Joe Peschisolido

[The Economy, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week the auditor general painted a stark and grim picture of the government's waste and mismanagement. Now we learn that the government is ready to continue that waste in today's budget.

It seems as if there is always money for the industry minister's Internet scheme and money for the heritage minister's film industry friends.

Could the Deputy Prime Minster explain how these are the priorities of Canadians when we are facing a recession, a health care crisis and a war on terrorism?

[Employment Insurance, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to deal with the question.

It is very simple. We have a $40 billion surplus in that account. The chief actuary says that we only need $15 billion. It is obvious the government does not trust its own numbers.

Since the minister must be using some other numbers rather than those of the chief actuary, is the finance minister prepared to table those numbers? How much does he need? Is it $25 billion, $50 billion or $35 billion? What is the number?

[Employment Insurance, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the finance minister.

The chief actuary has said that a $15 billion EI surplus that exists is enough for the worst recession, but by March 2002, the EI account should be more than $40 billion. Premiums can be cut by 50 cents, yet all Canadians have received is a five cent reduction.

The question needs to be asked again because the government has not dealt with it. If the EI account is in such good shape, why does the government not provide working men and women with a real EI premium cut?

[Employment Insurance, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member did not realize that I did not ask about taxpayers' dollars. I spoke about Canadian workers' premiums. That is the problem. The government simply does not get it.

The chief actuary has said that EI premiums could be cut to $1.75 and the EI system would still break even. There is a $36 billion surplus. The auditor general says that the EI surplus is so large that the EI law is practically being broken.

Is the reason the Minister of Finance has not cut premiums that he has already misspent and misallocated the surplus?

[Employment Insurance, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on November 30, EI premiums were cut by a measly nickel. This will save Canadian workers $19.50 a year. In January CPP premiums will go up by $172. This means that Canadian workers will pay an extra $150 a year in premiums.

How, then, can the Minister of Finance claim as he does that premiums have been cut?

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has some $40 billion surplus in the EI account. Our own chief actuary said that only $15 billion is needed for even the worst recession.

The minister said that she will not cut premiums but there is more than enough money in the EI account.

The minister cannot have it both ways. Either the money has been wasted and it is unavailable for EI or the minister can cut premiums. Which is it?

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in October, 26,000 full time jobs were lost and the unemployment rate increased to 7.3%.

In this difficult economic time, job creation must be encouraged. The Minister of Finance said that payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree with her cabinet colleague and will she cut EI premiums to create jobs?

[Toronto, November 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to pay tribute to the little paper that grew on its 30th anniversary. Thirty years ago today the Toronto Sun was born.

The vision of Douglas Creighton and Peter Worthington led a small bunch of reporters, editors, production people and photographers to start a new alternative newspaper in the most competitive media market in Canada.

From its humble beginnings in Toronto the Sun chain has now moved right across Canada. “Get it first, get it fast and get it accurate” has long been the motto of the Sun . They should be proud to know that readers see this reflected in their morning paper every day.

On behalf of my leader and my caucus colleagues in the Canadian Alliance I offer my congratulations to the Toronto Sun and all its employees.

[Employee Benefits, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am speechless. The parliamentary secretary has put forth a position with which I, unfortunately, have to agree. The motion put forth by my colleague is a very well intentioned motion. The intent is there to protect workers and ensure that all Canadians, of whatever background, have a solid nest egg, something to retire on.

When my father came over from Italy he was part of the union movement. He started out as a carpenter and a painter. He was a member of local 1080, the painters and allied trades in Toronto. The pension plan was a very important one for him. He moved on and started his own business but he does receive a pension plan.

The important thing for me in the Alliance Party in Canada is that there is choice. In our constitutional parliamentary system we have the judiciary and the parliamentary system. With the bringing into effect of the charter of rights, the distinction or the relationship between those two bodies, it is not that it is being blurred but it is in the process of being figured out.

In looking at the motion, I do not believe it is balanced enough. As the parliamentary secretary mentioned, it takes an approach that removes a lot of the individual's freedom for decision making. When my father was a drywaller and a painter, he had companies and subcontractors that were willing to participate in a type of pension system. That was very important.

I was going to talk about the flaws in my colleague's motion but I would be redundant because the six points I would have mentioned have been gone through by my colleague from the government side. However we can always trust a Liberal to put a partisan edge on a debate that deals with the well-being of Canadians. That is the key point here.

I am sure all members in the House want to make sure workers are taken care of. We have a process. It may not be the final word on determining surpluses but it is a process and for the House to support the motion I think would tie the hands not only of the courts but of parliamentarians in this sitting and in the future.

For that reason, I and the official opposition cannot support the motion even though we support the intent of the motion to provide a solid pension system for the hardworking men and women of Canada.

[Housing, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 9, I held a town hall meeting in my riding of Richmond. The topic was the leaky condo crisis and more than 120 people attended. I have been listening, as have my colleagues from the lower mainland, but unfortunately the government has not.

This week a delegation of leaky condo owners has come to Ottawa to make the government listen to their plight and to get some relief in the face of this disaster.

I am sure the government would agree that all Canadians should be treated equally and would ensure that the B.C. leaky condo owners receive the same type of relief as those homeowners in Quebec who were rightly helped for their problems related to pyrite.

I hope the government moves quickly to help the thousands of British Columbians who are facing bankruptcy and in some cases grave illness.