workers and persons with a drug addiction.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of my bill is to decriminalize sex work on a five-year basis. It asks the provinces and the federal government to examine this new legal situation. It also provides for various measures to assist sex workers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Dairy Terms ActRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act respecting the use of dairy terms.

Madam Speaker,I am glad to introduce two bills today. The first is called the dairy terms act and is seconded by my hon. colleague from Egmont. Others will be in support of it too, and we have a non-partisan effort underway here.

Dairy terms are popular for labelling food items because of the reputation that dairy products have among consumers for quality and nutrition. On one hand, consumers who look for a dairy product could unintentionally buy a non-dairy alternative due to the misuse of dairy terms on the label, and that has happened. On the other hand, consumers who are lactose intolerant and look for a non-dairy alternative may mistakenly overlook the necessary substitute product. As a result, producers lose market share because of inaccurate or misleading labels.

Consumers are entitled to a properly informed choice in the matter of dairy products and non-dairy alternatives. Each year Canadian dairy producers spend over $75 million on advertising dairy products and promoting the nutritional benefits of them.

I believe this dairy term act would improve the existing federal regulatory structure by providing the clarity and the much needed labels and rules in respect to dairy terms.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-341, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

Madam Speaker, this is my second bill dealing with impaired driving. The bill would make it easier for police officers to gather the evidence they need to successfully prosecute impaired drivers. It would strengthen their powers to demand an on the spot physical coordination test. It also would strengthen their powers to demand breath and blood samples from drivers involved in a collision that caused bodily harm or death, if they have reasonable grounds to believe the driver is impaired.

Finally, it would authorize the use of passive alcohol sensors.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, I feel obliged again to explain that my intervention at this time refers to the private member's bill of the member for Lethbridge. I move that the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Williams Canadian Alliance St. Albert, AB

Madam Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented on Tuesday, November 26, be concurred in, and I would like to speak to this.

I am glad to debate this issue because it is something that should have been debated long ago.

To give some background on this motion, I quote from the Public Accounts of Canada 2001, Volume I, at page 1.28, which is Supplementary Information and Observations of the Auditor General on the Financial Statements of the Government of Canada for the Year Ended March 31, 2001. I quote from the second paragraph where the Auditor General states:

The balance in the [Employment Insurance] Account...$36 billion at March 31, 2001 which is well in excess of $15 billion, the maximum amount considered necessary by the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada. (...) The [Employment Insurance] Commission did not provide an adequate justification for the size and rate of growth of the Account balance. Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the intent of the Employment Insurance Act has been observed in setting the 2001 premium rates.

I quote again from the Public Accounts of Canada 2001, Supplementary Information and Observations of the Auditor General on the Financial Statements of the Government of Canada for the Year Ended March 31, 2002. I quote from the article on page 1.30, which states:

The balance in the Employment Insurance Account stood at $40 billion on March 31, 2002, well over the $15 billion that the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada says is the maximum amount needed. Neither the Employment Insurance Commission nor the Government, in setting the EI premium rates for 2001 and 2002, has clarified and disclosed what they consider to be an adequate balance of the Account, the time required to reach that balance, and the factors considered in setting the rates. Accordingly, for the secondconsecutive year I am unable to conclude that the setting of premium rates observed the intent of the Employment Insurance Act.

Continuing on, page 1.31 of the 2001-02 public accounts, the Auditor General states:

Employment Insurance (EI) is a major program administered by the Government of Canada. Since 1986, its revenues, expenditures, assets and liabilities have been consolidated or combined with those of other Government programs in the Government’s financial statements. Consolidation of EI is the proper accounting because EI isa Government program like any other Government program--it is controlled solely by the Government. It is the Government, either directly or through the EI Commission, that sets EI premiums and benefits.

She continues on in the next paragraph and she states:

Due to its size, the EI program has a significant effect on the Government’s overall financial results. The financial statements show that approximately 10% of the Government’s total revenues come from EI premiums; and approximately 11% of the Government’s total program expenditures is for EI benefits and administrative costs. The Government’s surplus in 2001-2002 of $8.9 billion would have been $4 billion lower were it not for EI.

Continuing on page 1.232, the Auditor General also states:

EI premiums, like most other Government revenues, flow into the Government’s bank account; there is no separate bank account for the $40 billion EI surplus at March 31, 2002. In establishing the premium rates for the years 1997 up to and including 2001, the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) reviewed the accumulated balance in the EI Account and economic prospects for the next few years. Based on that review, he normally suggested to the Commission a range of premium rates for the following year. TheEmployment Insurance Commission then set the rate, with the approval of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the ministers of Finance and HRDC. The rates set, however, exceeded the maximum in the range suggested by the Chief Actuary for 1998 to 2001.

A table is attached. The table for 1998 the chief actuary suggested a rate of $2.40. The government set the rate at $2.70. In 1999 the chief actuary suggested a rate between $2.00 and $2.50. The government set the rate at $2.55. In the year 2000 the chief actuary suggested a rate between $2.00 and $2.25. The government set the rate at $2.40. In 2001 the chief actuary suggested a rate of $1.75 to $2.10. The government set the rate at $2.25.

In 2002 the chief actuary was removed because the government did not like the suggestions he made. It said that it did not want to hear from him any more, legislated his report out of existence and set the rate at $2.25, which is still above what he had for the previous year.

The government has played around with EI, got a $40 billion surplus and likes that $40 billion surplus because the money is in, as I pointed out, the consolidated revenue fund of the government. It has come to enjoy the benefits of EI to balance the books and then brag to Canadian taxpayers how well it has done. I think I heard the Prime Minister the other day brag about his surpluses for the last six or seven years. Now we know this has been done on the backs of the employers and the employees.

The government was not interested in listening to the Auditor General's audit observations contained in the public accounts, so the Auditor General wrote a report in chapter 11 of her December 2002 report.

At page 38, chapter 11, is a whole section on the employment insurance account. It starts off by saying that no explanation was provided to Parliament for a surplus reaching $40 billion. That is reminiscent of her remarks the other day when she talked about the gun registry. She said that Parliament had been kept in the dark. It is nothing new about Parliament being kept in the dark. She has also said that we have been kept in the dark about the EI.

She goes on to say that neither the commission nor the government clarified or disclosed key factors in setting the employment insurance premium rates. There is a whole chapter of about three pages where she goes into great depth to say that since 1996 the EI insurance account has collected more revenues than the expenditures it has to pay.

The public accounts committee decided it was time that it became involved. On November 26, the Auditor General appeared before the committee and gave us the note from her opening statement. She talked about the Employment Insurance Act and how the EI account had grown by another $4 billion in the last fiscal year, and is still growing. As of March 31 the surplus was $40 billion, which is $25 billion more than the government's chief actuary said is the maximum amount needed. She said:

I question if this was Parliament's intention with respect to the Employment Insurance Act, even after taking into account recent amendments to the Act.

The Auditor General is saying that if Parliament did not intend to have a surplus of this magnitude in the employment insurance account, why do we have it?

Because the Chief Actuary was consistently saying that the government was wrong, the government brought changes to the Employment Insurance Act and suspended that process for two years. The Liberals said that they would decide themselves without the benefit of the Chief Actuary. During that two years they were to hold private and public consultations to see what should be done.

At the public accounts committee, representatives from the Department of Finance said that the public consultations had not yet begun. It did not appear as if the government had any intention of having public hearings on this issue.

Under questioning the civil servant from the Department of Finance admitted that while the government only had two years to figure out what it was going to do, there was nothing to stop it from extending that for another two years and another two years and for as long as the Liberals were in office. Hopefully that will not be another two years but who can tell.

There is no openness and transparency here. We have a government claiming to take the money and balancing the books and bragging about the surplus on the backs of employers and employees.

The public accounts committee Recommendation No. 1 states:

That the government clarify and disclose to Parliament and the public accounts committee all the relevant factors used in setting the Employment Insurance premium rates, particularly with regard to determining the nature of the employment insurance account balance and deciding on its disposition. That the government table the relevant information to Parliament and the committee no later than March 31, 2003.

Since the government will not listen to the Auditor General of Canada, and it will not listen to the representations of the opposition because we have raised this issue many times in the House, I do hope it will listen to a unanimous report of an all party standing committee of the House of Commons, namely the public accounts committee.

Recommendation No. 2 of the public accounts committee report states:

That during the review of the employment insurance premium-setting process, the government take all necessary steps to include consultations with employee and employer groups, along with the Canada Employment Insurance Commission and the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada and all other relevant stakeholders.

It is a perfectly honest and reasonable request, that the people who pay the tax, the employers and employees, be asked for their opinions, that the chief actuary of HRDC, who always had the job of having input into the process before, be invited for his input as well, plus any other stakeholders and the people who run the Employment Insurance Commission. They should get together in a public process and decide what to do. That is reasonable. I certainly hope that the government is listening.

Recommendation No. 3 states:

That the government prepare a status report on these consultations, summarizing each participant's position, contribution and conclusions to the review of the employment insurance rate-setting process, and table the document to Parliament and the public accounts committee when the review is complete.

We did not put a deadline on that report because the government admitted that it really had not started the process and could not give us any indication as to when it would. Shame on it. In the meantime, employers and employees are paying far too much. The Auditor General says they are paying far too much. Yet there is not a word out of the government which continues to accept the money without even so much as an apology.

Recommendation No. 4 of the report states:

That the Government formally reinstate the requirement that the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada prepare and produce full and complete actuarial reports for the EI program for 2002 and 2003. That these reports be made available in a timely fashion to all stakeholders and the public on the Human Resources Development Canada website.

It continues:

That the government consider legislative amendments that would require the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada to produce on an annual basis actuarial reports on the EI program. That these reports be made available in a timely fashion to all stakeholders and the public on the Human Resources Development Canada website.

We want openness and we want transparency. I fully understand that when we came here in 1993, which is a long time ago, there was a problem with government finances and there were debts and deficits that were spiralling out of control. That is not the case today.

Why is it when we recognize that it is the private sector employers and employees who go to work each and every day who generate the wealth in this country and provide the prosperity that we all enjoy, that we continue to penalize the very segment of society that creates our wealth by taking more money out of their pockets through an employment insurance program? What is required to fund the program?

We now have $40 billion in there. The Auditor General pointed out that every nickel of the premium paid represents about $425 million in income. The excess revenues are approximately $4 billion each and every year.

It is quite conceivable that the rate could be dropped by 50¢, not the 10¢ that the Minister of Finance is proposing. It is quite conceivable that the rate be dropped by 50¢ per $100 of insured income and the fund would maintain a balance. It would not even be reduced. It would just be balanced and that $40 billion would remain there as overtaxation on the people who create the wealth in the country.

Why can the government not look at that? Is it so important for the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the government to tell us how they are wasting a $1 billion on the gun registry? There was the $1 billion boondoggle in HRDC. The Groupaction advertising contracts for $40 million are being thrown around.

Every rule in the book is being broken by the government. It is so much in need of the cash from the EI that it wants to spend it in that way. It is an affront to the employers and employees in Canada. How can the government justify this type of spending and this kind of taxation on the citizens of Canada? It is absolutely an affront.

The EI program is no longer an EI program. It is a payroll tax. We have known for years that payroll taxes kill jobs. Here we are with some anemic growth where we are trying to avoid a recession and we continue to penalize and destroy the competitiveness of the private sector which creates the wealth that has provided the wonderful lifestyle that we have.

The government wants to wring the last nickel out of people and hope that they do not choke to death. The government thinks that there is no end to how much money they can and will pay. There is an end and the Auditor General said it should have ended before now.

I am asking the government through this report, and the public accounts committee is asking the government through its second report to do something about the rate and to explain itself why it is this way. Why does it continue to hide behind the privacy of the order in council decisions and come out with an announcement from on high saying the rate will be $2.10 when it could be $1.60?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:15 p.m.

An hon. member

Exactly, 50¢ lower.