Michel Gauthier

[Employment Insurance, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources is refusing to admit that there will be transition measures in the implementation of the new employment insurance program. He refuses to admit it. He is also refusing to respond regarding very the specific cases put to him by my colleague for Mercier. The Minister of Human Resources Development is like a barrel organ: you can request any tune you like, but, when you turn the crank, the tune is always the same.

To continue with his example of the woman in Sydney, I would ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to explain how this person will manage to qualify for employment insurance, when no employer recorded the number of hours worked in 1996?

[Employment Insurance, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is a system which represents the bread and butter of a good many Canadian families starting in January.

Huge numbers of people are in danger of being excluded from the system by the transition rules, which would appear to require 35-hour weeks. Huge numbers of people will no longer have access to the employment insurance plan. They would qualify under the old system, they would qualify under the new one, but they would not qualify under the transition rules.

First, is the minister aware of this and, second, will he take this into account when making a decision?

[Employment Insurance, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have a big problem here in the House, and the minister has a really big one. The minister tells us that the government is doing its best to inform Canadians. Could the minister start by informing the House, since he is being asked questions.

I will ask him very, very precisely what we want to know. I cannot speak to him directly. I will do it through yourself, Mr. Speaker; however, I would like him to listen in order to understand the question. Can the minister tell us whether he is, or is not, in the process at this time of examining the hypothesis of a transition which would consider all hours worked during 1996 as 35-hour weeks? Is he, or is he not? That is the only thing we want to know.

[Employment Insurance, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps our colleagues sense that a storm is brewing. Let us hope so, as it is not long until the holiday season. If there is one person who is stirring up a storm at this moment, it is the Minister

of Human Resources Development. Yesterday, in fact, this minister told my colleague from Mercier that the transition period in the new employment insurance program had started in January. He said:

It is time the hon. member for Mercier realized that the reason why some provisions of the act were implemented on July 1 while others will take effect January 1 is precisely to give people time to adjust to the reform.

Now, there is a little problem; it would be hard to have something in application since January 1, when the act was passed in June. The minister has a problem. In the spirit of fair play, however, I will give him the chance to correct himself today. Yesterday he told us that there would be changes to the regulations, which he described as minor, in order to effect the transition between the old and the new systems.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm that these minor changes to which he referred include a hypothesis that, effective January 5 and for the application of the new system, weeks worked prior to December 1996 are all deemed to have been 35 hours in length for the purposes of eligibility for the new system? Can the minister tells us whether or not this measure exists?

[Taxation, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, an article that appeared in a Canadian tax publication three weeks after the tabling of the Minister of Finance's motion, supposedly intended to close the tax loopholes, proposed no fewer than eight ways of getting around these new restrictions on transferring assets out of the country.

Will the Minister of Finance admit that his ways and means motion still allows the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and therefore leaves us back at square one?

[Taxation, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me, but the minister is not doing a good job of defending herself. What we are talking about here is a 200-page opinion on this matter, an unfavourable opinion from Revenue staff, a document that was not given to the public accounts

committee, which, according to the Minister of Finance, was to thoroughly investigate the family trust scandal.

How can the government justify, other than by referring to the other government, that the committee in question, which was to investigate this scandal, was not aware of this 200-page opinion prepared by the departmental staff of the minister of revenue?

[Taxation, December 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that I am not used to such kind attention from the government, from everyone here. Thank you.

Unfortunately, I have nothing kind to say about the Minister of Finance. The government is most certainly not going to get top marks on its report card for taxation. In fact, it took three years of efforts by the official opposition, plus one report by the auditor general, before the Minister of Finance finally decided to make a little move on the tax evasion matter, and even then what he did do was rather hesitant and incomplete.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. How can the Minister of Finance explain his claim of asking the public accounts committee to cast all possible light on the family trust scandal, when we have just learned that a 200-page document, a 200-page opinion prepared by Revenue officials, addressing some very pertinent aspects of this problem, was not provided to that committee by the government?

[Canadian Airlines, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that companies showing a deficit will enjoy a partial reduction in taxes. Is this not encouraging companies to show a year end deficit, to show they are in the red, so they can enjoy the government's generosity?

Would the Minister of Finance not agree that this makes no sense and that the solution for the airlines has to be much more thought out, much more credible-one that could resolve the problem and not create perhaps another ten more?

[Canadian Airlines, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the process is a rather odd one. Usually, the Minister of Finance announces reductions or increases in taxes. Things seem, shall I say, a bit in disarray in the government. It was much the same thing in the case of cigarettes and the Minister of Health, until the Minister of Finance set him straight. Perhaps he will have to set his colleague in transport straight. I nevertheless have a question for the Minister of Finance.

Given how easy it is for a company to post a deficit using certain accounting practices, would the Minister of Finance not agree that a program like this, intended solely for companies that show an operating deficit, might encourage all Canadian airlines to show a deficit through the use of certain accounting tricks in order to benefit from a substantial reduction in fuel tax too? Does this measure make any sense?

[Canadian Airlines, November 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport made a last minute offer yesterday evening to save Canadian Airlines from financial disaster. He is apparently prepared to provide a rebate on fuel taxes.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether the jet fuel tax rebate the Minister of Transport refers to is just for companies in financial difficulty, as we first learned?