Joe Peschisolido

[Sports, May 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there have been media reports alleging discrimination with regard to the Government of Canada's--

[Mountain Pine Beetle, April 30th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to speak to the motion moved by my colleague from Cariboo--Chilcotin.

Unfortunately I cannot support Motion No. 435 since its eradication thrust is inaccurate, as a native species cannot be eradicated. The motion's suggestion of the need for full co-operation of the federal government with the B.C. government is redundant as that co-operation already is taking place.

I will briefly recap the situation. When we last spoke on this issue in the House back in December, I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources noted that the federal government was committed to working with the B.C. government and other landowners in addressing the mountain pine beetle. He also noted that at that point the federal government had not received a formal request for funding or for co-operative planning to solve the problem.

Today I am pleased to elaborate on what was said here earlier today and to tell the hon. member for Cariboo--Chilcotin and the House that the Minister of Natural Resources had two meetings in early March with the minister of forests for British Columbia. In those meetings the minister discussed the issue of collaboration in addressing the mountain pine beetle.

In fact the Minister of Natural Resources had the opportunity this weekend to fly over the affected area near Prince Rupert. He was able to witness firsthand the magnitude of this infestation.

In addition the minister has also met with and corresponded with the hon. Gordon Campbell, the premier of British Columbia. In his letter the premier requested support for this problem “within existing federal programs”. The provincial request calls for federal support in the following areas: rehabilitation of dead forests; joint ventures with first nations; operationally focused research; marketing beetle lumber; and building affordable housing.

The Minister of Natural Resources has indicated to his provincial colleagues that his department, Natural Resources Canada, has been chairing an interdepartmental committee of senior officials from Environment Canada, Industry Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Western Economic Diversification Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, among others, to explore possible ways in which the Government of Canada can assist British Columbia in dealing with this epidemic. We all agree this is important.

The Government of Canada definitely is moving forward in a collaborative way on the issue. As we do so, we are fully collaborating with the Government of British Columbia.

I would also like to share some information about the mountain pine beetle. This is important and I think we would all agree that we have to act. The important question is how we act. I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by my colleague from Vancouver East.

We all agree that this is certainly a pernicious pest but it is also a part of the natural landscape of lodgepole pine forests. It is evident that these insects are highly damaging in mature forests in western Canada. In British Columbia, mature lodgepole pines, the beetles' preferred host, make up a significant percentage of the forest.

There is a certain irony. I do not say that to minimize the seriousness of the manifestation but we have to look at the science and look at all points of how to deal with what we all agree is a very serious problem. This problem stems partly from the advances we have made in terms of forest management. Fire suppression is a fine example of an area where we have been extremely successful.

By successfully fighting forest fires, by successfully managing our forests, we retain more trees that would otherwise die through natural phenomena. We now have more mature trees and more mature trees mean more prime beetle habitat.

We constantly hear how our mature or old growth forests are disappearing. British Columbia, according to its ministry of forests, has more old growth forests today than it did 50 years ago. Again it is largely the advances and successes in areas such as fire suppression that have allowed these trees to age.

We are in some ways contributors to our own current misfortune. That is where the expertise and innovation of researchers within the Canadian Forest Service are invaluable. Our people, working with the province and industry as well, are developing new approaches, including methods to increase the resistance of stands to outbreak. We are working hard to find viable alternatives as well as to identify the long term effect of various control programs.

As was said earlier, we are collaborating with the Government of British Columbia. We are sharing the results of our research and providing the tools that will help us make the right decisions together. This collaboration sets the stage for partnerships not only for today but also for tomorrow and for many tomorrows beyond, a strategic plan as was suggested by my colleague from Vancouver East. This approach will also provide a benchmark for dealing with future sustainability issues.

We all realize that nature provides a place for insects like the mountain pine beetle so that the number of mature trees is controlled as a natural recycling agent allowing for necessary new growth. Cold winters generally keep the number of beetles manageable. Unfortunately, Mother Nature has not kept up that side of the bargain recently. The mild winter weather British Columbia has experienced over the last few years has allowed these insects to thrive.

When we examine the size and seriousness of the infestation in the west, the hon. member's motion for eradication may initially seem appealing. There is a gut reaction to say yes, of course. However, and this is the key, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of exploring all possible options before embarking on--and I have to agree with my colleague from Vancouver East--a drastic control program that cannot succeed and indeed one that could cause irreversible harm.

We must remember that although the mountain pine beetle has established itself as a destructive pest, it has also evolved as part of the pine forest ecosystem. As stewards of our country's forests and their ecosystems, we have a fundamental obligation to understand the long term ramifications of an intensive mountain pine beetle control program before undertaking such a course of action.

British Columbia has survived previous mountain pine beetle infestations. We know that the epidemics and their economic repercussions are serious, but we also know that they do not destroy the forests. New growth begins very quickly in areas hit by infestation. It is our responsibility to make sure that we explore all possible avenues and make the decision that will not only solve the immediate problem but will also look to the future.

The mission of the Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada is to promote the sustainable development of Canada's forests and the competitiveness of the Canadian forest sector for the well-being of present and future generations of Canadians. With that in mind we will of course offer all of the assistance possible within jurisdictional frameworks and existing programs to our friends in the British Columbia government as we have been doing for the past little while. As we do this we will be looking at a solution that meets the long term needs and goals as well, and not simply a quick fix, something which is appealing at the beginning.

We have also learned through all the research that in order to tackle the problem and effect the most positive outcome, the approach must be at the landscape level and not in particular or isolated locations within the infestation zone. That is what we will be exploring with the provincial government.

In closing, I would like to stress that we are taking immediate steps to ascertain the extent of support the federal government can provide and will provide to the Government of British Columbia. It is something we all agree is a very serious matter.

Natural Resources Canada has long been actively involved in seeking solutions that will combat this and any other threat to Canada's forests. This commitment will continue.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my approach to the budget debate of not going through the points in it should not be taken as a testament of the virtues of the budget but of its lack of virtue.

It is quite simple. The government is trying to have it both ways and cannot. I would not agree with my hon. colleague that payroll taxes have gone down. Payroll taxes are not only EI premiums. It is very simple in my view. Payroll taxes are a combination of two premiums: EI premiums and CPP premiums.

If we look at the government's numbers since 1993 there has been a reduction in EI premiums of about $300, but there has also been an increase in CPP premiums by over $900. In effect there has been an increase in payroll taxes of over $610.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the government is trying to have it all ways. It is using facts and figures to try to meet its arguments. Sometimes it is a five year tax cut; other times it is a one year tax cut. Even if we are generous and look at the so-called $100 billion tax reduction over a five year period, we are only talking about $43.5 billion over five years.

Let us look at the payroll taxes for this fiscal year. I was astounded to hear from my colleague across the floor that there was no EI fund. The EI fund is not taxpayer dollars, and this is a key point. The EI fund is taken from workers and employers. The purpose of the EI fund is to ensure there is a solid system for men and women, hardworking Canadians who lose their jobs. It is not to fund government programs and mismanagement. That is the whole issue.

The government should come clean on it. If it is using the EI fund to fund other programs and to cover up its mismanagement it should state that. It should simply state that there is no EI fund and the chief actuary should not be there. It should stop the charade and say that all funds going into the EI system from workers is a tax.

Canadian workers should be told that their money does not go for their own EI possibilities but to the finance minister for his or her pet projects. I am fascinated to hear from the government side that is the purpose of the EI fund.

[The Budget, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

It seems obvious in listening to the debate that the government must have been advised by first year economics students. They are the only ones who would have advised certain elements in the budget.

The biggest flaw in the budget is that there is no real tax relief for working Canadians. In fact they will be paying more to Ottawa, to big government in January, in fact $1.7 billion more. The vaunted government tax cuts that we have heard from the other side will have virtually no effect. They will come into effect but they will have no real import on the economy.

The government is offering a miniscule cut to EI premiums, a tiny .5 cents for workers and seven cents for employers. This means that anyone making $39,000 or more a year will save a grand total of $19.50, and employers, for every employee who makes over $39,000, will save only $27.30. This, despite the government's rhetoric, is hardly a stimulative boost to the economy.

We have heard a great deal of debate today and during question period about what is a payroll tax. EI premiums are only one part of payroll taxes. Obviously the other part is CPP premiums and they are on the rise by quite a bit. Any person who makes $39,000 a year and who saves $19.50 in EI premiums will have to fork out $172 more in CPP premiums.

Thanks to the government's alleged largesse, the average Canadian worker will be out $152.50 this year. That is a tax increase of $152.50. That is how much a Canadian worker's paycheque will shrink. This is what the government calls tax cutting.

The record of the government since the 1993 election unfortunately is worse. Canadians have seen their payroll taxes increase by $610, or by 32%, since 1993. Obviously if we follow the logic, even the logic of a first year economics student, Canadians are poorer but the government is richer. The only reason the budget is balanced is because of the continued raiding of the EI surplus, a fund that has been built by the sweat of Canadian workers.

The EI account, by all accounts, is huge. The government would admit this. There is some dispute as to exactly how large it is. My colleague says it is about $40 billion a year. This money has been squirreled away to safeguard the system against a possible recession. That is fine and that is the way it ought to work. The trouble is that the chief actuary of the fund has said that to survive even the worst recession, the EI fund needs at most $15 billion in the bank.

The government has refused to say if it agrees with the number, and if not, what the number actually should be. Obviously if the government does not agree with the chief actuary, it is incumbent upon the government to table its own numbers in the House.

With $40 billion in the EI account, which simply is rolled into general revenues and spent on whatever program the government desires, we have almost three times more money than would be needed to outlast the worst recession. By the finance minister's own account, this recession should be quite short and not too deep. We do not know that, but that is what the government's position is.

Let us follow the logic for a moment. There is $40 billion sitting in the EI account. It would be quite easy to cut premiums in a very large way. In fact the chief actuary is so helpful, he is telling us how much should be in the account. He has laid it out. He said the break even point is as follows. We could cut the premiums from $2.20 per $100 of insurable income for employees to $1.75.

If the finance minister had done this instead of cutting only a measly nickel, then Canadians would have saved $195, which is more than the concurrent rise in CPP premiums. Canadians would have actually had a tax cut. The system at this rate would break even and the account would still be left with $40 billion.

Let me try to go through the government's position as far as I can understand it. The Liberals say there is enough money in the account, so do not worry, but they cannot cut premiums any more because they are not sure if there is enough money in the account. With all due respect, if the surplus is so large, there cannot be more than enough money and not enough money at the same time.

Logically, only one of these positions can be true. If the government does have a huge EI surplus, then premiums can be cut to the near break even point of $1.75 for employees and $2.45 for employers. If the government does not have a huge surplus, where is it? Where have the Liberals wasted it? Where did it go? This is a legitimate question that the government has tried to avoid.

I suspect that the government has no intention of ever really answering these questions. Unfortunately, that point has been clearly made by the tenor of the debate back and forth here.

The simple fact remains that payroll taxes are going up. This is bad for Canadians. This is bad for the economy. Unfortunately, it is very bad for the hardworking Canadians and those who, because of the lack of a stimulus part in the budget, will be losing their jobs.

In fact, the Minister of Finance agrees. Back in this House on May 3, 1994 the finance minister said that payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation. If they are a cancer on job creation and the minister has not admitted but has come pretty close in stating that we are in a recession, obviously it should follow that there should be a stimulus part in the budget and that payroll taxes be reduced.

The message the government should be sending to small businesses and large businesses is to go out and create jobs. The role of government is not to create jobs; it is to provide the environment in which jobs are to be created. The government has failed on that account.

The message from the government is just the opposite. The Liberals are saying they are going to make it harder to create jobs. The government will talk about what is a payroll tax. Is EI? Is CPP? The government will try to fudge things. The bottom line is there has been a major increase in payroll taxes.

In summary, the budget has been a major disappointment for Canadians. Hardworking Canadians will see their paycheques shrink. This is very unfortunate. In the House we go back and forth many times, but the hard reality is there are people suffering out there. There are people trying to make ends meet. There are people worried about their kids.

The government is involved in a public relations exercise. The budget is not truly a budget that will lead Canada into the next century. Some have argued that the budget is all about leadership issues. Others have argued that it is just a temporary way of holding down the fort until a real budget can come forth in the next six to eight months. That is very unfortunate because Canadians deserve better.

[Employment Insurance, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was a specific question on payroll taxes. Yes, the numbers are very specific. Since 1993 payroll taxes and CPP premiums have gone up $916 while EI premiums have gone down $306, which is still an increase of $610 in payroll taxes. It is very simple. The numbers are clear.

We are in a recession. The finance minister has practically admitted that. Why then on Monday did the finance minister hike payroll taxes and kill jobs in this fragile economy?

[Employment Insurance, December 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance once said “We believe there is nothing more ludicrous than a tax on hiring, but that is what high payroll taxes are”.

If the Minister of Finance still believes that, why are hard-working Canadians paying $610 more in payroll taxes than they did in 1993?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my question.

Since 1993, payroll taxes on workers have increased by $610. That said, it is very surprising to reread the words of the Minister of Finance from May 3, 1994 “Payroll taxes are a cancer on job creation.”

My question is therefore a very simple one. With an economy in recession, why is this Minister of Finance adding $1.7 billion to this cancer on job creation?

[The Budget, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget raised the payroll tax for workers and employers. This huge hike will cost the Canadian economy $1.7 billion.

With an economy in recession, would it not be more logical to stimulate the economy instead of strangling it?

[The Economy, December 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the deputy minister is the only one who has not read today's papers.

The government needs to eliminate wasteful spending and mismanagement but instead we read in the papers that there will be legacies for these wonderful ministers of the crown.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister, given the government's waste and mismanagement, make sure these legacies will not turn into a Liberal deficit?