Jim Peterson

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity and other opportunities to clarify the situation.

In spite of the incredible fiscal challenges that our government has faced, in the last budget where we achieved a balance we also began the process of overall income tax reduction.

We took 400,000 low income Canadians totally off the income tax rolls. For 13 million out of 14 million Canadian taxpayers, there were reduced taxes including the elimination of the surtax for all those with incomes—

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is done with federal revenues is really a matter of choice. For our part, we have adopted a balanced program, which is to balance the debt, decrease taxes, and invest for the economic and social future of Canadians.

That is the same thing we had to do—

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly, with the deficit problems we experienced in 1993, steps had to be taken. At the same time, we decreased employment insurance contributions every year. We decreased them over four years, with a freeze the first year. Every 10 cents of contribution costs us in revenue more than—

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the press release of the office of the superintendent of financial institutions: “Mr. Bernard Dussault at OSFI has been terminated. This action follows a long period of continued differences between Mr. Dussault and OSFI management. These differences have been over issues of management style and do not in any way touch on the professional work of Mr. Dussault or his staff on any actuarial projections or opinions.

The people charged with running those departments are independent professional public servants and have the right, independent of the political arm of government, to make management decisions. It was their decision. It was not ours.

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, just as I accede to your jurisdiction in the Chamber, this is what happened in this particular case. Individuals within the public service have to be responsible to their superiors within the public service. We would not interfere with that.

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the superintendent of financial institutions has made it very clear that this was a difference of management styles within his own department.

If what the hon. member is saying is that individual members in our public service should have the right to determine who they report to, no matter who, and that issue should not be set by management within the public service, then that would be a—

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we have been on a course whereby we have consistently reduced EI premiums. This is a question of choice. In three and a half years we have gone from a $42 billion deficit to a surplus budget. At the same time we have chosen to reinvest in those most deserving in our country, the disabled, children living below the poverty line, working families with low incomes, the charitable sector, the voluntary sector.

We have chosen a balanced approach for paying down the debt—

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when we took office the deficit was $42 billion. EI premiums were going to $3.30. We capped them at $3.07. Since then we have had four consecutive reductions in the EI premiums.

In the last budget they went from $2.90 down to $2.70. This represented a $1.4 billion decrease in EI premiums. We have had additional tax decreases. In the last budget we began the process—

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is very simple. I refer to the press release of the superintendent of financial institutions: “This has been an entirely internal personnel matter at OSFI, and the decision to terminate Mr. Dussault was taken within OSFI. Any suggestion to the contrary has no foundation in fact”. That is the fact.

[Canada Pension Plan, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not interfere in the internal relationships of public service bodies. We did not and we would not.

What is the member really asking us in terms of reporting relationships? Does he really think that the reporting relationships within OSFI should not be determined by the management in our professional public service? Is this is what he is saying? Should it be somebody else who—