EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
CONTENTS
Monday, October 26, 1998
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-302. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1110
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1125
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1130
1135
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lou Sekora |
1140
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Power |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1205
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1220
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-43—Notice of time allocation
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
1225
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1230
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1235
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1250
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1305
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1330
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerald Keddy |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1345
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Harvey |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TASTE OF THE DANFORTH FESTIVAL
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cannis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1400
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | KIDS FROM THE VALLEY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STREET CENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL BLOCK PARENT WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
1405
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GORDON MOLENDYK
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNICEF
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MI'KMAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMUNITY FUTURES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Brent St. Denis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1410
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | J. ALPHONSE DEVEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC-JAPAN RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FONDS DE SOLIDARITÉ DES TRAVAILLEURS DU QUÉBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Odina Desrochers |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC ELECTION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1420
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
1425
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APEC INQUIRY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1430
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FEDERAL SPENDING POWER
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1435
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1440
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GASOLINE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Christine Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EAST TIMOR
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1445
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PENSIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1450
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AGRICULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1455
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE CONSTITUTION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Daniel Turp |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HIGHWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mark Muise |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-44
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
1500
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Yolande Thibeault |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-448. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of Grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mac Harb |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
1510
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-304
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Food and Drug Act
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Abolition of Senate
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Criminal Code
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1515
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Rights of grandparents
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Cruelty to Animals
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Euthanasia
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Marriage
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Gasoline
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Steckle |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
1520
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted day—Employment Insurance
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Kilger |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1525
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1540
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1545
1550
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1555
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1610
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charles Hubbard |
1625
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1630
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1635
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1640
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1645
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Richardson |
1650
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1655
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1710
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1715
1720
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1725
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Hec Clouthier |
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1740
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1745
1750
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1755
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1810
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1815
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1820
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Millennium Scholarships
|
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1825
![V](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142
![](/web/20061116185712im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, October 26, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
FISHERS' BILL OF RIGHTS
The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers including
the right to be involved in the process of fisheries stock
assessment, fish conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing
licensing and the public right to fish and establish the right of
fishers to be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a
livelihood in advance and the right to compensation if other
rights are abrogated unfairly, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
certainly is a privilege today to join with my colleagues in the
House to debate the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for
New Brunswick Southwest, who represents a riding that is very
much involved with the fishery.
Only about a week ago our provincial newspaper had a very
lengthy article on the tremendous resource that we have in the
Bay of Fundy. I am sure that the member, who is from that area,
is very much concerned about the future and the longevity of the
fishery for all of us in Atlantic Canada.
It is curious today that we are talking about a so-called
fishers' bill of rights. If we go back, historically, we find
that in the last 200 years rights have been developed for a very
significant group of people.
I think of the original bill of rights and the work that was
done by the American colonists when the United States was set up
as a new country in this hemisphere. Then, of course, with the
French revolution we had the declaration of the rights of man.
Also this week we have to reflect upon the stamp that came out
only this past month recognizing a fellow New Brunswicker, John
Humphreys, who was instrumental in writing the special human
rights declaration for the United Nations. I am sure New
Brunswickers are proud that the stamp was issued. We are
certainly proud that a New Brunswicker received international
recognition for his work on human rights.
In Canada, of course, we have our own human rights legislation.
However I question the necessity for a fishers' bill of rights
because across this country there are many different sectors of
the economy. If this House is going to try to develop bills of
rights, maybe there should be one farmers. They probably deserve
a bill of rights because one of the first occupations on this
earth was agriculture. Maybe some of our friends from that
sector could have a farmers' bill of rights. We could go on and
on to identify different groups that should certainly have
rights. I think of animal rights. Maybe the member opposite
should be thinking of a fish bill of rights.
In the last 25 years fish have had a very difficult time on our
globe. As a very good source of protein, we find that many
emerging nations or nations in difficulty have looked upon the
waters of this earth as supplying protein for their people. As a
result, the fishing industry, and fish in particular, have been
under great stress. In the 1980s Atlantic Canada suffered great
difficulties with the decline of the groundfishery.
My colleague from the west coast might worry about coho salmon.
They too might need to have their rights protected. If we do not
have some protection for these species soon our entire economy in
terms of the fishery will be in difficulty.
I have certain concerns with the bill in terms of this group of
people. I know that fisher people are a very important part of
our economy. As a government we have attempted to regulate and
to show fisher people that they have a responsibility to sustain
their industry.
Through regulation and hopefully co-operation the various fisher
people can work along with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
to ensure that our fishery has a future.
The House should also recognize that with the decline of the
east coast fishery and the problems on the west coast we have
developed programs to assist those areas. The fisher people who
have difficulties will have an opportunity to take part in
programs to get assistance with training and to improve habitat,
as we have done on the west coast with the salmon fishery.
1110
On the east coast, as the member opposite from Halifax would
certainly agree, we have developed good programs to make sure
that people in the fishing industry can receive some assistance
when fish become scarce.
If we look at the fishery in the great province of Newfoundland
we find that today the resource from the sea is bringing more
money to that province than it did during the best years of the
groundfishery.
We are looking at alternate species. The fishermen may develop
other aspects of fishing and sales for those fish, which will
enable them to continue in their home communities. However, we
have to be concerned with what has happened to the good people on
the east coast and those who have encountered serious
difficulties as a result of the economy.
We have to remember that fish have traditionally been very
available. However, today we have to be concerned with the fact
that we have to sustain the fishery.
I would suggest that the member is a bit off base in terms of
trying to develop a charter of rights for fisher people. The
minister has brought forward a committee to look at partnerships
in fishing, to try to develop a co-operative venture between
those who are out on the water and those sitting in offices
trying to regulate the fishery.
We have to remember that fish are a public, not a private
resource, and the Government of Canada has a definite
responsibility to see it continue as a satisfactory industry.
In my riding of Miramichi the first minister of marine and
fisheries in the original Government of Canada in 1867 was Peter
Mitchell. We have watched over the years what has happened with
the fishery since the time of Peter Mitchell. We have to be
concerned with what our responsibilities are.
I know the member who brought forward this bill is concerned
with his own area. He is very much involved with the area of
southern New Brunswick. He needs to see that DFO and the fisher
people work co-operatively to continue the fishery there. But I
think we have to be more concerned as members of this government
and people, in general, about our responsibilities to the fishery
so that it can continue.
As chairman of the fisheries committee I would not support a
bill for a particular charter of rights for one particular group.
I would be more concerned with supporting the concept that we
have responsibilities as a government to see that the fishery
works well, that it works co-operatively and that it works in the
best interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
when we speak to a bill such as Bill C-302, proposed by the
member for New Brunswick Southwest, there are commonalties all
across the country and on all coasts. However I will be talking
about this bill from a west coast perspective, as the member
opposite said that we might have concerns in this area.
The bill describes a bill of rights for fishermen. This bill
has multiple rationales and essentially would be a good
counter-balance to the dominance of decision making on fisheries
fronts by an overly centralized bureaucracy that we all know as
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This bill is not
responsive enough to local communities, to local fishermen or
in fact to the recreational sector.
This bill is clear in stating that people who fish for their
livelihood should be involved in decisions regarding the
protection, development and harvesting of fish. This is good for
two reasons. First, the fishermen have important local knowledge
of the kind we cannot afford to prove scientifically, but which
has stood the test of time. Second, if we do not involve the
fishermen we do not get a buy-in with new policy directions and
new management proposals.
1115
It is also a primary way to develop volunteerism which is so
critical in the development of fish stocks, whether through fish
hatcheries, the development of riparian zones or developing a
conservation ethic in children's or citizen's watch on poaching.
Any number of things contribute to the good citizen aspect of
looking after our resources.
Probably the most controversial aspect of the bill deals with
the right of compensation to those whose rights were taken away
or abrogated by the federal government through unilateral or
actions which exclude affected fishermen.
The government and DFO bureaucracy will fight this clause tooth
and nail because it attempts to make them accountable for
decisions they make about people affected by their decisions. It
is far easier for bureaucrats or ministers to sit ensconced,
buffered and unchallenged and be securely protected from the
results of their decisions. These people do not have
repercussions from their bad policy decisions. Given a choice
they would prefer not to deal with people affected by their
decisions because plainly it is uncomfortable for them.
This is the crux of the bill, the strongest part of the bill. It
is an attempt to bring accountability to the bureaucracy.
Despite all this I have some concerns about the bill which I
discussed with the member for Vancouver Island North who spoke to
the bill in debate on June 4 this year. Here are our concerns.
The bill does not establish a process to provide for fishermen's
involvement or representation prior to the decision making
process. There is nothing to say that the fishermen's
representations have to be heeded. Nor does it give any
meaningful decision making power to those affected. There is a
prohibition against any decisions being made until all the
hearings are exhausted. This could render the system too
cumbersome when quick decisions are needed for conservation or
other purposes.
In addition, clause 5(a) of the bill mentions fishing rights but
this term is not defined. Licence holders who are active and who
continue to invest in vessels, gear and so on, should have a
right to renewal of that licence year after year. However this
is not set out in the bill. It would also be useful to see that
the minister could not create new licences without consultation
and support from all existing licence holders of all categories
affected.
Also the definition of the public right to fish in clause 2 is
not consistent with the general law that extends this right to
the commercial sector. This misdefining of the public right to
fish could be taken as an abolition by parliament of the public
right to fish in any area beyond the areas defined specifically
in the bill.
On the west coast the public right to fish, the common law right
that dates back to the Magna Carta, is a public right of access
that in the commercial and recreation sector is tempered by
limited entry licences and other restrictions, but this public
right is still the overriding check on the predominant powers of
the minister.
Removal of this public right would essentially give the minister
the power to allocate fisheries quotas to anyone, any group,
institution or person. This is the crux of the debate over the
ethnic based aboriginal fisheries strategy, a pilot sales program
which the federal government implemented in 1992.
British Columbians oppose a separate commercial fishery based on
race. Ongoing polarization and division have been created by
natives and non-natives on the issue every since.
In 1998 the public protest against this fishery included native
commercial fishermen in the all Canadian commercial fishery who
also opposed the separate fishery but are now fully prepared to
go public with their concerns. All legal challenges to this
fishery have succeeded. Yet the government and the minister
persist in pursuing this policy.
The legal rights protest has gone on since 1992 which has
detracted from focused management of the fisheries. It has
focused people's energies on divisive issues instead of allowing
them to look at the big picture and conservation issues.
Another concern is that clauses 4 and 5 of the bill extend into
areas covered by provincial legislation.
These clauses are probably unconstitutional. If something is
validly authorized by provincial legislation it is beyond the
reach of federal legislation. Given the exclusive nature of the
division of powers under our Constitution, I feel it should be
left that way and these clauses should not be left in the bill.
1120
In conclusion, I support the intent of the bill to create a
fishermen's bill of rights and hope we can give qualified support
so that the bill can move forward to committee where we can
address some of our concerns. There are very good areas within
the bill but there are also areas of concern.
I give it qualified support and look forward to it going to a
vote in the House and then on to committee.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in the House to support Bill C-302.
People who make their living from the sea have always been
central to the culture, economy and social life of the maritimes
and certainly of my riding of Halifax West. For the many people
who work to sustain themselves, their families and communities
today, dating back to the very first aboriginal inhabitants of
our region, fishing has been a way of life in the deepest sense
of the word.
For untold generations people have challenged themselves and the
elements to sustain their livelihood and that of their families
from the wealth of resources beneath the waves. From their own
successes and mistakes people have learned about fishing. They
have become knowledgeable about tides, seasonal variations, fish
stocks, the winds, equipment, and all that is necessary to learn
and develop the profession of fishing. Fishers have been taught
by their parents and by their communities as a whole. They have
also learned from other communities and increasingly from fishers
in other countries. There have been times when even government
efforts and research have proven useful.
The people of Halifax West who make or hope once again to make
their living from the sea face a growing danger. This danger has
caused thousands of people to lose their livelihood and equal
numbers of families to lose any security for their children's
future. This peril is responsible for the unbelievable event of
entire fish stocks being wiped out. This danger is the federal
government's mishandling of fisheries issues.
I support the right of fishers to be involved in every aspect of
decision making and the implementation of those decisions that
affect their livelihood. Who else has the knowledge to craft the
best answers about fish stock assessments, fish conservation, the
setting of fish quotas and fishing licences? Certainly not the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans bureaucrats living in Ottawa.
It boggles the mind that the Liberal government has chosen not
to involve those who make their day to day living in the fishing
industry as part and parcel of the decisions that in turn will
directly affect and often threaten their livelihood.
The decisions made by the roughly 800 DFO bureaucrats in Ottawa
are based on what knowledge? Is it by studying and analysing the
movement of fish in the Rideau River in Ottawa or by consulting
the occasional ice fisher on the Ottawa River? It is certainly
not by working on a day to day basis with those in the industry,
armed with the experience and skills to assist the government in
making decisions.
We can be sure that the government consults very closely with
top executives of big banks about decisions that might affect
their billions of dollars or with top multinational corporate
executives about decisions the government might implement that
would affect their operations. However the government treats
fishers as the uneducated and insignificant. It is a crime. The
cost of that crime is a mismanaged government department making
bad and often absurd decisions. It hurts people who make their
livelihood from fishing in St. Margaret's Bay and throughout my
riding.
A case in point is the announcement early this year that fish
quotas for Nova Scotia would be 5 fish per person or 25 fish per
boat for non-commercial fishers. We could hear the laughter of
fishers in response to this in my riding all the way from Herring
Cove to Black Point. Just who would those supposedly enforcing
this regulation charge if there were a number of people in a boat
and too many fish? Would it be the one in the boat closest to
the shore or the tallest one? Who? This decision is absurd and
unenforceable because the decision was made in Ottawa without the
proper input of those who do the fishing.
The government's mishandling of TAGS and the post-TAGS program
has condemned thousands to poverty and helplessness. There are
over 40,000 fishers out of work. The government has spent over
$3.4 billion in income support.
1125
Ultimately decisions made by Ottawa bureaucrats about the
livelihood of those living over 1,000 kilometres away pits people
against people and community against community. Fishers should
be consulted about the allocation of quotas as the bill
recommends and about proper gear and equipment. Fishers should
be consulted about fish stocks. We all know fishers were warning
about the cod stocks long before the government in its too
little, too late fashion slammed the door shut on an entire
industry.
The people in my riding who make their living from the sea are
not millionaires. The people who fish or want to fish in Sambro,
Ketch Harbour, Portuguese Cove and East and West Pennant cannot
easily weather huge losses due to bad federal government
decisions. However they have to, time and time again, simply
because people who fish are not considered by the Liberal
government to be key players in decisions about the fishing
industry. With the fisheries dying the last budget of the
government did nothing for those in the industry.
Bill C-302 which sets out to ensure fishers are central to
decisions affecting the fisheries is nothing more than plain
sense. Everybody would win. The bill should certainly be sent
to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for study,
improvement and support.
One example of the government's fisheries minister hiding his
head in the sand is the current serious dispute in the lobster
fisheries in southwestern Nova Scotia. This dispute involves
commercial, aboriginal and non-aboriginal lobster fishers. Did
the government play a leadership role with the long term security
of this fish stock and the livelihoods of these people at the
forefront? No. Once again it has hidden its head in the sand
and refused to sit down and talk with those in the industry about
the best and most reasonable long term solution for all involved.
It seems everybody but the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and
the Ottawa top bureaucrats is able to reach an agreement on the
threat posed to this industry by the government's refusal to
centrally involve fishers in every step of decision making and
implementation. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
was able to produce two reports unanimously agreed to by five
different federal parties.
How did the government respond? It was by yanking the member
for Gander—Grand Falls out of the committee chair spot. This
committee did its best to base its efforts on what it has learned
from people in the industry, and that is what may have upset the
government.
It only makes sense for those who fish for their living and
those in fisheries industries to participate in a meaningful way
in federal government decision making. I fully support the bill
and challenge every government member to support it. The people
who make their living or hope to make their living from the
fisheries in my riding of Halifax West deserve no less. All
those in similar positions across the country deserve no less.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate today in debate on Bill
C-302, an act to establish the rights of fishers.
I listened with great interest to the hon. member who just
concluded. How can anyone stand in his or her place and be
against involving fishers or fishermen in stock assessment, fish
conservation, the setting of fish quotas and fishing licences?
How can anyone be against that consultation and involvement
process?
As well I listened with interest to the hon. member for
Miramichi when he talked about a fish bill of rights. I could
not help but wonder, as the member made that suggestion, if he
had consulted with the fish and what response he got back. I
wonder if the fish are positive to his view that there should be
a fish bill of rights.
I say that in a light manner because what we are talking about
in Bill C-302 is involving those people directly in the
harvesting of fish, in stock assessments, in licensing and in the
setting of quotas and so on. As my my hon. colleague who spoke
before me said, for years in Atlantic Canada people involved in
the fishing industry, the harvesters, warned the federal
governments of the day that we were heading for a crisis in our
groundfish stock, particularly our cod stocks. Year after year
the federal government ignored those people, and we all know the
consequences now.
Hundreds of our rural communities are on the verge of
extinction. There is no employment in those communities because
there is no fish to harvest and consequently no fish to process.
1130
I commend my colleague for bringing forward this fishers bill of
rights. It is a step in the right direction.
I want to speak for a moment about the public right to fish. My
hon. colleague who spoke just before me mentioned what we call
the food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. He talked about
five fish a day and so many people in a boat.
In Newfoundland and Labrador for all of our lives we have been
allowed to go out and catch a fish for supper. That has all
changed in the last four or five years. We cannot get in our
boats and go out and fish any more. We have to wait for the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to inform us if he is going to
allow us to catch a fish and then he sets the date. Over the
last couple of years he has given us one weekend to fish. He
basically has given us three days to fish for our food fishery.
Nova Scotia, P.E.I, New Brunswick and parts of Quebec get a
68-day food fishery. We get three days. It is something we were
allowed to do all of our lives, and now we can only fish if the
minister allows us to fish and for a maximum of three days. That
is very difficult for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to accept.
We are catching the same fish that the people in Nova Scotia,
New Brunswick and Quebec are catching. They are the same fish
stocks. They swim back and forth. These are the fish that Nova
Scotians catch, and we catch and so on. Somehow the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans and his parliamentary secretary, who I see
shaking his head in disapproval, do not understand that fish
swim.
Why should we not be allowed to fish for 68 days for a food
fishery. If the parliamentary secretary can fish for 68 days in
Prince Edward Island, why can we not do it? It is the same fish.
What he is allowing people in Nova Scotia to fish for 68 days is
the same fish stock we can fish for three days.
If only some of them over there knew a little bit about fish,
what a relief it would be.
An hon. member: They swim around the globe.
Mr. Bill Matthews: Yes, they swim around the globe.
The other troublesome point is that fishermen for years warned
the federal government of the impending disaster. On the west
coast of Canada, British Columbia, fish harvesters are warning
the federal government of the same problems. The government is
ignoring what is happening in British Columbia and the problems
are increasing and getting bigger.
I support the bill to include fish harvesters in conservation,
in licensing and in fish stock assessments. How can anyone argue
against it? How can anyone be against those who are directly
involved in the harvesting of fish resources having more
involvement? Have the Department of Fisheries and Oceans listen
to them and take into account what they are telling it, then
weigh that in the decision making process so that wiser decisions
are made in the future than have been made in the past. God
knows if there is one federal government department that has made
unwise decisions over the years, it has been the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
I support the bill. I commend my colleague for bringing it
forward. I commend those who have stood in their place today to
support this piece of legislation.
If we involve those people in a more meaningful fashion, it will
mean that we will make better decisions. We will have greater
fish resources for the future. We will not go through the crisis
in Atlantic Canada and the west coast of Canada that we are going
through today.
People are unemployed. Out-migration is staggering. The survival
of rural Canada is seriously threatened today. When I go through
my riding of Burin—St. George's it is difficult to find anyone
left in those communities who is under 45 years of age. What
future is there for people? This has been forced upon people
because there is no employment.
The Government of Canada mismanaged our fish resources. It has
to take responsibility. All we are asking is that the Department
of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government involve the
people who harvest those fish resources. Include their
assessments in decision making and make wiser decisions for the
fish resources so that people who depend on those resources will
be better off in the future.
1135
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the bill before the House is
impractical and unnecessary and as such should not become law. It
is unnecessary for many reasons.
One of the reasons is that the participatory role it seeks for
fishermen is already becoming a standard practice. Procedures
and processes for ongoing consultations with stakeholders are in
place as a matter of policy.
For instance, fishermen are already involved in stock assessment
and conservation issues on the east coast through their
participation in the fisheries resources conservation council.
Last month the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced the
formation of a similar council on the west coast, the Pacific
resource conservation council chaired by Hon. John Fraser. In
addition co-management arrangements are in place in a number of
fisheries that give fishermen an expanded role in the decision
making process.
The bill is also impractical because it would tie the minister's
hands and prevent him or her from making decisions to protect the
fisheries at a time when this protection is urgently required.
For example, the bill would require that fishermen be
represented on or be heard by a body involved in the process
intended to produce a division or recommendation respecting
fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, the setting of
fishing quotas, fishing licensing or the public right to fish or,
in the case of an order to be made by the governor in council, to
have the opportunity to comment on every proposed order before it
is made.
The hon. member must know that the minister issues many such
orders in response to changing conditions in the fisheries.
Sometimes these orders must be made on an emergency basis. This
clause would institute a cumbersome and time consuming review
process that would delay the implementation of any decisions
until all appeals had been exhausted. It would bring fisheries
management in Canada to a standstill.
The bill is impractical for another reason, its potential cost
to the taxpayers. The bill would require that every fisher who
suffers a loss as a result of the abrogation of fishing rights
other than as a result of a process that would involve fishermen
shall be entitled to compensation for a loss. This could create
a huge financial obligation for the government. Where does the
hon. member think this money would come from? It is fine to be
free with the taxpayers' money but we have spent five years
sacrificing to bring the country's deficit under control. Now is
not the time to be incurring substantial obligations.
Consider the double bind that this would create for the minister
and his officials. Suppose they were faced with making a
decision to protect a specific stock but to do so would mean
paying a huge sum of compensation. Is the intent of this bill to
discourage the minister from taking needed measures to protect
the fisheries, or is the intent to load the taxpayers up with new
financial burdens?
The bill is not precise in its wording and focus, touching on
many legal issues, including some that are outside federal
jurisdiction and would be impossible to implement in any
effective manner. The wording is so vague as to be open to
multiple interpretations.
We can take our pick of phrases but let us take this one: the
consideration of the effect of fishing on traditional lifestyles
including but not restricted to aboriginal traditional
lifestyles. What exactly does this mean? Leaving aside the
ambiguity of “the effect that fishing on traditional
lifestyles”, how much consideration would the bill require?
Whose traditional lifestyle? How do we distinguish traditional
lifestyle versus a non-traditional one? The bill does not say.
The bill is both unnecessary and unworkable. Worse still, it
misses entirely what should be the focus of our attention:
protecting the ocean and its resources.
1140
It is not just Canada that has seen the consequences of
overfishing. Other nations from New Zealand to Norway have all
seen fish stocks damaged by overfishing. We all now recognize
that the survival of some of these stocks hangs by a thread and
that if we do not take action now, it may be too late. That is
why the focus of government policy must be and is on conserving
and protecting the fish stocks. This bill would do nothing to
advance those goals.
What we need are effective conservation based management
policies, policies that balance the competing demands we make on
the oceans with their ability to sustain their demands. This
government is putting those policies in place. It continues to
work through the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO,
to implement mechanisms to stop overfishing.
Last month we saw the formal adoption of 100% observation
coverage for all fish vessels in the NAFO regulatory area. The
decision meets one of the most important conservation objectives
advanced by Canada at the NAFO annual meeting held in Lisbon in
September. NAFO has acknowledged the success of the pilot
program for 100% observation coverage and has noted that the
apparent infringements of its rules have declined by over 80%
since the pilot program was implemented.
The United Nations fisheries agreement, the result of a Canadian
initiative, provides the means to strengthen international
arrangements such as NAFO. Parties to this agreement will help
to create a new enforcement system for the high seas. This system
will provide for the protection of straddling and migratory fish
stocks on the high seas. It will provide a binding and
compulsory settlement for fishing disputes among states.
Canada is in the process of developing an oceans strategy that
will set the course for management of our ocean resources into
the next century. This strategy has three principles:
sustainable development; integrating the management of human
activity in estuaries, coastal and marine waters; and the
precautionary approach, a commitment to err on the side of
caution.
The strategy is based on the premise that everyone with a stake
in the future health of the oceans must work together to preserve
and protect them. This is the thrust of the government policy
with regard to the oceans and their resources, and it is both
appropriate and effective.
Rather than focusing on creating rights for any particular
group, we must concentrate on protecting the oceans and the
conservation of their resources for all Canadians because without
them, there will be no fishermen and fishing communities,
traditional or otherwise.
I urge the House to reject this bill.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the fundamental protection for fishermen against
arbitrary action by the government is found in the public right
to fish. The fishers bill of rights introduced by my colleague
from Charlotte recognizes the importance to fishermen of this
right. It is for this reason I stand today to offer my support
for this bill of rights for fishermen.
This ancient public right, a right for all citizens, until
recently was so ingrained in our law making that it was not often
spoken of. As of late it has become fashionable for ministers of
fisheries to trumpet the importance of the creation of exclusive
or private fisheries. Sometimes well meaning but weak ministers
have been tempted by the idea that they could buy peace on the
water and end lawlessness through the creation of private
fisheries. This happened in British Columbia in 1992 with the
creation of the exclusive native commercial salmon fishery on the
Fraser.
Another insidious trend is just as great a threat to the fishery
as the attempt to buy peace through the creation of private
fisheries. That is the turning of a fishery over to a large
corporation, to the rich and the powerful.
In the rush to create these private fisheries, our policy makers
have forgotten our history and our fisheries law in regard to the
public right to fish. The legal principles underpinning the
public right were not arrived at overnight or in some great
economic think tank. The public right is not the preserve of the
right of economists on the right or the left.
The public right knows neither left nor right.
1145
It has stood the test of time. When we tinker with the public
fishery we can do great harm unless we have understood what the
public right is and its proven utility over hundreds of years,
that it has given all citizens access to the public fishery, rich
or poor, large or small, native or non-native. That equality of
access deserves careful tending in a fast changing world.
Like so many of our legal and political conventions the public
right developed in English law, but from the earliest days of
settlement found root in Canada. The public right to fish has
been a recognized feature of our law since the reception of English
law into what is now Canada.
It became codified in 1215 when it was set down in provision 47
of the Magna Carta. It was designed to address a public
grievance caused by the practice of the king in those times to
clear the public off the fishing grounds whenever he wished to go
fishing.
Since 1215 it has been accepted in English law that the king
does not own the fisheries in tidal waters. They are public.
The king has no power to transfer such public fisheries to an
exclusive group. All members of the public are equally entitled
to access.
Because the public right to fish has an ancient basis, it is
sometimes asked by those not familiar with fisheries or marine
law if it still has any basis in law in Canada. The courts and
the law officers of the crown have from the earliest days in
Canada recognized the public right to fish.
In 1996 the Supreme Court of Canada in deciding Van der Peet,
Gladstone and NTC Smokehouse, fisheries cases from British
Columbia, relied on the legal principle often referred to as the
public right to fish.
This ancient right has stood the test of time and is very much
alive today. It guarantees the public right of access in public
waters. Fish in navigable or tidal waters are not owned by the
crown. Rather, the crown is the guardian or trustee for the
public in this right of access to a fishery in public waters.
The supreme court's 1996 decision in Gladstone relied on the
position our courts and law officers have been taking for the
past 150 years. The court in Gladstone relied on and restated
the decision in the 1913 British Columbia fisheries reference:
Since the time of the Magna Carta, there has been a common law
right to fish in tidal waters that only can be abrogated by the
enactment of competent legislation.
The 1913 reference certainly established that the public right
of access was a part of Canadian law, yet it operated in Canada
long before 1913.
The National Archives contains an 1866 letter from the solicitor
general of the province of Canada that is still quoted today. In
the 1866 legal opinion the solicitor general states:
Without an act of parliament—no exclusive right could thereby
be gained—as the crown could not—grant an exclusive privilege
in favour of individuals over public rights—in respect of which
the crown only holds as trustee for the public.
The National Archives also has a handwritten letter to Sir John
A. Macdonald from one of his ministers dated 1882 advising him of
the centrality in fisheries law of the public right to fish:
Fishing rights in public waters cannot be made exclusive
excepting under the express sanction of parliament.
Justice LaForest, a recently retired justice of the Supreme
Court of Canada, in his legal text “Water Law in Canada”
describes the federal government as a trustee for the public of
the public right of fishing.
The federal government in its argument in the supreme court in
Gladstone neatly summarized the law:
Since Canada was not settled by the English prior to the Magna
Carta there could not be exclusive fishing grounds in tidal
waters in those parts of Canada which are governed by the common
law (unless granted by statute).
“Fisheries Law”, a document prepared by the Continuing Legal
Education Society of British Columbia as an aid for lawyers
seeking to upgrade their knowledge of fisheries law states:
[The public right to fish] places a restriction on the power of
the crown, and therefore on the discretion of the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, which applies to this day—Without clear
express statutory authority common law rights in the public
fisheries—cannot be extinguished.
I have taken a great deal of time addressing the public right of
access to the fishery because it is fundamental to any bill of
rights for fisherman.
1150
Recent actions by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reveal
that he has played fast and loose with this ancient right in
British Columbia.
My views on the legality of the native commercial fishery
regulations are well known.
The provincial court of British Columbia ruled this year that
these regulations were outside the law. The court found the
minister in contempt of the law but I am not here today to talk
about the now illegal exclusive native commercial fisheries
regulations.
If the minister and his officials had respect for the law and
the ancient right of public access to the fishery, we would not
be confronted by an illegal act by the minister of fisheries.
Fishermen must know their rights if they are to protect
themselves from those policy makers who would create private
fisheries for the profit of the powerful, whether they be large
corporations or those that engage in lawlessness.
The best advice, whether in 1866, 1882, 1913 or 1996 by law
officers of the crown and the courts has been to remind ministers
that their job is to protect the public right. They are its
trustee, its guarantor.
I support this bill of rights for fishermen because it acts to
remind the minister of his responsibility as trustee of the
public right to fish in public waters.
I bring to the attention of the House another area of arbitrary
action by the minister of fisheries where fishermen are in need
of protection.
Last summer at a time when American Fisheries Society scientists
had named at least 214 coho stocks in B.C. at a high risk of
extinction, the department's chief spokesman on fisheries
management told fishermen that of the 900 individual coho stocks
in B.C., only two were threatened with extinction and that
efforts would be made to protect them.
On June 19 the minister stated: “In order to meet my coho
conservation objectives announced on May 21, all areas on the
coast will be defined as either red zones where there is an
objective of zero fishing mortality or yellow zones where fishing
will be allowed if and when the risk of coho bycatch mortality is
minimal”.
When it came to putting in practice the notion of protecting
fish, the minister was nowhere to be seen. In fact, he allowed
fishing in a red zone area around the Queen Charlotte Islands, an
area where coho stocks were at high risk of extinction.
John Disney, a respected fishermen from Masset in the Queen
Charlotte Islands, tells me that in the last cycle year
commercial gill net fishermen in that area killed only 1,038 coho
as bycatch for the whole season.
The minister allowed sports fishermen, in particular his friend,
the owner of the Oak Bay Marine Group, to conduct a sport fishery
in that area which Mr. Disney estimates was killing 900 coho per
day.
A fishers bill of rights as proposed by my friend from Charlotte
would have prevented this arbitrary transfer of allocation
designed to profit a rich friend of the minister and would have
offered protection to the resource.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to address private member's Bill C-302 by
the member for Charlotte.
All Canadians and all members of this House want to see a
healthy fishery into the coming century, one that provides a good
living to independent professional owner-operators and employees,
one that supports flourishing fishing communities along the
nation's coastlines that is sustainable and supports a flexible,
versatile and self-reliant industry largely self-regulating and
operating without subsidies.
We may argue how to achieve it but few would disagree with this
goal. How to best realize this goal is where we differ. Is it by
adopting the legislation before the House or by instituting a
so-called fishers bill of rights? I do not believe so. This is
not the way to achieve this goal.
Passing this bill could actually be counterproductive, harming
not only the resource but also the very communities the bill is
intended to help. Let me explain why.
Let us first take a look at what the honourable member wants to
achieve. In presenting the bill, he said it is an act to
establish the rights of fishermen, including the right to be
involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish
conservation, setting of fishing quotas, fishing licensing and
the public right to fish and establish the right of fishermen to
be informed of decisions affecting fishing as a livelihood in
advance and the right to compensation if other rights are
abrogated unfairly.
1155
The hon. member must know that fishermen already participate in
most if not all these activities and that in practice they are
actively involved in stock assessment, fish conservation and
monitoring. Fishermen participate through consultation along
with other stakeholders in the development of integrated fishery
management plans and the setting of fishery quotas. Many
fishermen are already involved directly in managing fisheries
through the co-management approach or joint project agreements
with DFO.
DFO developed the co-management approach as a way to give the
people who work in the fishery more say in how it is managed. An
example of the co-management approach in the maritimes is the
Cape Breton snow crab fishery where fishermen have entered into a
multiyear joint project agreement with DFO.
Other examples of co-management include shrimp on the Scotian
shelf and exploratory fisheries in skate, monkfish, rock crab and
red crab.
Co-management works well as a voluntary approach that increases
the participation of fishermen in decision making. The
government is planning to introduce a new fishers act that would
allow individuals and communities more say over decisions
affecting their lives and the capacity to do longer term
planning.
Fishermen and others in the industry have said repeatedly that
they want government out of the daily operations of the
fisheries. The government has listened.
The bill before the House today is unnecessary. There are other
reasons for rejecting this bill, among which is it would be
impossible to put into practice. Let me give an example of why
this approach is impractical.
The bill requires that decisions not be implemented until all
appeals have been exhausted and reasonable notice has been given
to the fishermen involved. In 1995 the west coast groundfish
trawl fishery exceeded its TACs for many species so the minister
of fisheries ordered the fishery closed early in the season.
The minister did this not to deprive fishermen of their rights
but to exercise his responsibility to protect the fishery. How
would that situation have been handled under this bill? Would
overfishing have continued while consultations dragged on and on
until everyone was satisfied that perhaps the fishery should be
closed? What condition would the stocks have been in by then?
Sometimes we need a person in charge with the authority to act.
Those with a stake in the fishery should be consulted and they
are. But to tie the minister's hands so that essential decisions
cannot be made when they must be made would be folly.
The minister of fisheries is the member of cabinet responsible
for fisheries. It is up to him or her to set policy to decide
when to fish, where to fish and what to fish. If the policy does
not work the minister can decide to change it, usually after
consulting with those affected.
But to mandate a legislated requirement to consult while the
health of the stocks hangs in the balance fetters the minister's
ability to act quickly in the interest of conserving the
resource.
Surely the intention behind this bill is not to frustrate
conservation efforts, not now when some fish stocks require
extremely careful management and not when we have already made
progress in adopting responsible and co-operative management.
The west coast groundfish trawl fishery now operates under an
innovative management regime. This regime includes individual
quotas that establish individual accountability for the harvest
limits. Community representatives actively contribute to the
management of the fishery through the groundfish development
authority which was established jointly by the federal and
provincial governments in 1996.
Change is happening and not just in the case of groundfish.
Management of the west coast herring fishery is also changing in
response to recommendations from the industry. Many shell fish
fisheries are managed under co-operative agreements with
fishermen who are contributing to innovative monitoring and
observer programs.
As we all know, the west coast salmon fishery has also undergone
major changes. Last June the government announced a major
restructuring of the Pacific salmon fishery. It was a momentous
decision and was taken only after extensive study and
consultation with fishermen and others in the industry.
This consultation is continuing. After the government announced
conservation measures last May to protect and restore coho salmon
stocks, 23 community meetings took place throughout that
province. More than 1,450 British Columbians attended these
meetings and their ideas were taken into consideration.
Following the June 19 announcement of $400 million in federal
funding the government held extensive discussions with fishermen
and other stakeholders on program design. They discussed licence
retirement, incentives for new selective harvesting techniques,
options for diversifying fishing income and opportunities and the
impact of changes on coastal communities. It is interesting to
note that many stakeholders requested more activity and less
consultation. The government has continued to consult with
fishermen on how the licence retirement program should be set up
and run.
It is clear that fisheries management in this country is
undergoing a transformation. It is this transformation that has
been long sought by fishermen. We can see that fishermen and
others with a stake in the fishery have a greater role today in
managing the fishery than ever before, and that role is growing.
1200
Nevertheless, it is essential that the minister retain the
ultimate responsibility for conserving and managing the resource
for the benefit of all Canadians. After all, it is important to
remember that Canada's fish resources are managed for the benefit
of all Canadians. Fishermen receive from the minister the
privilege of exploiting these resources and we must remember that
conservation is the government's first priority.
If there are no fish there can be no fishers. If we are to
ensure that the fishery is there for our children and for their
children we must conserve the resource. The bill before the
House does nothing for conservation. As for giving fishermen
more say in the management of the fishery, that process is
already well established.
It is well for us to talk about rights, but with those rights,
particularly in the area of fishing, as in all other rights, as
citizens of this country we bear a responsibility to the
resource, in particular as we look at conserving that resource
for generations to come. It is my hope, as we anticipate further
discussion on this bill and as we anticipate the vote, that we
will consider the impact of those rights and responsibilities.
From a drafting perspective this bill is vague. It touches on
many legal issues, including some that are outside federal
jurisdiction. That is very clear. Given its vagueness this
legislation would be impossible, in all likelihood, to implement
in any effective manner. It is for these reasons and others
which I have not mentioned this morning that I urge my colleagues
in the House to reject Bill C-302 when it finally comes to a
vote.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
I know we only have about two minutes left in today's debate, but
I want to make a few preliminary comments before concluding my
comments at a future date.
First, I want to commend the member for New Brunswick Southwest
for bringing in an excellent bill which would protect the rights
of people who are involved in the traditional fishery all across
Canada. In the 500 year history of the fishery in Newfoundland,
never has there been as great a need to have the rights of
fishermen protected.
All the member wanted to do when he talked about the rights of
fishermen was to make sure that fishers have access to and are
involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish
conservation, the setting of fishing quotas, fishing licences and
the public right to fish.
If fishers are not allowed to be involved in that process then
there is something very seriously wrong. Never has the need been
as great as it is this day. We saw what happened in this House
in the last month or so. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans, which had probably the best chairman that committee ever
had, the Liberal member for Gander—Grand Falls, along with eight
other Liberals on the committee, made a series of recommendations
which were agreed to and passed by the committee. However, when
those changes came before the House of Commons, none of them were
allowed to vote in favour of their own recommendations.
The Liberals will say today that we do not need someone to
protect the rights of fishers. Perhaps what I should do is bring
in another bill to protect Liberals on standing committees. That
bill would include a special provision to allow them to make all
kinds of very serious recommendations and then allow them to come
to the House of Commons and vote against their own
recommendations.
A second provision of the bill might be to replace the nine
members on the standing committee with nine codfish who would say
more about what is wrong with the fishery than certainly the
Liberal members on the standing committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must now interrupt
the hon. member. He will have approximately seven minutes left
when the bill is brought back before the House.
[Translation]
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC) moved:
That, in the opinion of this
House, the government should continue with the Employment
Insurance Small Weeks Adjustment Projects and amend the
legislation in order to make the adjustment projects a permanent
feature of the Employment Insurance Act.
1205
He said: Madam Speaker, I thank you for letting me address the
motion I am tabling today. I will share my time with the hon.
member for Burin—St. George's.
The purpose of the motion before us today is to invite the
government to correct in a permanent fashion the flaws in the
Employment Insurance Act.
I realize that some parliamentarians know very little about the
employment insurance small weeks adjustment projects. Yet, it is
an initiative that applies to 29 regions of Canada where the
unemployment rate exceeds 10%.
In fact, regions of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the four
Atlantic provinces have participated in adjustment projects. It
is an issue that affects tens of thousands of Canadians, and
this is why it is important to discuss it today.
Let us take a moment to look at the context that made it
necessary to resort to small weeks employment projects. In 1996,
the federal government adopted Bill C-12, which included a major
reform of the employment insurance program. The changes made
included using eligibility criteria that were no longer based on
the work week, but on the hours of work, and calculating
benefits by taking into account every week of employment in the
previous 26 weeks, including the weeks with few hours of work.
This last point was a problematical one, because including the
income from these small weeks in the calculation can
significantly lower benefits, and this discourages workers from
accepting short work weeks.
Toward the end of January 1997, or a few weeks after total
implementation of the new provisions in the act, three Liberal
MPs were mandated to propose solutions to the short weeks
problem to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Following up on their recommendations, the minister announced
his small weeks adjustment projects on March 5, 1997 What is
rather unfortunate about all this is that the government had
been aware of this problem for close to a year already.
When Bill C-12 was being debated, in fact, Conservative Senator
Orville Phillips proposed an amendment intended to remove weeks
of less than 15 hours from the calculation of benefits.
Otherwise, the senator felt, EI recipients were at risk of
drawing reduced benefits if they had worked only a few hours in
a given week. Unfortunately, that amendment was given the
heave-ho by the Liberal majority in the Senate.
This same problem was also recognized and brought to the
government's attention by a number of other stakeholders. For
instance, Mathilda Blanchard, a well-known union figure in New
Brunswick, was quoted on November 4, 1996 in L'Acadie Nouvelle
as saying “I really cannot see why this matter does not seem to
get picked up in this region. The 26-week factor will do a great
deal of harm in a region like ours, which is characterized by
seasonal work. Plenty of people will end up having to get
through the winter with nothing but a cheque for $60 or so a
week coming in.
[English]
As I was saying earlier, despite warnings about this weakness in
the EI act, the government took almost a year to offer some form
of correction to the inequity.
In fact, the Liberal response seemed to anger some business
representatives who feared election politics were behind the
small weeks adjustment projects since the announcement was made
only a few months before the federal election.
1210
With this motion the government has the opportunity to prove
that the small weeks adjustment projects were not a mere
electoral ploy, but an attempt in good faith to help workers
accept as many hours of work as they possibly can. In my view,
and in the view of my caucus colleagues, the small weeks
adjustment projects have been very useful and successful. The
preliminary aim of the adjustment projects was to ensure that
every hour of work counts toward eligibility for the benefits and
encourages people to take all available work without fear of
having their benefits reduced by working small weeks.
The federal government adopted two approaches to the adjustment
projects to evaluate and compare results. As I said earlier, 29
economic regions across Canada where the unemployment rate is
consistently above 10% are participating in the program. Eighteen
regions in Quebec and the eastern provinces are part of the
bundling project. Bundling small weeks means to bundle the
earnings in small weeks to meet the average earnings of the big
weeks plus any small week needed to meet the minimum divisor.
Eleven regions in Ontario and the western provinces are
participating in the excluding project. Excluding small weeks
means that all small weeks not required to meet the minimum
divisor will be ignored for the purpose of calculating benefit
levels. They still count toward eligibility and duration.
These adjustment projects are slated to end on November 15,
1998, a mere three weeks away. We do not know the fate of this
valuable program.
Most importantly, Canadian workers in the toughest employment
areas of the country are still kept guessing.
This program has cost the government roughly $130 million a
year, a mere drop in the bucket when we consider the $7 billion
yearly surplus in the EI fund.
My colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party have
constantly argued since 1996 that the EI surplus belongs to
Canadian workers and employers. It does not belong to the
Liberal cabinet.
We have argued for cuts in EI premiums. In fact the chief
actuary has concluded that the EI program could be sustained at a
premium of $1.90. Therefore, continuing the small weeks
adjustment projects would in no way preclude a substantial
decrease in EI premiums as well. All in all, continuing the
small weeks adjustment projects would be a positive step toward
eliminating disincentives to work.
Back when the projects were announced in 1997, many Liberal
members stood in this House to praise the value of these
projects. The member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges had this to say:
“The adjustments announced yesterday to the Employment Insurance
Act confirm that our primary concern is to encourage people who
are out of work to return to the workforce”.
Diane Brushett, the former member for Cumberland—Colchester,
said the following: “This will ensure that workers in every
region of the country are able to take full advantage of all
available work without having their benefits lowered”.
The solicitor general issued this warning: “In recent days we
have heard a great deal about the small weeks anomaly in the
employment insurance program. Make no mistake, it is a serious
problem that must be fixed”.
The member for Hillsborough was of this opinion: “The solution
will work. Small weeks are counted for eligibility but are
bundled for calculating benefits. This change gives claimants
the best of both worlds. I doubt there are many who would argue
that reforms were not needed”.
1215
Canadians already have enough difficulty finding permanent or
full time work. The last thing they need is an insurance system
that penalizes them for working short weeks. It tells them that
the federal government wants them back at work and that all work,
whether it is five hours a week or forty hours a week, should be
equally considered.
I invite all members of the House to join our caucus in
supporting Canadian workers by voting in favour of the motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to put a question to the
member for Madawaska—Restigouche. First of all, I can tell him
that the Bloc Quebecois is 100% in favour of the Conservative
Party motion. The riding of Madawaska—Restigouche is next door
to mine and I know very well that the member's constituents are
experiencing the same problems as mine with respect to this
issue.
EI benefits have been substantially reduced throughout the
eastern Quebec and maritime regions.
As soon as it introduced its reform, the present Liberal
government realized that there was a terrible problem and that a
pilot project was needed to correct a situation which was
leaving people with completely unacceptable benefits, lower even
than welfare.
Two years ago, as we know, this government introduced a pilot
project that will come to an end in three weeks. But it is not
on November 15 that people will start suffering. They have
already been suffering for two weeks, three weeks, one month,
two months, five months. All those who worked this summer still
do not know whether they will be receiving reasonable benefits
on November 15.
Could this not be pointed out to the minister? I am looking for
arguments that would convince him.
I would like to hear what the member for Madawaska—Restigouche
thinks could be done. His motion is a timely one, particularly
as it also proposes making the projects a permanent feature of
the legislation so that people from our regions no longer have
to beg.
There is no reason why people should be forced to beg for every
little morsel of the EI fund. Could the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche provide the whole picture so that the
government majority will finally understand and so that members,
particularly Liberal members from the maritimes, will support us
on this issue?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
Yes, there are only three weeks left before the end of this
project. The government also knew, two years before, that there
were problems with the employment insurance reform. At my first
meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I requested a
thorough study of the employment insurance reform. This reform
affected a number of regions in Canada, and the poorest
Canadians were affected.
Today, we have to equip our young people with the tools they
need to compete on the global market. Obviously, we are
referring to education. Families are not even capable of paying
for their children's education, which is essential today,
because of the lack of employment and the lack of income. Today
we see that only three weeks are left before the end of this
project. The government should perhaps have announced its
intention two months ago.
The employment insurance reform was a mistake from the outset.
The government made these changes only a few weeks before the
election. So, if there were problems three weeks before the
federal election, I am sure there are still problems today.
Canadians from coast to coast are waiting to see what the
Minister of Human Resources Development recommends.
1220
The problem is found not only in the Atlantic region, but in
Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and western Canada, especially with
the upcoming fisheries problem there. I can tell you that the
workers in western Canada, especially in British Columbia, are
hoping for comments and a response from the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
* * *
[English]
CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY ACT
BILL C-43—NOTICE OF TIME ALLOCATION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House
that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of
Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading
stage of Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a
consequence.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that
a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion
to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration
and disposal of the proceedings at the said stage.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Madam
Speaker, I commend my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for
putting the motion forward today for debate in the House. It is
a matter that is of great concern to many of us who represent
areas of high unemployment.
There was great public debate throughout the country when the
government reformed the EI regulations. There are still many
people who do not fully understand the impact of the changes to
the EI Act and the EI regulations.
Ten days ago I met with five union leaders from my riding who
were very concerned about changes to the EI regulations and about
the employment insurance small weeks adjustment program. I am
very pleased to see that the Minister of Human Resources
Development is listening. I look forward to the minister's
involvement in the debate later today.
Many of us in the House of Commons cannot identify with what
$40, $50 or $80 a week means to many low income families. It
means that they are able to send their children to school fed, to
buy some books and clothing, and to heat their homes. To some of
us this amount of money does not seem like a lot, but to many
people in high unemployment areas it is bread and butter on the
table.
Adjustment programs and projects have been very positive. We
should go out and about in our ridings to talk to people who
through no fault of their own cannot get full time work, get
called in for 20 or 25 hours a week and in many cases get paid
the minimum wage. If it was not for the adjustment programs
their EI rates would be severely cut.
I go on record as saying that adjustment programs have been very
positive. I have written the minister and discussed the issue
with him as late as Friday. Because we are running out of time
quickly I am hoping the minister will bring in his evaluation of
the two adjustment programs and make a decision that is positive
for the thousands and thousands of workers throughout Canada who
are relying or counting on the minister to make the right
decision, to continue with the adjustment projects and to make
them permanent.
We should not have to come back here in 18 or 24 months and face
another deadline because another temporary measure will be
running out. As a result of adjustment programs and the
minister's evaluation we need some permanency in those programs.
Workers should not have to go another 12, 18 or 24 months and be
faced with the same deadline, not knowing if the bundling of
small weeks or the elimination of small weeks, whichever the
minister chooses, will be upon them again.
I appeal to the minister to move quickly, to make a positive
decision and to make the decision permanent. It is very
important.
1225
I know Atlantic Canada best. Ridings such as Burin—St.
George's have been devastated because of a downturn in the
groundfish industry as a result of the collapse of cod stocks.
People who have worked 12 months of the year for most of their
lives are striving today to get enough weeks of work to qualify
for EI. It has an effect on me, having grown up and worked with
those people, to see what they are going through today.
Then people in corner stores and retail outlets are clawed back
and get only 15 or 20 hours a week because the primary industry.
the fishery, is pretty much gone. They rely very heavily on an
adjustment program. If they happen to get 12 full weeks of work
and make $250 the employer can only pull them into work for six
or seven weeks more and they make less than $150 a week. It is
very important that the weekly earnings average not be decreased,
and that is what those projects do. They are very positive for
those people. They keep their weekly earnings average up and
consequently keep their EI benefits rate up.
In my meeting with union people about 10 days ago there were
people sitting around the table who worked in fish plants and in
stores. They know the impact of this program. They told me that
without adjustment projects, without the bundling of small weeks,
their EI benefits would be so significantly reduced they would
not be able to maintain their households. That is what it means.
That is the implication.
My colleague introduced his motion very well. He explained the
criteria of the projects very well. I go on record as supporting
the motion. I appeal to the minister. In a discussion with him
on Friday he told me that he was working hard on this program. I
respect and appreciate that.
We have about three weeks left. I hope we will get the
minister's evaluation very soon. I hope we will get a positive
decision very soon so that the thousands of people out and about
the country will take some comfort in knowing there will be some
stability and permanency in the minister's decision.
Whether it is the bundling of small weeks or the elimination of
small weeks as in Ontario and out west, both adjustment programs
have been very positive. It comes down to which one the minister
chooses. Will he choose the bundling of small weeks or will he
choose the elimination of small weeks?
I hope the minister will participate in the debate later and we
will get some sense of where he is coming from. I am looking
forward to the participation of members on all sides of the House
in the debate. Most of us represent people who are benefiting
from adjustment programs. We all have some people in our ridings
that have benefited from this adjustment program. I look forward
to their speaking in support of the motion as I do. I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the words “and amend
the legislation” the word “forthwith”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The amendment is in
order. Debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy
listening to the member for Burin—St. George's. I am not really
surprised.
1230
He talked very much in general terms. To make a proper decision
the government needs to deal with specifics in terms of how the
pilot projects are working.
I am a little surprised that both speakers on this amendment
never in their initial remarks would congratulate the government
for having seen in the beginning there was a problem with short
weeks and for having fixed that problem and for having coming up
with some adjustment projects to look after it. They should
stand and say thank you to the government on this side of the
House for having made that great move in the first place.
Could the member for Burin—St.
George's give us some specific examples of how people in his
riding are benefiting by these adjustment measures? So that we
can get down to some concrete action, could he tell us which of
the pilot programs he favours? Is it the bundling or is it the
excluding?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, for some reason the
parliamentary secretary wants to burn me. He wants to call it
Burn—St. George's.
On a serious note I did say that it was a positive initiative.
They have been positive adjustment programs. We only hope the
government in its wisdom continues with one form or the other.
Let me say to the parliamentary secretary, it basically means
that if someone has 14 weeks of $300 earnings and six weeks or
seven weeks of less than $150 earnings, then the bundling of
small weeks which applies in Atlantic Canada keeps the average
weekly earnings up. Consequently the EI rate keeps up and they
get a higher benefit. Without the bundling of weeks adjustment
program, the average weekly income would drop. Consequently they
would get lower EI. That is the positive. Those are the
specifics.
I can tell the parliamentary secretary that in Burin—St.
George's thousands and thousands of people have found the
bundling of small weeks to be very positive. It is beneficial to
them and their families.
The current surplus in the EI fund is there in part because the
government reduced the EI benefits across the board. The
government cannot use the argument that the money is not there to
continue with the adjustment programs. There is a surplus in the
EI account. It is a surplus that has been contributed to—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I put on the desk of the member for Burin—St. George's
a copy of an EI statement that I received from someone on a
recent visit to Canso, Nova Scotia. It is quite simple. The EI
benefit for a person who is single with minimum weeks and without
this program in place is $25 a week. If they are lucky and are
married with children, they get $31 a week. These are actual
statements from people whom I recently met in Canso.
I would like the member to comment. If the bundling which I
agree with on a personal note is not allowed to help those people
that find it difficult to get permanent work with full time
benefits and good salaries, in areas of the country such as where
I come from in Atlantic Canada, what should they do? What should
those people who make $25, or $31 for those who are married with
children, on EI do?
Mr. Bill Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comment and question.
It is obvious what people in those situations must do. With
weekly incomes of these amounts, they cannot send their children
to school fed. If they cannot find a job and the EI rates are
$25 or $31 a week, then it is a sad reflection and a sad thing to
have to say there is only one recourse. That is for them to go
down to see the welfare officer at the social assistance office.
As I said in my opening remarks, for some of us who are
fortunate, and that is almost all of us that sit in this chamber,
we cannot identify with what $40, $50, $70 or $80 more a week
really means to the people this provision helps. There is only
once recourse for those people, which is to go and see the
welfare officer.
1235
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to
speak on the motion presented this morning by the hon. member
for Madawaska-Restigouche on employment insurance and small weeks
adjustment projects. About 18 months ago, in my capacity as the
Minister of Human Resources Development, I had the pleasure of
moving these projects, which have helped resolve a problem we
had identified according to the government's wishes.
I am pleased to see that the member recognizes the value of some
of the important changes we had to make to the employment
insurance system. As the member already knows, the old
unemployment insurance system was 25 years old.
It simply no longer met the needs of today's new workforce.
The old system did nothing for those who worked part time, and
there are many such people. The old system did not recognize the
long hours put in by seasonal workers and did nothing to help
people get back to work.
That is why we took on the difficult task of modernizing the
employment insurance system in this country. We have put in
place a completely new system—it was the first major
structural reform in 25 years.
Our objective was to find a balance between giving workers the
temporary income support they need when they lose their job and
giving them the tools they need to get back to work.
So far, the new EI program is having some success.
Over 31,000 new jobs have been created in areas of high
unemployment through the transitional jobs fund program.
Canadians are benefiting from the $2 billion we invested in
active employment measures and most of those who lost their job
or quit with a good reason are getting income support.
[English]
Because of the size of this reform, we also put in place a
monitoring system to help us assess the impact of the reforms and
address any potential issues that could arise. Soon after the
reform took effect, we identified the small weeks problem. One of
the major objectives of the reform was to make every hour of work
count toward eligibility for employment insurance benefits and to
encourage people to take all available work.
It soon became evident that there was an anomaly in the system
that was causing a disincentive for some workers to accept small
weeks of work as it lowered their benefit levels. We therefore
announced a series of adjustment projects targeting 29 high
unemployment regions across Canada. The small weeks adjustment
projects were put in place to address the disincentive identified
by employers and workers.
We decided to test two types of adjustment projects. One type
included the bundling of small weeks in Atlantic Canada and
Quebec. The other excluded the small weeks in other provinces and
territories.
An assessment of the two types of small weeks projects is
currently under way. The collection of data is now being
completed. The findings will permit the government to determine
the degree to which a disincentive to accept small weeks of work
exists. A decision on what action may be required over the long
run will be made this fall.
For the time being my department continues to process claims as
if the program were to be continued.
In light of the fact that we do not have all the information
required, I am afraid that we cannot support the member's motion,
but we do recognize his good intentions.
[Translation]
As the member knows, we are also continuing to monitor the
impact of the whole reform on individuals and communities.
Under the new EI legislation, we are committed to tabling an EI
monitoring and assessment report before Parliament every year
for five years. We take this commitment very seriously.
1240
We think it is important to fully understand the impact of the
reform and we want to ensure that the program meets the needs of
all Canadians. The second EI monitoring and assessment report
should be released next spring.
Speaking of the EI program inevitably leads me to want to
discuss the beneficiaries to unemployed or BU ratio report my
department released last week. The opposition, and the
spokesperson for the branch office of the PQ in this parliament
in particular, have tried to confuse and frighten workers with
their brilliant interpretation of the information contained in
this report.
The beneficiaries to unemployed ratio report is full of concrete
figures and statistics on unemployment.
The opposition has repeatedly tried to mix and match figures to
suit their purposes while refusing to look at the true
conclusions of the report.
Two of the main issues the BU report tried to address were:
Whether the BU ratio was a good tool to measure the
effectiveness of the employment insurance program and whether
the employment insurance program was meeting its objective of
providing temporary income support to Canadians who were between
jobs.
The study concluded that the BU ratio is not a good indicator to
measure the effectiveness of the EI system. It also concluded
that the EI system is meeting its objective of providing
temporary income support to Canadians who have an attachment to
the labour force.
In fact, 78% of Canadians who have lost their jobs, or quit with
just cause, are eligible for EI.
The reason that the BU ratio does not effectively measure the
effectiveness of the EI system is because the BU ratio includes
all unemployed Canadians. But not all unemployed Canadians are
automatically covered by EI.
Following the opposition's logic, what the Bloc would have us do
is pay EI benefits to people who have never worked a day in
their lives. Obviously, someone who never worked a day in his or
her life is not covered under the EI system.
But we have other programs to help this person enter the
workforce, one of which is the youth employment strategy.
If someone decides to quit his or her job to go back to school
entitled to EI? Of course not, but we have other programs,
including the Canadian opportunities strategy, to help this
person go back to school.
Self-employed workers do not pay EI premiums and are therefore
not entitled to EI. Someone who is being paid severance pay is
not entitled to EI until this severance pay has been exhausted.
It seems perfectly obvious to me, but the people across the way
do not want to understand.
The government is there for unemployed Canadians who are not
eligible for EI but who need help. We have a variety of EI
supporting programs, such as the youth employment strategy,
which helps youth with the transition from school to work.
We have the Canadian opportunities strategy, which gives
Canadians access to a good education so they can get better
jobs. We also have the transitional jobs fund, which is creating
jobs in areas of high unemployment.
We have the post-TAGS program to help affected fishers and
communities move on with their lives. We have active employment
measures helping people get the skills they need to re-enter the
labour market.
Furthermore, we have the new hires program, which is helping
employers hire more young Canadians.
The EI program is there to meet the needs of Canadian workers
who are between jobs. Our government will continue to monitor
closely the impact of our system and reform. We remain open to
resolving problems that arise, like shorts weeks. When this
problem was brought to our attention, we found interesting
solutions, which the opposition has now approved, and I thank
them for appreciating the amount of work we have put into this.
1245
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that it is us, the PQ's
local branch plant, as he likes to call us, who looked at the
situation and made false statements. He should be reminded that,
last week, Donald Charette wrote an editorial in Le Soleil in
which he said “the first of the two methods, that is the one
rightly used by the media, shows that, over the past eight
years, the percentage of unemployed who are entitled to a cheque
has fallen from 83% to 42%”.
Mr. Charette adds that “the number of those who qualify has
significantly decreased, while the fund has increased at the
expense of contributors”. He goes on to say that “thousands of
people are thus excluded from a program that should protect them
and these people probably become prime candidates for social
assistance”.
Mr. Charette rightly concludes by saying that “if Minister
Pettigrew does not have the authority to impose his views, a
standing committee of the Senate and the House of Commons will
have to look at the issue and restore some justice through
redistribution”.
These comments were not made by separatists. They are found in
editorials across Canada, from the maritimes to British
Columbia. Everyone says that the minister is stealing the
employment insurance surplus—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me
the opportunity to reply—
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I was not done with my comments. It
is the minister who made some kind of claim. We did not hear
what he said, but I would like to be allowed to conclude my
remarks. I listened to him when he had the floor earlier. Now,
it is his turn to listen to me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I understand, but five
minutes are allocated for two questions and two replies.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I object to the
unparliamentary language of the Parti Quebecois member, who is
always pushing a very specific agenda that has nothing to do
with helping people improve their situation and working with us
constructively, because the worse things get, the happier he is.
All these people are trying to prove is that the country is not
in very good shape, and he knows it.
According to the opposition member's logic, people who have
never worked or paid EI premiums in their life are entitled to
EI benefits. The way the member sees it, we should be paying EI
benefits to people who have received severance pay. He wants us
to pay—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me, with
counsel, I was assured that the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques did not say
anything unparliamentary.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, as we know, this bundling
project and exclusion project affects 29 regions in Canada. It
is not only for the Atlantic provinces. It affects Ontario,
Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon,
Northwest Territories and the four Atlantic provinces.
Can the minister assure the House today and all the people in
those 29 regions that the EI applications will be continued to be
processed after the expiration on November 15?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my
intervention earlier, we are presently looking into the findings.
The collection of data is being completed. The findings will
permit the government to determine the degree to which a
disincentive to accept small weeks of work exists. A decision on
what action will be required over the long run will be made this
fall.
But as I said, for the time being my department continues to
process claims as if the programs were to be continued. I would
like once again to recognize the very good intentions of the
member for Madawaska—Restigouche who really tries to do
constructive work in this House as this parliament can elevate
itself to.
1250
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We will be resuming
debate with the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but over the last
couple of weeks the word “stolen” has crept in from time to
time in debate and in question period. It is a very grey area.
If the word is used in a way that is not attached to a specific
person but is in general, then it is not bad but it is on the
cusp. I would feel much more comfortable if we did not get into
that grey area. But if anyone were to use that pejorative word
directed to another member directly, that would without question
be unparliamentary. It is not just the word, it is the form and
the context in which the word is used.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to address the motion by the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche.
I am very sympathetic to some of the points the hon. member has
made. I think he has made an excellent case for some of the
flaws in some of the reforms that have occurred under this
Liberal government.
I am very concerned and I must criticize the government in the
strongest possible terms because here we are three weeks away
from the expiry of this program and we have absolutely no
evidence at all as to what the impacts are of the program. It is
a big program. We have spent somewhere in the range of $230
million so far on the program. Yet we have no evidence and every
year we get criticism from the auditor general coming forward
saying programs lack clear measurably objectives, there are no
ways to measure whether they are effective. Now we are in a
situation where the program is coming to an end. My colleagues
across the way are arguing that it is a good program. Others
like me are saying we just do not know. We do not have any
evidence. If we had some evidence it would make it a lot easier
to support the member's motion.
We are in a position where the member I trust wants us to
support his motion but on the other hand we have absolutely no
evidence. I think it is unreasonable to ask us to support it
when it is a sizeable amount of money, $230 million to $260
million, somewhere in that range, without any evidence at all.
Having said that, I appreciate the arguments the member has
made, but to make a decision to support the motion at this point
would be imprudent.
I want to talk about the need for fundamental reform of
employment insurance. I am glad that this topic has come up
today because I think it needs to be discussed. As members know,
the opposition parties have spoken jointly for the need for
fundamental reform of employment insurance. We have spoken about
the need to have employers and employees get together and run
this fund by themselves. We feel it is crazy to allow the
government to take this huge employment insurance fund and
essentially use it for whatever it wants to use it for. We think
it is dangerous to have a pool of capital that large with
government using it for whatever mischievous purposes it wants to
use it for.
We are saying let us take that fund, let us hive it off, let us
let employers and employees run the fund. Let us let them set
the benefits and set the premiums.
If I were one of the people on that board the first thing I
would do is argue for experience rating. Government members may
recall that the Minister of Finance asked Professor Jack Mintz to
produce a report on taxation on business in this country.
1255
One of the things he talked about was the need for reform of
employment insurance premiums. He talked about experience rating
which has substantial merit. Essentially what this is, if we use
the model of the United States, is an insurance scheme that would
penalize all those companies that lay people off more than their
industry average.
Let us talk about areas where we have a lot of seasonal work
such as in New Brunswick where the mover of this motion comes
from. In a situation where we have a lot of seasonal
industries, such as the forestry industry, a pulp and paper
outfit that lays people off more than other pulp and paper
companies in that region would see its premiums go up. This would
then create disincentive to lay people off.
There was an excellent documentary on television a few years ago
about how experience rating works and works extraordinarily well
in the state of Maine. They used the local Wal-Mart store as an
example where a number of people are hired on just before
Christmas but instead of letting them go after Christmas it keeps
them on and gets them to stock shelves, do painting or fix up the
store in various ways. If these people were let go then it would
have to face higher premiums. There is a real positive incentive
to keep people on.
It is time this government started to explore some of these more
fundamental reforms which would go a long way to solving some of
the perverse incentives or disincentives we have in our
employment insurance system today. I really believe it is time
to look at that.
I also want to talk about the other big employment insurance
problem we have today. As members know, we have a situation
where we have about a $7 billion overpayment currently sitting in
the employment insurance fund, a fund that in my judgment and in
the judgment of workers and employers belongs to the people who
contributed the money in the first place. I am talking here
about workers and employers.
We now have the government speculating that it may decide to
take that money and spend it. I submit that money does not
belong to the government. It belongs to the workers, to the
employers, to small businesses and to businesses in general, 95%
of which are small businesses. I condemn this government for
talking about taking that money.
To me it is unconscionable that the government would sit there
for a number of years and allow that fund to balance its budget
and then, when workers have balanced the budget, to say as thanks
that it is going to take that $7 billion overpayment that comes
in every year and keep it for itself. That is unbelievable.
I asked the government why it does not just obey the law and do
what the law is saying it should do which is to reduce the
premiums and give it back to workers and small business. A $350
rebate in the form of lower premiums to somebody who is making
$39,000 a year is helpful, especially with Christmas coming up.
Five hundred dollars a year per employee going back to a small
business is helpful. It allows those people to withstand this
economic downturn the minister has been talking about.
Why do we not just be fair? What is wrong with that? Why do we
not just give people back the money we have taken from them? Not
only are the four opposition parties in agreement on this issue,
we also know that the provinces agree with this. We also know
businesses and labour agree with this. Is it not time that the
government yielded and forgot about its foolhardy pride and did
the right and fair thing by giving the money back? It is
unconscionable that this government is contemplating a $7 billion
raid on the EI fund.
The minister says the government is not just going to take the
money, it is going to have a debate on it. What a joke. When we
had the minister before the finance committee recently to give
his economic statement he was making an argument about having
this big debate. I said if there were really going to be a debate
then why is the $7 billion overpayment already showing up in the
projections for next year. I also asked him why he has already
taken for granted that the $7 billion will go into the government
coffers. He had no answer.
1300
I submit, if this money really does belong to the government
instead of to the workers, why does the government pay interest
on that fund? Why does it pay interest if it is just to itself?
Is the government paying interest to itself? I do not think so.
It is paying it because it understands intuitively that the money
does not belong to it. It belongs to workers and to employers.
Therefore, the government has a moral obligation to give that
money back.
Government members cannot continue to say “We are going to have
a debate. We have decided that we know better than workers and
employers how to use that money and, therefore, we are going to
confiscate it”. That is so fundamentally wrong.
It points to the increasing arrogance that we see from this
government. It seems like no law is unbridgeable by this
government whether it is pepper-spraying students or whether it
is taking $7 billion from employers and employees. It points to
a very ugly trend that we see in this government.
I hope my hon. colleagues will join me in condemning the
government for what it is proposing to do and ask for a more
fundamental debate about employment insurance, one in which we
will have the chance to hold this government accountable for its
confiscation of the hard-earned premiums of workers and
employers.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Madam Speaker, I too
come from a riding that is very hard hit by unemployment. I see
the negative impact and the ramifications that high unemployment
has.
I received a letter from an owner-operator of a quick service
restaurant who told me that he has to pay EI premiums on
employees' hours from day one, yet these young people cannot
claim EI. That creates a surplus in the fund that the employer
cannot ask for in return. I see this as just another problem
that is created by this whole system.
Many times I have had the opportunity to say that the Reform
Party is not a national party or a true national party. When the
hon. member says that he is not prepared to support the motion
put forth by my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, once
more I see that Reformers are ignoring the maritimes and the
Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, all I can say to my
hon. friend is that he cannot have it both ways. We just had the
member for Madawaska—Restigouche say that this program affects
the entire country. Now he is saying it is all about maritimers.
He cannot have it both ways.
As a matter of fact, I would submit that the Reform Party is a
national party. I was in Nova Scotia this weekend, talking to
people there. In fact, I see the hon. member down the way whose
riding I was in. I talked to people there and I can say they are
profoundly unhappy with the choices of the traditional parties,
which is why I was invited to go there.
If bigger social programs were the solution to the problems of
the people in Atlantic Canada, New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians,
people in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, then those
people would be extraordinarily well off. I do not think it has
worked that way.
We need a new program to create jobs. The best social program
in the world is a permanent, good job, not tinkering with the
current system.
My friend should consider that perhaps after 30 years the way he
and his party have gone simply has not worked. Maybe it is time
for a new approach for all Canadians, in particular for the
people of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened intently to the member's debate. We are talking about
the surpluses we have had in the EI account for the last several
years. However, the thing that seems to be missing is that the
history of the plan has been deficits. There were years in which
there were deficits and during those periods the Canadian
taxpayer had to top up the fund.
In other words, they were not the workers and the businesses
that he is talking about. In fact, the average taxpayer had to
reach into their pockets and pay money into that program.
1305
When the member says “Give that money back to whom it
belongs”, has he taken into account the reality that taxpayers
have paid money to support the plan over the years?
Secondly, in my province of Ontario the premier and his party
are making a lot of the fact that Ontario has a net outflow to
support the employment insurance system. He thinks this is a bad
thing. I suppose within his own province he can also find shifts
between industries. In my riding, General Motors, for instance,
argues that it only gets 60 cents on the dollar in the employment
insurance program.
In his province of Alberta, does the member also support the
idea that we should balkanize the plan and try to make it
sustainable within provincial boundaries, or is there a
realization that there is more to this country than just
individual provincial concerns?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, the first point I would
make is that employers and employees have kicked in $19 billion
more than they have drawn out in employment insurance benefits.
I would argue that of course we need to hide this fund off so
that we are not in a situation where either the government has to
kick money in or employers have to kick money in to bail out the
government. The fact is that this government pays $711 million
in interest on the fund as it is right now. I do not think that
helps anybody, certainly not taxpayers in general.
The second point I would make is that we believe that employers
and employees should set the benefits and the premiums. That is
the way to handle this problem and that would not balkanize
Canadians. I would argue that it would probably go a long way in
de-politicizing EI and would make the program a lot more
effective.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to the motion
presented by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, whom I
congratulate on his choice of topic.
I cannot say the same for the Minister of Human Resources
Development, a technocrat who basically lets the federal
bureaucracy order him around.
A pilot project to correct a glaring oversight in the EI reform
was introduced in March 1997, a mere two months after the reform
first took effect. The reform took effect January 1, 1997 and
in March the government realized there was a glaring oversight.
No one in the government had anticipated it.
A pilot project, which will end on November 15 of this year, was
put in place.
Basically, this pilot project allows an individual who has been
employed for 20 weeks at $450 a week and six small weeks at $60
a week, to receive benefits of $245 a week. Without the pilot
project, he would receive $198 a week. This is not a huge
salary. The annual salary of someone earning $450 a week is
$23,400. If he works full time, members can imagine the impact
of $50 a week less on his budget.
There are now only three weeks to go in the pilot project and
the minister is still unable to tell us if his department has
evaluated the situation properly, if it will extend the pilot
project, terminate it or come up with something else.
This is wrong, because it is not the day after November 15 that
this is going to hit people.
It is already happening. People are already busy calculating
how much they are going to have to manage on for the winter, and
they do not know today whether the program will counteract the
negative effect of the small weeks, whether it will have a heavy
impact on their budgets.
That is what we want to say in today's motion. We want to tell
the government “Everybody is saying the surplus in the EI fund
is excessive”. They say there is a $20 billion surplus in the
fund. The present pilot project costs between $100 and $125
million yearly, more or less. It takes about one-half of 1% of
the $20 billion surplus to ensure people have the minimum income
required for them and their families to be able to survive.
We are facing a situation where a government is accumulating a
surplus at the expense of those who earn the least, because the
$20 billion surplus was built up while the small weeks projects
were in place.
1310
The ministerial greediness behind this method of calculation is
obvious, that of the Minister of Finance in particular. The
Minister of Human Resources Development does not seem in the
least anxious to defend his people. Instead, he seems totally
dependent on what the Minister of Finance decides on his behalf.
This government still wants to take another $100 million on top
of the $20 billion; always a little bit more, but Canada's
social protection is being destroyed and that is where the
danger lies. This is a situation that needs to be remedied.
This pilot project has been in place for two years. It has been
in operation, and there are masses of public servants to
evaluate it.
We are three weeks away from the end of the pilot project. The
member for Madawaska—Restigouche wants to know from the
minister “Will the project be extended or not?” He is unable to
give us an answer.
He says that officials will continue to calculate things as they
have been doing. It is this sort of attitude and behaviour I
find unacceptable.
These people are not administering their own money, they are
administering money workers and employers pay into the
employment insurance plan. The issue is the fact that people
must no longer be forced to beg to collect their own money.
Behind this motion is the question of dignity. This is why it
is vital the government look very seriously at this problem.
I would like to remind the Liberal members particularly those
from the maritimes, of something. They are going to have to
vote this evening.
When you vote on this motion, remember the people like Francis
LeBlanc and Doug Young who, here in this House, defended the
government's unacceptable positions, on the very issue of
unemployment insurance reform. Today, they no longer sit here,
because they were sent a very clear message by the population.
I think it would be doing a favour to the current Liberal
members, especially those from the maritimes, but those from
everywhere else in Canada too, because the small weeks plan
exists for everyone. Its impact is felt not only in regions
where there are seasonal workers. Its impact is felt in
Montreal, in the west and throughout Canada.
This evening we will have to decide whether the plan will
continue. We will have to decide whether it will continue and
be incorporated in the law. These two decisions will have to be
made at the end of the day. All members in this House will have
to vote.
They will have to decide whether the person I referred to
earlier, who earns $450 a week during 20 weeks, should be
entitled to keep receiving this $50 or have his or her benefits
cut by $50.
People like us make a decent income; we make good money, we can
get by. But after a vote has been taken and we have left this
House, we must remember that voting against this motion means
taking $50 a week from workers who earn $20,000, $25,000 or
$30,000 a year.
Even if the government were ultimately to extend the program,
the citizens, workers and employers of this country deserve a
minimum of respect. This government must absolutely wake up and
put forward a proposal, saying “We agree to extend the small
weeks program, at least until the consequences are known. We
cannot tell if it is really effective, but we do know a few
things”.
We know it costs between $100 million and $125 million a year to
operate, out of a $20 billion surplus in the EI fund. We also
know that it helps low income workers. Seasonal workers are the
ones who are affected the most. We know that poverty has
increased tremendously across Canada in recent years. The middle
class is disappearing.
It is over the EI system that the federal government has the
greatest control. The provinces are not necessarily the ones
that should act on this. Money should be put back into transfer
payments, but there are actions that could taken directly from
here.
The decision can be made to put an end to this escalating
poverty, to at least let people retain their same level of
income Most particularly, they can be allowed to retain their
dignity.
Do you know what dignity means? It means that, when a worker
earns a salary and is entitled to insurance, at the end of the
day, that insurance program will be respected, and the rules
will not be changed part way through.
Everyone who worked in seasonal employment this summer was
covered by a system that included this program.
For weeks we have been asking the government, particularly the
Liberal minister—and clearly he is not a spokesperson for the
Parti Quebecois, nor are we, but he is I am sure the
spokesperson for all of the bureaucrats in his department—to tell
us whether he is capable of putting on the table positions like
those set out this morning.
He has said that the calculations would continue as before but
that he could not tell us whether the program would be extended,
whether the legislation would be changed. He cannot tell us
anything. What point is there in having a Minister of Human
Resources Development if he is incapable of managing his main
area of responsibility, employment insurance?
1315
Canada is at a point in time when thought must be given to
stimulating the economy and ensuring that consumption will
continue. The federal government has a tool available to it.
Now that there are problems with international demand and we can
no longer be sure there will be a market in Asia for our
products, let us at least use the tools we have available to us,
let us cut employment insurance contributions, let us give
people a program that at least gives families a decent income.
The minister will never again have to give the answer he gave
this morning on television, when a CBC reporter from the east
coast asked when he would be going to New Brunswick.
The minister's response: “I tried to go there in June, but I
have not found the time yet”.
A person who is afraid to meet people and does not feel capable
of explaining to them why decisions are made, should no longer
be minister.
This evening, when all the members vote on the motion, they
should also show their courage. I think it is important that
they think about all the people in their ridings who will be
affected. Those members who do not understand the impact can
call the people in their ridings to find out. They can call the
community groups in their ridings to find out whether people
will be going to soup kitchens because of the choice that will
be made this evening.
I invite all members to give this some thought before they vote.
A positive result would put a stop to the bureaucratic
machinery and give workers back the dignity they deserve.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by
the Progressive Conservatives. Our caucus is pleased to support
the motion for a variety of reasons. We are critical that the
motion does not go nearly far enough. We would much rather
debate the EI Act and argue for its reform. It is clearly
dysfunctional and broken.
The EI system is supposed to provide income maintenance for
unemployed workers. It is pretty straightforward. That is the
deal. That is the pact most working people understand. When
they have something deducted from their paycheques for a specific
reason, there is a reasonable expectation that they should be
allowed to collect income maintenance should they find themselves
unfortunate enough to become unemployed.
We approve of other designated uses. We find there is merit to
the motion. We believe the small weeks pilot project was
necessary and that it had to take place. Obviously too many
people were being penalized by the divisor rule which was put in
place with the Liberal amendments to the EI system.
The divisor rule is patently unfair in that it brings down the
benefit for the unemployed worker by averaging all the weeks
leading up to the layoff and not just the weeks in which they
worked. In other words, dead weeks or small earning weeks were
being folded into the package which brought down the average. Not
only do less than 40% of unemployed people qualify for any
benefit at all, but those who are lucky enough to qualify for
some benefit get less money and for a shorter period of time.
The hon. Minister for Human Resources Development tried to argue
that those figures were not accurate. He referred to an analysis
on employment insurance benefit coverage recently commissioned
and released by HRDC. Holding the report as proof he made the
argument that 78% of all unemployed workers actually qualified
for EI. Nobody believes that. The media do not believe it.
Recent editorials do not believe it. It simply is not true.
1320
The minister made the allegation that opposition critics in this
area were reading the report too selectively, misquoting and
taking things out of context. In actual fact the minister is
taking things out of context. The report clearly states as a
summary of the study that the regular EI beneficiaries to
unemployment ratio or the BU ratio—some people call it the BS
ratio—had declined by almost 50% in the 1990s, falling from a
level of 83% in 1989 to 42% in 1997.
That is the figure we hear most commonly quoted in the media and
in our own criticisms. Critics from labour and all different
groups say that approximately 40% of unemployed workers qualify
for EI. Clearly the system is dysfunctional and broken. It is
no wonder there is a huge surplus. It is not hard to develop a
surplus when nobody qualifies any more and the few people who do
qualify are getting reduced benefits and for a shorter period of
time.
With that huge surplus—and I am glad other speakers raised it
as an issue—we are hearing all kinds of creative ideas on how to
spend money that clearly is not theirs to spend. Some people
argue we should be spending it on health and social programs.
Some of the premiers of the provinces are even saying that. Some
people say we should use it for deficit reduction, which is what
the Minister of Finance has used the surplus for. Almost
unbelievably the Business Council on National Issues is calling
for tax cuts.
In some sort of perverse version of Sherwood Forest we have the
BCNI advocating that we rob from the poor to give the rich yet
another tax cut. It is almost incomprehensible. Shear
perversity is what I call it. Fortunately that idea has not
caught on in any meaningful way.
Then we have people advocating that we should be cutting
premiums with the surplus. A common theme in the business
community is that it should be returned to business and employees
through premium cuts.
Except for my caucus no one seems to be raising the issue of
increasing the benefits and lowering the bar for eligibility so
that more people qualify. What could be more simple? The money
is deducted from our paycheques every week. To use it for
anything but income maintenance would be a breach of trust at the
very least and out and out theft in the worst case scenario. To
take money from a person's cheque for a specific purpose and to
use it for something completely different is fundamentally wrong.
As we talk about the $20 billion surplus, an almost
inconceivable amount of money in most people's minds, obviously
it should be used to provide income maintenance. It should be
put it in the pockets of working people when they find themselves
unfortunate enough to be unemployed. They will spend the money
in the community. It has the multiplier effect and residual
benefits.
Another point has not come up. Many of the changes to EI were
quite insignificant when we look at the bigger picture of how few
people qualify. One of the changes that went by almost unnoticed
was that of people serving their apprenticeship training in a
community college. There is now a two week waiting period.
As a journeyman carpenter I served my time as an apprentice.
When I went to community college there was no waiting period for
the EI to kick in. Now people are laid off from their job to go
to school for eight weeks, six weeks or whatever their trade
dictates, and there is a two week period where they do not get
any income at all. The result has been that many apprentices are
simply choosing not to take their in-school component. They are
not going to school because they cannot go for two weeks without
earnings.
The total savings to the EI system for reinstating this waiting
period for students was $10 million per year. The fund is
showing a surplus of $500 million per month and the
apprenticeship system has been gutted for the sake of $10 million
per year. That kind of logic simply was not thought out well and
should be reversed immediately.
Actually the building trades unions making this argument have a
variety of good recommendations for how we can fix the EI system.
One of the things they point to is that all the changes have not
even kicked in yet. It will actually get worse in the next year.
I guess in the government's mind it will get better because the
surplus will be even bigger. One of the changes that will kick
in next year is the clawback or the threshold people reach before
their EI benefits are clawed back. It used to be $63,000 a year.
Those making more than $63,000 a year would start losing their
benefits. They would be clawed back. Everybody agreed that was
fair, that anyone making $60,000 a year should not be collecting
EI and should be able to put some money away.
1325
With this set of changes it was reduced to $48,750. I guess we
could argue whether or not that is fair. As of next year it will
be $39,000. People making more than $39,000 will have their EI
benefits clawed back.
I come from the building trades. A journey person might make
$20 or $25 an hour. If they are lucky to get eight or nine
months of work in, they might make $39,000 a year. Hopefully
they will. However they still have three months without earnings.
That $39,000 a year is not a huge amount of money. They are in a
very high tax bracket. They do not get to keep the whole
$39,000.
I argue that they should not penalized for collecting what is
rightfully theirs for the three or four months they need it to
span that period of unemployment. It is to everybody's benefit
if we can keep people in those occupations during slow times so
that they are available when the industry needs them the next
spring. Otherwise they will find some other kind of work, leave
town or move. It is as simple as that.
My main criticism of the opposition day motion is that I wish it
went a lot further so that we could have a substantial debate
about EI reform. I can only think the reason it was limited to
such a narrow scope was that perhaps they were snookered by the
government. Maybe there was some optimism that the Minister of
Human Resources Development would see the logic in what they were
saying and would announce today that the small weeks program is a
good idea, is necessary, and that they should be maintaining it
after November 15. Maybe that was the optimism which motivated
the people who moved the opposition day motion.
In actual fact I think they have been hoodwinked. The Minister
of Human Resources Development just stood and said that they were
not interested in extending the small weeks program. He was not
interested in jeopardizing the windfall of $7 billion a year that
they pull out of the EI program.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with
interest. I would like him to comment on the position the
minister took earlier. He said that, as Quebec's sovereignist
representatives, all we want to do is raise doubts about the
Canadian system. I would like the member, to expose the
credibility of this issue, to remind the House that there are
national concerns, but there are also social issues.
A few weeks ago, the opposition parties unanimously proposed to
the government that management of the employment insurance fund
be given to an independent commission. The other opposition
parties did not hide behind the fact that we might be
sovereignists.
They listened to and weighed the merits of this proposal, which
received the support of the Canadian Labour Congress, Quebec's
labour unions, a number of business associations, and especially
representatives of small and medium sized businesses.
Could the hon. member tell the minister that, in this matter, it
is not our intention to give the government a hard time, but to
ensure that the law works properly and to close the loophole
created by the inclusion of small weeks in the calculation of EI
benefits?
Could the hon. member tell this House that people today want
nothing more than to be sure people will not be getting $200 a
week instead of $250, when they need it to live, and that we are
awaiting the government's decision to continue the program?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
remarks. He is quite right.
I was very disappointed to hear the Minister of Human Resources
Development try to trivialize this argument by taking a cheap
shot, questioning the motives and the sincerity of the speakers
from the Bloc Quebecois. Frankly the minister of HRD represents
a riding that has one of the highest unemployment and poverty
rates in the country. Representing unemployed people in the
province of Quebec should be a huge priority for him.
He certainly should not question the sincerity of other
representatives from the province of Quebec who are sincerely
concerned about the failure of the EI system.
1330
The hon. member raised another interesting point which I wish I
had time to comment on. He is quite right that all four
opposition parties joined together in their demand for an
independent fund. We want the EI fund to be unique and fully
separate from general revenues. This is the only way we can be
sure that future finance ministers are not tempted to put their
hand in the cookie jar and grab money that clearly is not theirs
to use it for purposes not designated by the fund. It is
something on which we should keep the pressure. The general
public understands why this is necessary. Business, labour and
all four opposition parties will continue to call for that.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, the
question is for the member for Winnipeg Centre.
However, while I am on my feet I would like to congratulate the
member for Madawaska—Restigouche for presenting this motion
today and express my incredulity at Reform members and the fact
that they dare to state in the House that they would not support
this motion. Give your head a shake, boys. Give your head a
shake. Think about it.
This motion is not about trying to find EI for someone who is
not working. This motion is not about some type of giveaway.
This motion is about bundling of weeks for people who already
work, to allow them to actually benefit from the EI program. That
is the type of thing we are supposed to support in this House as
the Parliament of Canada, to look out for those people who need
some assistance.
I would like to qualify a few statistics and take the fishery as
an example. Less than one year ago there were 34,000 workers out
of work in the east coast fishery. Seventy-three per cent of
them had no high school education and 67%—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time has run out.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on a quick response.
Mr. Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, in reaction to the
comments made by the member, he is being critical of the Reform
Party for failing to vote in favour of this motion. Frankly the
motion as I pointed out really does not go to the heart of the
issue. Perhaps that is the reservation some of the members of
the Reform Party have with the motion.
I wish it went much further in calling for substantial EI
reform. I wish the Progressive Conservatives had taken the
opportunity with this opposition day motion to call for an
independent fund. Then I think they would get unanimity on the
opposition side.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Madam Speaker, first I
want to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for
putting forth the motion before us today. Also, I want to inform
you, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with my
colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
When the last round of employment insurance changes was being
proposed by this government, I spoke out against aspects of the
legislation that would penalize people who want to work, but this
government did not listen. My party pointed out then that the
effect of some parts of Bill C-12, the Employment Insurance Act,
would encourage some to say no to part time work because they
would be worse off if they said yes.
Today there are less than 40% of the unemployed who qualify,
whereas before under the other system 80% were eligible. Everyone
in this House should stop and think about those men and women who
have children they want to feed, educate and care for and they do
not have any money for food or clothes.
I was at the finance committee meeting in Saint John, New
Brunswick last Monday, a week ago today, on the prebudget debate.
A gentleman had flown in from Newfoundland.
I never heard such a heart-rending report in my life about what
was happening in Newfoundland and how those people were
suffering.
1335
One of my colleagues from Nova Scotia started to speak about the
fishermen. It is a serious matter and I get very disturbed when
I hear someone from the Reform Party say that it was my party
that did this to the Atlantic region.
Let me say this. My riding of Saint John, New Brunswick had one
of the lowest unemployment rates that we had had in many years.
Things were great. The shipyard was going full blast. Do we have
a national shipbuilding policy now? No. The shipyard in Quebec
is down. The shipyard in Saint John is down. Most of the
shipyards in all of Atlantic Canada are down.
There has to be some compassion on the government side. The
government has to start thinking about those people. It really
hurts when I men come to my office. Never in the 25 years that I
have been involved both locally and here in Ottawa up until this
past year has a man come to my office crying “Please, I will
sweep the streets. I do not care what it is. I just want to look
after my children”.
The Progressive Conservative Party tried to improve the EI
legislation in the Senate in the last parliament. Our amendments
were rejected by the Liberal majority in the Senate.
It has been pointed out that a Progressive Conservative senator
proposed in May 1996 that weeks with less than 15 hours of
insurable earnings should not be counted as weeks of work when
calculating an individual's EI benefit rate. The senator argued
that otherwise claimants could end up with lower benefits if they
worked just a few hours in one week thereby discouraging these
individuals to take part time work.
A year later this disincentive to work in the EI legislation was
confirmed. Pilot projects were launched to look into addressing
the “small weeks issue”.
When this government engaged in its so-called social policy
review in 1994, I spoke in the House about the need to reform our
social safety net. Canada's income security programs had been
designed at a time when unemployment was a brief condition
between jobs, when the one income, two parent family was the rule
and when child poverty was not measured.
I spoke back then about the need for reforms that would reorient
passive income support programs to an active investment in
people, reforms that would remove barriers that prevent many from
becoming active members of the labour force and reforms that
would replace disjointed programs with a coherent system. Instead
of adhering to these principles, some of the EI reforms proposed
and passed by this Liberal government actually discourage people
to go to work.
I have pointed out before and I say again that there are people
in parts of Atlantic Canada who are considered frequent users of
EI. It is not because they are lazy or because they are abusing
the system. It is because some parts of the economy are highly
seasonal. I know there are people both on the opposition and
government sides that do not understand about the seasonal
system. That is why they need programs that will allow them to
adjust and move with the changing times. These people do not need
programs that cut them off at the knees. They are people who
want to work.
Employment insurance as helpful as it is does not bring the same
return both financially and spiritually that a job does. That is
why we have proposed the motion we are debating today. That is
why we are urging that this House on both sides, everyone, be
allowed to consider amending the EI act, allow workers either to
eliminate small weeks of work from the calculation of benefits or
bundle those small weeks together.
Good public policy encourages work, self-sufficiency, fairness
and dignity. The small weeks provision in the EI act does not do
this.
During the 1994 social policy review, I also spoke out against
raising taxes. I said then and I maintain today that the
challenge is to use money already in the system to make programs
as flexible as possible so recipients can receive the benefits
that help them become self-reliant and meet their needs.
That is also why I have been asking the government to lower the
excessive EI premiums since 1996.
The government is gouging the Canadian workers who are already
overtaxed and it is stifling job creation.
1340
The Minister of Finance has been overtaxing Canadian workers and
employers through excessive employment insurance premiums to pad
his deficit numbers. He has said as much. I hope all of my
colleagues on the government side remember when the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Finance stated that these high taxes
make us lose jobs, that jobs cannot be created, that people in
the business community will not expand when they have high taxes.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and their colleagues
want to use the surplus in the fund to pay for programs that the
fund is not meant to finance. The money in the EI fund is
designed to provide temporary income support to unemployed
Canadians. That money belongs to Canadian workers and their
employers. It does not belong to the finance minister or any
other minister of this government.
In February 1994 the finance minister told Canadians in his
first budget that, as I have stated, payroll taxes are a barrier
to jobs. They truly are. All Canadians know that there have
been about 40 tax hikes since this government came to power.
My little daughter-in-law said to me the other day “Mother, I
do not know what has happened. I always put money away at the
end of the month for Lindsay's and Matthew's education but we do
not have any money any more”. I said “Dear, it is because of
the taxes you have to pay. It is because of what they have done
to you”.
It is difficult. Back when the finance minister talked about
the barrier to jobs that payroll taxes were, his context was a
set of employment insurance benefit cuts proposed by the Liberals
that were supposed to allow for lower EI premiums, not a cash
grab at the expense of Canadians to fund projects unrelated to
the objectives of the EI legislation, for short term political
gain.
We are really concerned. We are concerned about what is
happening with the EI fund. The auditor general has stated
himself that he has concerns about what is happening with this
government. I hope the government does not fire him. Every time
someone speaks out, they are gone the next week.
Responsible governments recognize when bad public policy
decisions hurt Canadians and they take action to correct their
mistakes. I urge this government to recognize the mistakes that
are there. I urge this government and all members of the Liberal
government to do the right thing for those people out there.
Have the needed compassion. Reach out to those people who need
help. Do not hurt them any more. The government is taking away
their dignity. We want to give them their dignity back. Do not
make them plead.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened intently to the member's very impassioned plea for the
people in Atlantic Canada. I must say I was somewhat moved by it.
I wonder if she is aware of the fact that payroll taxes in
Canada are one of the lowest in the industrialized world. The
way she talked about them made it sound like they were about the
highest. In fact, they are one of the lowest, which makes us a
competitive place in which to do business.
My province of Ontario has a premier who has pointed to the EI
system as being an unfair transfer from the province of Ontario
essentially to Atlantic Canada. He is saying “We already pay
money through a transfer payments mechanism, through equalization
grants. We do not understand why we should have to pay more money
through the EI system to support places like Atlantic Canada”.
Can the member comment on the compassion of the premier of
Ontario?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, this is a national
issue, not a provincial issue.
1345
I say to the hon. member that everybody in this House needs to
have a history lesson on the role played by Atlantic Canada,
particularly my city which is Canada's first incorporated city by
royal charter, in building this whole country from coast to
coast. Everybody, particularly our friends out west and those in
Ontario, need to travel this country to find out exactly what our
people are like. Two weeks ago a person from Vancouver came to me
and told me that my city was the nicest city in the whole of
Canada.
As far as Atlantic Canadians go, we get hurt when we hear people
from Ontario and out west refer to us as Atlantica and a drag on
society. All our people want is their dignity. If we had a
government that was going to look at keeping those adjustments in
place then we could tell Atlantic Canadians that this government
also cares for them.
I am asking members to speak to the minister. I am asking
members to speak out for our people. I am asking members on the
government side to fight for our people to make sure they have
their dignity.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
compliment the member for Saint John on her remarks. She made
some excellent points.
The one question I have for her is somewhat in response to a
question that was asked earlier by a Liberal member. Is it not a
fact that if we went into a recession tomorrow the government
would be forced to borrow the $19 billion that it would have to
pay out to unemployed Canadians? Is it not true that it would be
a lot better to have that money in a separate fund where the
government could not get its hands on it to misuse for all kinds
of political ends?
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, we have already taken a
stand. We have already said that there should be a commission
for the employers and employees that looks after the surplus.
This commission should dictate how that surplus is used. It
should be independent of the government. We have taken that
stand. We all agree on this side of the House. I am just
waiting for that side of the House to agree as well.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, let me remind the member for Saint John about a little
history. It was the Conservative government in 1986 that passed
legislation which permitted the funds to be used as they are
today.
Let me also remind the member that this Liberal government has
spent the last five years fixing the problems we inherited. For
example, in 1993 the EI was pegged at $3.30 per $100. We have
since been bringing it down to what it is today which is $2.70.
If the member really wants to talk to her granddaughter she
should be telling her the truth.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Madam Speaker, in the last year of the
former PC government EI premiums were frozen at $3.00 per $100 of
insurable earnings. In 1994 the Liberals raised the level to
$3.07 which I think the member forgot about.
The member should take a look at history and what Trudeau did
and the mess he left this country in when we took over.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, allow me to
congratulate our acting leader, who is doing an extraordinary
job for our party. She just demonstrated it again by defending
some really important causes for the poor.
First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche for tabling a motion that shows great
sensitivity on his part.
Earlier, I heard a Reform Party member say that the motion was
too narrow. Go ask children in families where the difference in
terms of survival, adequate clothing and food is often a mere
$25, $30, $40 or $50 what they think about this.
I say to the member who suggested that today's motion is too
narrow, that he should go and repeat his comment to his
constituents. I am convinced he would not get a very positive
reaction.
1350
A Conservative member who rises in this House always gets the
same reaction: “Under the Conservatives—”. I think we should also
talk about the current government's track record in terms of
public finance. So here is an excerpt from an editorial written
by Mr. Murray in Le Droit, following the last budget: “It took
all these years for the unpopular measures taken by the
Conservatives to produce the conclusive results that we are
witnessing today”.
Whenever we rise in this House, we are regularly told “you
Conservatives should be ashamed. Everything you did was wrong”.
I am pleased to have been around when the growing debt was
brought under control.
I want to take a minute to talk about this, because it is
important. We must put the 1974-1984 period in its proper
perspective.
During that period, the Liberals increased the debt from $18
billion to $200 billion. The important thing here is the rate of
increase. Under the Liberals, the debt grew elevenfold in a
decade. Under the Conservatives, it increased twofold over a
period of nine years. However, let us not forget that we also
took important measures, including the signing of the free trade
agreement that allowed us, among other things, to double our
exports to the American market. The GST also helped the
government reduce the deficit. The purpose of all these
initiatives was to alleviate the burden of Canadian taxpayers.
All these measures could not have been in effect for just one
year. They had to be implemented over a number of years.
Despite the royal commissions, the standing committees and so
forth, the Liberals always voted against these measures that
were essentially good for the future of our country. They
always voted against them. I am definitely not about to go on a
guilt trip here. According to the Reform and Liberal parties,
the motion my colleague is proposing today is not a structural
one.
It is most certainly a structural measure for the families of
this country. It is a structural measure for the poor people of
Quebec, the maritimes, western Canada, Ontario and elsewhere.
But the government does not seem to want to take it seriously.
I repeat, as my colleague, the member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, pointed out a few
minutes ago, for the vast majority of Canadian families, $25,
$40, $50 is the difference between surviving and not surviving.
“mesure étroite”?
Members should try telling single parents that asking for an
extension of the small weeks project is too limited an approach,
as one of our Reform Party colleagues was saying, when we know
very well that some people are having trouble just surviving.
Young people are going to school in the morning on an empty
stomach. There are serious problems of poverty in our country.
While I am on the topic, I would like to make another point. I
was part of a government with a very substantial agenda in all
areas, including regional development, the environment and acid
rain—I was present at the signing—trade and tax reform. Right
now, none of these items are on the government's agenda.
I would propose one item for the government and this country to
tackle: the fight against poverty, which is the number one
problem in the country right now.
I read an article in which Michel Vastel said “Elected
representatives are not listening to anyone any more”. That is
serious.
Today, a motion was proposed to help the poorest of the poor in
our country. While I have nothing against deputy ministers or
senior government officials, the Parliament of Canada is paying
closer attention to what senior officers say than to what the
poor are saying, when it is a well-known fact that the taxpayers
see millions and billions taken out of their pockets without
benefiting from any return on their investment.
It is my pleasure to ask all my colleagues in this House to
support this extremely important measure proposed by one of our
colleagues from a riding that is not among the richest in the
country.
1355
It does not resolve the whole issue of employment insurance, of
course, but at least it is a small step that could immediately
benefit every Canadian family whose extremely low income is not
enough to ensure adequate subsistence for their children.
We must bear in mind that the government is not a private
insurance company. Overcontributions like those currently being
paid by every worker and employer in Canada are inequitable and
cannot be allowed to continue.
A start must be made with a little measure such as we are
requesting today. It is about paying attention to Canada's
poorest citizens. It does not mean establishing a structural
measure, but it does give us the opportunity to propose a
solution to the surplus in the employment insurance fund. It
would at least enable us to ensure the survival of the poorest
families.
I also understand that, for the minister, it is difficult to
travel across the country. He is having a really hard time
convincing himself to visit the maritimes. Clearly, a
politician needs to be able to remember some things. We know
about that. It is true in Quebec and it is true in all the
regions of the country.
Politicians have to choose. In opposition, it is a legitimate
question to ask the government whether it should be more
attentive to the wealthier element in our society, that is
senior public servants. I have nothing against them, but the
salary increases given federal government deputy ministers are
worth a look. When you put those figures before people who have
a hard time surviving, it is not much of a balance sheet.
I hope we will have the support of all of the members in
opposition in support of this measure, which at least sends a
signal to parliament. It is possible to listen to those who are
the most disadvantaged.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
five minutes for questions and comments but we are just about at
the time for Statements by Members. We will have the full five
minutes for questions and comments after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
TASTE OF THE DANFORTH FESTIVAL
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers of the
Taste of the Danforth Festival, an annual Greek food and cultural
festival in Toronto. They put together a well organized event
that offered the thousands of people who attended a safe
environment, excellent food and entertainment.
More so, I congratulate and applaud their successful efforts in
raising funds in the amount of $50,500 which they kindly donated
to the East General Hospital in Toronto. That is giving
something back to the community.
Bravo to the organizers of the Taste of the Danforth Festival.
Keep up the good work and next year I invite everyone to take
some time to take part in this beautiful festival. By doing so
not only will people enjoy themselves but will at the same time
contribute something to the community.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder how long the good people of British Columbia are going
to put up with this Liberal government.
Since we got elected in 1993 a lot of things have happened in
British Columbia. For instance, we lost our harbours police and
we lost two military bases in British Columbia thanks to this
Liberal government.
Our B.C. RCMP has been reduced to a 9 to 5 police force thanks
to the cutbacks in the operation budget by the Liberal
government.
Our B.C. fishing industry has been torn apart by the Liberal
government. B.C. land claim issues have been a mystery to most
of our residents and the beleaguered taxpayer is still picking up
the bill. We have a major drug problem and this government does
not even have a decent national drug strategy.
I ask all members in this House and I ask the people of British
Columbia, just what is it over here that this government intends
to do with British Columbia?
* * *
1400
KIDS FROM THE VALLEY
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and pleasure that I announce a
group of young step dancers from the great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke became world champions in Los
Angeles on Saturday. Kids from the Valley won the gold medal at
the World Championships of Performing Arts as well as the
prestigious overall world championship trophy in the dance
category.
Kids from the Valley are no strangers to the House. Last month
they performed for all members of parliament at Kingsmere. Mr.
Speaker, as you well recall, you hosted the parliamentary
barbeque and even danced with Kids from the Valley. Members from
all parties were united in emotion as they clapped or jigged with
the kids. The member for Saint John showed she is really fast on
her feet.
The Kids from the Valley are Amy and Sarah Chapman, Krista and
Steven Rosein, Katie Moyles and Kristin Carr. They are true
ambassadors of Canadian culture.
[Translation]
They are truly Canada's ambassadors.
* * *
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there is more good news for the economy of eastern Quebec: the
Government of Canada will be investing $11.3 million over the
next five years to launch Quebec's first Technopole maritime,
involving a dozen partners in the Lower St. Lawrence, Gaspé and
North Shore areas.
This money, which is going to a region that has taken the
initiative in developing its economy, will be used to develop
eastern Canada's shipping expertise. Most of the money will go
towards the direct funding of applied research projects, with
the emphasis on shipping.
The program will be administered by Canada Economic Development.
It will encourage regional partners to join forces in
developing eastern Quebec's shipping expertise.
A study of the feasibility of setting up a shipping
biotechnology research centre in eastern Quebec will be carried
out.
This is good news, something the Liberal government is doing to
encourage partners in the eastern Quebec region and thus develop
shipping expertise with a future.
* * *
[English]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
horse race for the most outrageous action of the Liberal
government has begun, and they are off.
The first one to the gate is the finance minister stumbling
rather badly while carrying the extra load of high taxes, user
fees and several tons of debt. Coming up on the inside is the
Minister of Public Works, trying to convince the world that the
cost of repairs to the House of Commons should not be included in
the cost of repairs to House of Commons.
The Minister of Justice seems content to ride backwards on a
beautiful Senate reform thoroughbred named Alberta while the
Prime Minister is hampered by his tendency to pepper spray
everyone else in the race.
As they reach the final turn it is the Prime Minister out in
front, running now with his own foot in his mouth while trying to
castigate his chief of staff for getting him into the race to
begin with. The Minister of Public Works has wandered into the
infield, disqualified for firing a bureaucrat who pointed out the
difference between cost accounting and the minister's colouring
book, while the Minister of Justice is whipping Alberta and
calling her a joke, which means Alberta will get even with her
later.
As they come to the wire, the finance minister is making a
valiant effort but he is held back by extra EI premiums that are
forcing him to use the whip on workers and businesses.
But, great scott, coming out of nowhere is the solicitor general
whispering loudly to everyone in sight while pretending to be
invisible. The other participants are falling away. They are in
awe of his ability to remember, forget, deny and confirm, all at
virtually the same time. The winner, hands down, is the
solicitor general and the loser is the Canadian people.
* * *
STREET CENTS
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the television show Street Cents provides young
people with the information they need to be smart consumers in
the midst of aggressive marketing and advertising. This show is
a valuable forum for young Canadians to assert themselves.
Since one of our greatest responsibilities as members of
parliament is to nurture the assertive minds of our youth, it is
therefore my pleasure to note that today Street Cents is
celebrating its 10th anniversary. Produced at CBC Halifax, this
program has won dozens of national and international awards,
setting a positive example of the quality programming that is
created in Canada.
Let us applaud the producers of Street Cents and hope this
television show will inspire more youth programming in the
future, for the future of our country.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL BLOCK PARENT WEEK
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is National Block Parent Week. This year marks the 30th
anniversary of the block parent program in Canada.
Public safety is one of the government's highest priorities.
All Canadians want their communities to remain safe, and that is
why organizations like Block Parents of Canada exist.
This organization deserves our recognition and support. The
volunteers who make up the program devote their time and energy
to raising public awareness, ensuring the safety of their
communities and, above all, protecting our children.
Whether involved in making schoolyards safer, reducing street
crime, or decreasing the public's fears of crime, this program
is a concrete illustration of the importance Canadians attach to
public safety, a value this government shares.
I am calling upon all Canadians to join us in honouring Block
Parents of Canada and its remarkable work in our communities.
* * *
1405
[English]
GORDON MOLENDYK
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to a very special
person in my riding who has just made been citizen of the year.
Constable Gordon Molendyk is a dedicated and hard working
representative of the RCMP who is even better known for his
countless and tireless community volunteer work. His volunteer
efforts play a large part in making my home town of Prince George
a great place to live. His integrity and devotion to his work is
an example to all those who see and enjoy the benefits of our
community and his dedication to our community every day.
On behalf of all of my colleagues I wish to send my sincerest
appreciation and congratulation to RCMP Constable Gordon Molendyk
for his many services to the people of Prince George in my riding
and to all of Canada.
* * *
UNICEF
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, October is UNICEF Month.
On October 24, 32 Cineplex theatres across Canada raised $40,000
from the sale of popcorn and drinks. This will help the United
Nations Children's Fund protect the rights of children around the
world.
UNICEF day at the movies is one of the many fundraising
initiatives culminating in the annual trick or treat for UNICEF
campaign on October 31, when Canadian children carry the orange
and black collection boxes on Halloween night. Carrying these
boxes is a Canadian tradition raising $4 million in Canada
annually. A little money goes a long way. Thirty five cents
provides 15 vitamin A capsules to protect against blindness. Just
$5 will supply school workbooks for 80 children.
This Saturday help UNICEF continue its positive work around the
world.
* * *
MI'KMAQ
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia have achieved tremendous gains since the
failure of the government's disastrous centralization policies of
the 1940s when over 1,000 Mi'kmaq were forcibly removed from
their communities, loosing homes, farms, schools and churches in
the process.
October is Mi'kmaq History Month. I am pleased to draw the
attention of all Canadians to this event. I am honoured to offer
tribute in the House of Commons to all the Mi'kmaq who worked to
maintain and develop Mi'kmaq traditions, education and culture.
The time of the harvest is indeed the most fitting time to
celebrate the ongoing contribution of Mi'kmaq, not only to their
own first nation but also to Nova Scotia as a whole and to all
the Atlantic provinces. Part of the bounty reaped through
Mi'kmaq efforts this year have been the tremendous gains in the
area of Mi'kmaq education in Nova Scotia.
My NDP colleagues and I salute Mi'kmaq's struggles, achievements
and many victories.
* * *
COMMUNITY FUTURES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as we celebrate Small Business Week I rise today to
remind the House of the important work done by the many community
futures development corporations throughout Canada, especially in
my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin.
With the help of volunteer boards of directors the seven CFDCs
play a pivotal role in fostering local economic development. They
work with our communities, give local small business direct
access to capital and good advice, and make available to them the
services of the federal government.
I wish to salute the Lacloche Manitoulin Business Development
Corporation, the Waubetek Business Development Corporation, the
Community Development Corporation of Sault Ste. Marie and area,
the Community Development Corporation for East Algoma, the
Nord-Aski Non-Profit Development Organization, and the Superior
East and the Superior North Development Corporations for their
excellent service to our communities and entrepreneurs in my
riding.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the fine
work of all CFDCs throughout Canada.
* * *
EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I would like to raise awareness about EB. EB
refers to epidermolysis bullosa, a group of rare and devastating
genetic diseases characterized by extremely fragile skin and
recurrent painful blisters. To date there is no cure for EB.
Despite the physical limitations that can be caused by EB there
is no impairment of intelligence. Many EB sufferers excel at
work and in the classroom.
The Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Association of
Canada, also known as DEBRA, is seeking to develop a national
registry of EB sufferers, raise awareness of the disease and
encourage Canadian research into EB. Many of the problems of EB
sufferers can be overcome with the support of a well informed and
caring community.
For this reason I seek to bring attention to EB and encourage
research and efforts to care for those who suffer from this
devastating disease.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
J. ALPHONSE DEVEAU
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, J.
Alphonse Deveau of Rivière au Saumon, a great historian, author
and researcher, was inducted into the Order of Canada by the
governor general. He was the recipient of this honour in
recognition of his great contribution as a witness to Acadian
culture and history.
Mr. Deveau was the fourth Acadian from Nova Scotia to be
admitted to the Order of Canada. I am proud to point out that
all four are from my riding of West Nova.
I have known Mr. Deveau for a long time, and have always admired
his devotion to the Acadians of southeastern Nova Scotia. I,
and countless other Acadians, have discovered the distinctive
wealth of our heritage from the wonderful writings of this great
Canadian.
In closing, my congratulations once again to Mr. Deveau for his
induction into the Order of Canada, and my best wishes for the
future.
* * *
QUEBEC-JAPAN RELATIONS
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity, as we are welcoming a delegation of
parliamentarians from Japan, to point out that 1998 marks the
100th year of relations between Quebec and Japan
Indeed, it was
100 years ago that Sister Hélène Paradis, from the Franciscaines
Missionnaires de Marie community, took charge of a hospital, in
Kumamoto. Since then, Quebec religious communities have played a
major role in the development of Japan's education and health
system.
After the second world war, the Quebec government was the first
to borrow from Japanese financial institutions. Also, it was 25
years ago that Quebec opened its general delegation in Tokyo.
These 100 years of rapprochement between Quebec and Japan were
marked this year, in Montreal and in Tokyo, by a number of
activities.
Let me take this opportunity to welcome our honourable guests
from the land of the rising sun.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
message is clear. Sexual harassment will not be tolerated,
especially among the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. Chief
of Defence Staff General Baril recently stated that harassment is
particularly appalling when it occurs in our military.
In a system where chivalry, honour, protection of the weakest
and respect for all should be guiding principles, General Baril
is demanding a higher standard of conduct for members in uniform,
as are Canadians, as am I. There are no excuses for this
unacceptable behaviour, and those who do not comply can expect to
pay the price.
I commend the military for taking a hard line against sexual
harassment. It will help to eradicate such inappropriate conduct
in the Canadian forces as well as send a clear and unequivocal
statement to society that sexual harassment and sexual misconduct
in any form are intolerable.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what
to do with the $7 billion EI surplus is a question of fundamental
fairness that every Canadian understands.
The finance minister says he wants to debate the issue but the
fact is that the money is not his to spend. It belongs to the
workers and employers who were forced to pay an extra $7 billion
into the plan because they have been overcharged for their EI
premiums.
It means the average worker is asked to pay $350 too much into
this fund every year. It means the employer who hired him pays
$500 too much into this fund every year. It means that the
finance minister skims billions of extra taxes from the pockets
of those least able to afford it.
If the minister chooses fairness he will give this money back to
the people it belongs to. If he chooses political expediency he
will confiscate the money to get around the law and pad his
political slush fund. I hope he chooses fairness.
* * *
[Translation]
FONDS DE SOLIDARITÉ DES TRAVAILLEURS DU QUÉBEC
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs du Québec is celebrating its 15th
anniversary.
Born out of the economic crisis of the early eighties, this
workers' fund has become, like Quebec's Caisse de dépôt et
placement, and the General Investment Corporation of Quebec, one
of the finest examples of Quebec's specificity, and one of the
major venture capital corporations in Canada.
With assets of $2.5 billion, the Fonds de solidarité has helped
create, protect or maintain over 56,000 jobs in Quebec. The fund
is also a vast network of 16 regional funds and 85 local
investment corporations dedicated to promoting employment and
regional development.
At a time when some are talking about dismantling our collective
development tools that were acquired after a great struggle, the
Bloc Quebecois salutes the major achievements of the Fonds de
solidarité and wishes it a long life.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
QUEBEC ELECTION
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, over the weekend the Prime Minister fired the first shot
in the Quebec election, but unfortunately he shot at his own
foot.
By saying that Quebec's demands have already been filled and
that the Constitution is not a general store the Prime Minister
gave the impression that Canadian federalism is not open to
change.
Why on earth would the Prime Minister make such remarks on the
eve of the Quebec election?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the list of changes in the last years is quite
impressive and it is certainly the will of the Prime Minister and
the government to go ahead and improve this federation for the
good of the federation of Canadians, including Quebeckers.
Look at the list. I will indicate some changes that have been
made during the last years. For instance, the use of federal
spending powers, and the reduced conditions of the main federal
transfers to the provinces with the creation of the CHST. The
list is long.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the changes that are impressive to Quebec are demands
for change outside Quebec.
The Calgary declaration, the premiers' proposals for improving
the social union, the official opposition's new Canada act and
the Alberta Senate election all represent healthy demands from
outside Quebec to change the federation.
By telling Quebeckers that reform of the federation is not an
option, is the Prime Minister slamming the door on all of these
other initiatives for change?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister never said that reform of the
federation is not an option.
We are improving the federation again and again, and we are
still waiting for constructive solutions from the Reform Party.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the impression the Prime Minister gave by his remarks
over the weekend was that the federation is not open to change.
What the Prime Minister should be telling Quebeckers is that
there is a positive demand for change outside Quebec and that
Quebeckers do not have to decide between the status quo and
sovereignty.
Will the minister help the Prime Minister to get his foot out of
his mouth and tell Quebeckers today that reform of the federation
is a viable option for the future?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what is a good option is certainly the improvement
of the federation.
The federation has been improved by this government, especially
during the last years, as never in the past. I have cited
federal spending powers. There has also been quite an
improvement in many files like mining, forest development,
tourism, social housing, job training agreements, the national
child benefit system, environmental and health programs, the
constitutional amendment for Quebec—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Edmonton North.
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on Saturday the Prime Minister told La Presse how he really
feels about APEC and I quote:
This is a marginal issue. If you want to know my opinion as to
whether this is a big problem, BAH! This is a marginal problem.
I knew the police could do their job and the police did its job.
If they went too far, people will see. They think Carle spoke to
police and it's possible that he did. I hope he did. I don't
know. Jean Carle will testify. Nobody was hurt and police even
offered towels to the protesters to wipe their eyes. I can't
testify because they didn't ask me to testify.
Could someone over there please tell us what in the world this
means?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what this means is that there is a process in place, the
Public Complaints Commission.
That process was designed by parliament in 1988 to deal with
matters such as this incident and that is exactly what it is
doing.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general knows now that the process has been blown
out of the water.
The federal court is looking into Gerald Morin's case right now
and his comments at a casino, which is more than it is doing for
the solicitor general.
This whole commission has been tainted. The students and the
RCMP say that they no longer trust the process. The Prime
Minister and the solicitor general seem to be the only ones who
are pleased about this. Again we say “bah”.
When is the government going to shut down this sham and call for
a full investigation, a judicial inquiry to look into the Prime
Minister's role in the APEC scandal?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, the Public Complaints Commission is the
master of its own procedure.
1420
Allegations were made. The public complaints commission is the
appropriate organization or agency in which to take action. They
did and it referred the matter to the federal court and that is
where we stand.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, over
the weekend, the Prime Minister boasted that all of Quebec's
traditional demands had been satisfied.
Yet, as far as we know, none of the governments that have
succeeded each other in Quebec since 1982, none of the major
provincial political parties, none of our leaders, whether
federalist or sovereignist, think that Quebec should sign the
1982 Constitution.
If indeed it is “Mission accomplished”, as the Prime Minister
said, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how come not one of
the governments, parties, leaders and—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister for
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada is totally committed to
continuing to improve our federation, in partnership with the
provinces and with the deepest respect for their jurisdictions
and priorities.
In fact, my recently appointed counterpart in Quebec recently
bragged about how much this federation had improved these past
few years.
It would be even better if Quebec was led by a government that
believes in Canada instead of one bent on breaking it up.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to point out to the minister that the agreements on
immigration, manpower and school boards were entered into with
sovereignist governments, because these governments are
dedicated to looking after the interest of Quebec. They were not
mere puppets.
How can the minister explain the Prime Minister's “mission
accomplished” statement, when not one single political leader in
Quebec—not Lucien Bouchard, Mario Dumont or Jean Charest—is
prepared to sign the 1982 Constitution? If everything is so
rosy, why are they not signing?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Quebeckers who want to improve the Canadian federation,
including its Constitution, would do well to vote for the
Liberals and Jean Charest, and certainly not for Lucien Bouchard
and the Parti Quebecois, who have no desire to improve this
federation. Their only desire is to break it up.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition
to telling us that he had met all Quebec's traditional demands,
the Prime Minister told us that his ministers would be giving
the Liberal Party of Quebec a hand during the upcoming election.
When the federal ministers are campaigning for Jean Charest in
Quebec, will they be telling voters that all Quebec's
traditional demands have now been met?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, the leader of the Parti
Quebecois, said on the weekend that we had better watch out for
a freeze.
The only freeze we are watching out for, apart from the usual
winter one soon to begin, is the four-year freeze on referendums
that would set in if his government were re-elected.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
When he is out canvassing, will the minister be offering people
an explanation of the position taken by his leader, the Prime
Minister, who says that everything has been sorted out, or the
position of their protégé, Jean Charest, who says it has not?
Which position will he be explaining to voters?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister never said that everything has been
sorted out. The Prime Minister wants to move forward and
improve the federation.
We are pleased to note, I might add, that the provincial Liberal
Party leader's goals are the same as ours. He wants to improve
the federation and bring about a better social and economic
union. In co-operation with other Canadians, we Quebeckers have
built a country that is the envy of the world and we will
continue to improve it.
* * *
[English]
APEC INQUIRY
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government continues to stonewall the APEC inquiry. It has
delayed the proceedings. It has attacked the chair of the public
complaints panel. Now it has filed five exemption certificates
to suppress relevant documentary evidence.
We got into this mess in the first place to save embarrassment
to an Indonesian dictator. Is this latest tactic not just to
save embarrassment to a Canadian prime minister? Is that not the
real truth?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have said many times, in 1988 this place,
parliament, decided how we would choose in this country to deal
with complaints by Canadian citizens against the RCMP. Once that
process is commenced by a complainant it is the master of its own
procedure.
1425
Anything that we might do to affect that outcome would be
completely inappropriate. It would be inexcusable and we will
not do it.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
solicitor general has made my point exactly. If we cannot get
the documents we cannot get the truth.
Why is the government forcing the students who have been denied
legal funding to go to court to try to pry the government's veil
of secrecy off? When so many of the documents relating to
Suharto are suppressed, how can anyone believe that this
government wants to get to the truth of the matter?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, counsel to the commission has been provided all the
documents that have been requested.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
government appears to be gouging Canadian workers and employers
through excessive EI taxes. Combined CPP and EI premiums under
this government have brought payroll taxes to their highest level
in history. The current EI act allows premiums to come down
significantly.
Is the government planning to introduce legislation to block the
EI premium cut required under the current law?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our payroll taxes in this country are substantially
below the OECD average. They are below the United States.
In fact, each and every year since we have taken office we have
reduced EI premiums. We reduced those premiums by $1.5 billion
in the last mandate.
I must say that in the last three years of the Tory regime each
and every year those premiums went up.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows very well that the previous government froze EI
premiums at $3 for 1993 and that it was under his government that
they rose to $3.07. The minister may want to hide behind his
selective memory, but he cannot run away from the fact that he
and his government are trying to play fast and loose with
billions of dollars that belong to Canadian workers and
employers.
When will the minister do the right thing and cut EI premiums to
$2 so Canadian workers can put the money in their pockets and
employers can take that money and create more jobs for our
people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we took office the intention of the previous
government, had they won the election, was that the premiums were
going to go to $3.30 and we did not let that happen. Not only
that, but when the previous government took office those premiums
were around $2. When they left office they were going to $3.30.
The only issue is, when will the Tories get their research right?
* * *
APEC INQUIRY
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general has just made a statement to this House
that is simply untrue. Chris Considine—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask the hon.
member for Kootenay—Columbia to withdraw that assertion.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the
Chair, I withdraw that statement.
Chris Considine, the APEC commission lawyer, does not have the
authority to demand the censored documents from the RCMP or from
the Prime Minister's office. The solicitor general knows that.
Yet he just stood in this House and said that all the documents
they wanted were available. That statement was incorrect.
When is this government going to get to the truth through an
independent judicial inquiry?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is quite the contrary. Counsel to the commission has
access to the information. Counsel to the commission has never
expressed any problem with the availability of the information
that has been requested. It is that simple.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if that is the case, perhaps the solicitor general can explain to
Canadians why it is that counsel has had to go to some of the
students—the students that the Liberals denied funding for
lawyers for—and he is counselling the students so they can help
commission counsel get these documents.
The solicitor general does not know what is going on. My
question again is: When are we going to get to an independent
judicial inquiry?
1430
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is absolutely wrong. The complainants have
access to challenge the decision of the counsel to the
commission, and the counsel to the commission is doing his job by
showing them how to do that according to the rules of the public
complaints commission. That is how it is done.
* * *
[Translation]
FEDERAL SPENDING POWER
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
weekend, the Prime Minister said that, in constitutional terms,
and in other terms, he had settled the question of Quebec.
When he canvases the electorate in the next election, how will
the Minister of Finance explain to Quebeckers that one of
Quebec's main historical demands—the limitation of federal
spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction—has not been
resolved at all and that the federal government continues to
invade Quebec's jurisdictions?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that federal spending power exists in all
federations around the world and that, in Canada, it is used the
least and is accompanied by fewer conditions.
Nevertheless, in the 1996 throne speech, the Government of
Canada limited federal spending even further than what was
provided in the Meech Lake accord, which was approved by the
Bourassa government and by a certain federal minister of the
time, Lucien Bouchard.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should have added “and whose demise was partly the
responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada”.
On the subject of canvassing, how will the Minister of Finance
explain to Quebeckers that he is continuing to refuse to
compensate Quebec in the amount of $2 billion for the cost of
harmonizing the GST with the QST, an amount even Jean Charest is
calling for?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
they go from door to door, the Liberal candidates will be able
to say that, between 1993 and 1998, the federal government
transferred to Quebec only $2.1 billion in tax points, increased
equalization payments by $1 billion, gave out $200 million in
tax benefits for children and provided nearly $650 million for
the infrastructure program.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday morning Canadians were appalled to read in the Globe
and Mail about conditions on the Hobbema reserve. While some
children on the reserve sleep on filthy mattresses in the
basements of burned out houses, their jet set leaders are living
in luxury both at home and abroad.
The official opposition together with band members has been
calling for a forensic audit into the band's finances for the
last year but the minister has refused.
Why is the money not getting to those who really need it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the pictures that members
may have seen on the weekend are what I am confronted with on a
daily basis as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
These are real people with real problems and they demand real
change. I am glad for this question and look forward to others
which will give us the opportunity to discuss the complex
relationship that exists between aboriginal people and the
Government of Canada, which allow us to explore past approaches
which have not worked in making change for aboriginal peoples,
and to share with this House the real approach that will make
sustainable change on behalf of aboriginal people that this
government has presented.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
even while we speak some children on the Hobbema reserve in
Alberta are living in conditions that would appall an experienced
foreign aid worker. Their parents are among the 80% of residents
living on welfare on what should be one of the wealthiest
reserves in this country.
I again ask the minister why is the money not getting to those
who really need it. Where is the forensic audit that we and
grassroots natives have been calling for?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the
opposition has finally come to its senses and has realized that
the circumstances on reserves are difficult and do need the
support of all of us.
For far too long the solutions have been have the federal
government come to the rescue, have the federal government fix
the problems. We tried that at the turn of the century and it
has not worked. Our approach now is to work in partnership with
first nations, my goodness perhaps even with members of the
opposition, to build a plan that will create real change on
behalf of aboriginal people.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH CARE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, out of
solidarity with his Cabinet colleagues and the Prime Minister,
the Minister of Health will have to support Jean Charest and the
Liberal Party at the next election in Quebec.
What does the Minister of Health have to say to Quebeckers in
response to Jean Charest, who said “Forget Lucien Bouchard,
forget Jean Rochon. The one really responsible for health cuts
is the Prime Minister of Canada”?
1435
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
increased transfers. Last year, we increased them by $1.5
billion, and we have already said that health is a key priority
for this government. We intend, when we are in a position to do
so, to reinvest in health, in partnership with the provinces.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Health said he would fight the policies of Ontario's Premier
Mike Harris.
How will he justify his support for Jean Charest, whose policies
largely mirror those of Mike Harris?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have our own policies. Based on these policies, health is a key
priority, and we intend to reinvest in that sector soon.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1996 a Lethbridge farmer was sentenced to a $4,000
fine or six months in jail for taking $5 worth of wheat across
the border.
Today 29 farmers are going to court in Regina for doing nothing
more than exporting their own grain. They did not want to sell
it to Ottawa's wheat board. Now they are faced with going to
jail.
Why is the justice minister seeking such cruel punishment for
nothing more than a farmer selling his own grain?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are rules, regulations and laws applicable in
every jurisdiction in this country and in the world. It is
incumbent on all of us who respect democracy and the rule of law
to follow those rules and regulations.
It is the responsibility of government, no matter how difficult
it may be in some circumstances, to make sure that those laws are
applied impartially in all circumstances, and that is what is
happening in this case. Obviously this government will not
comment on any case before the courts.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure glad and assured that the minister looks after
the law. The judge who handed out the cruel sentence to this
Lethbridge farmer has a son who was convicted of robbing a casino
at knife point in 1996. He received nothing but a suspended
sentence.
A knife wielding robber gets a suspended sentence but the
robber's father hands out a huge fine or a jail term to a farmer
for selling—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the
allegations made by the hon. member.
I am sure these are allegations the Minister of Justice would
like to inquire into in terms of the integrity of the Canadian
judiciary.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister contends that all is settled with respect to the
federal government's spending power and Quebec's right to opt
out.
But this is the Prime Minister who wants to celebrate the new
millennium by infringing upon Quebec's jurisdiction over
education, with his millennium scholarships.
When he goes door to door, how will the Minister of Human
Resources Development justify this new interference in education
with the millennium scholarships, which no one in Quebec wants?
1440
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the Quebec National
Assembly unanimously approved an approach to the millennium
scholarships. The Prime Minister of Canada wrote the premier of
Quebec a letter, saying it was a good approach. The millennium
scholarships are no longer a contentious issue, except when the
Bloc Quebecois and the PQ are trying to pick a fight, and
Quebeckers have had enough.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of
agriculture.
Over the weekend I had a chance to talk with five farmers in my
riding about low commodity prices. What I would like to know and
what they would like to know, concerning the suffering it is
causing in rural Canada today, is whether the minister is aware
of it. What does he plan to do to address this problem?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we certainly are aware of the unfortunate
circumstances that low commodity prices in the world are bringing
to many of our Canadian farmers.
I remind everyone that we already have one of the best safety
net systems in the world. For example, it has $2.5 billion in
the NISA accounts. We are making arrangements so that farmers
can draw on that earlier if they need it.
In addition, last week I called a meeting for November 4 of the
key farm leaders in Canada and the provincial governments so that
we could talk about the realities of today, how we will discuss
those and how we will approach improving the situation for
Canadian farmers.
* * *
GASOLINE
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the other day the Minister of the Environment announced with glee
a new tax on gas. She said it would cost Canadian consumers only
about a cent a litre. However, a Liberal member, the member for
Pickering—Ajax, the respected chairman of the Liberal caucus on
gas pricing, said it would cost as much as 15 cents a litre.
Who is right, the minister who says it is a cent a litre or the
Liberal member who says it is 15 cents a litre? Which one should
we believe?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to have the
opportunity Friday to announce new regulations for the reduction
of sulphur in gasoline.
The decision was taken as a result of a study done by the
federal government, provinces and territories working together
with the oil refinery industries, the automobile manufacturers
and other stakeholders. They all agreed that the cost would be
$1.8 billion to reduce it to the levels I have regulated.
However, the costs of not acting are many times higher in terms
of health.
This translates in terms of cost to the oil refiners of one cent
per litre, according to the report of this committee.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we can mark that down as another Liberal evasion to a straight
question. Let me try again with this minister.
I asked her who was right, the member or she. Industry experts
say it will be a lot more than a cent a litre but my question is
we have a respected Liberal member here saying it will be 15
cents a litre, so who is right? Is the minister saying that
Liberal member is wrong, yes or no?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have based my regulations on a study
that, as I indicated, involved different levels of government,
the oil producers, the refiners and the automobile manufacturers.
They presented a report which indicated very specifically what
the costs would be. In fact, health people in this country
indicate that the health costs of not acting are much higher than
estimated in that report.
* * *
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This
morning the minister met with the Timorese leader and Nobel prize
winner José Ramos-Horta who has urged our government to support
the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and
an internationally supervised referendum.
Will the minister honour the promise his party made in 1991 or
will he continue to attack the East Timor alert network, to
apologize for Canadian protesters and to put embarrassment to
Indonesian dictators ahead of the rights of the people of East
Timor?
Will he now support East Timor's right to self-determination,
yes or no?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House that we had a
very useful discussion with José Ramos-Horta this morning during
which he expressed appreciation for the strong interest the
Canadian government has taken in supporting initiatives in East
Timor.
I indicated to him that we are strongly supportive of the UN
sponsored process of negotiations going on. In fact, I met with
Portuguese officials on the weekend to discuss this and we also
indicated that we believe there has to be a full involvement of
East Timorese people in whatever arrangements are made.
To that end, we have agreed to provide direct funding to a major
meeting of the East Timor network dialogue group which brings
together all parties to the dispute to find a resolution.
* * *
1445
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance
who will soon be known as the Grinch who stole Christmas.
Canadians last week were shocked to find that the government has
now decided to tax fun by taxing things like Christmas parties.
The cost of a Christmas party is now to be a taxable benefit.
Will the Minister of Finance simply stand and say, no, the
government is not that badly off that it is going to start taxing
fun, Christmas parties, Hallowe'en parties and the like?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member because
sitting between the solicitor general and the human resources
minister, I feel like the Maytag repairman.
Let me say that it is not true what the hon. member has said. In
fact we only recognize a tax benefit if it is over $100, any
gifts over $100. I do not know about the hon. member, but I do
not get invited to many Christmas parties where the cost is more
than $100. Perhaps he gets invited to some rich parties. The
limit is $100. Only when it is over $100 does it become taxable.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
is a desire for change, for renewed federalism, not only in
Quebec but in all the rest of the country as well.
The only one who seems not to share that desire is the man who
should spend less time patting himself on the back and more time
doing his job, our famous Machiavelli of Canadian politics, the
Prime Minister of Canada. Divide and conquer, that is what the
government's constitutional strategy is, in a nutshell.
With all the statements the Prime Minister has made, does the
Liberal government not realize he is giving the kiss of death to
the leader of the federalist forces in Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be only too pleased at any time to compare on
the record of the Mulroney years to this government's record on
enhancing the federation.
The method the Prime Minister wanted to use is a step-by-step one,
solving one aspect at a time, rather than coming up with a huge
change all at one time. That does not work, and does nothing
to promote the evolution of the federation.
I believe the Prime Minister's approach has worked well in
recent years, and we will continue with it, advancing the
federation in conjunction with the provinces, respecting their
jurisdictions and priorities.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister considers himself the leader who has done the
most for the constitution. The most, yes, but the most damage.
When it comes down to it, the best ally the Quebec sovereignists
and Lucien Bouchard have in Quebec is the Prime Minister himself
and his gang.
With the attitude the Prime Minister and his troops have toward
constitutional matters, I have a suggestion to make: the true
federalist forces in the country have a clear, cut and dried
strategy to suggest to the Prime Minister, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the Liberal government. Shhh, keep
absolutely quiet for the next 36 days. Not a word.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the responsibility of the Government of Canada is to
govern, and govern it does, for all Canadians, including
Quebeckers.
From what I can see, the Liberals do not seem to be the ones who
are the allies of the Bloc Quebecois. They are not the ones
clapping at the moment.
* * *
[English]
PENSIONS
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the well-being of nearly one
and a half million Canadian pensioners depends on them applying
every year for the guaranteed annual income. Since next year is
the International Year of Older Persons, what can the Minister of
Human Resources Development do to make it easier for Canadian
pensioners to get the income support they need?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we are
making major service improvements in 1999 to the renewal of
guaranteed income supplement and spousal allowance benefits as
part of the International Year of Older Persons. These changes
will permit over one million seniors to renew their benefits
automatically. No more will pensioners have to rush to complete
unnecessary paperwork or worry about having their payments
interrupted. This is the best improvement to the GIS-SPA program
in 31 years.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians throughout the country have expressed a desire to see
the federation run differently.
We had the Calgary declaration and the premiers' social union
proposal, which even met with Lucien Bouchard's approval.
On the eve of the Quebec election, why is the Prime Minister
refusing to recognize Canadians' desire for change?
1450
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government wholeheartedly supports the Calgary
declaration.
We are negotiating the social union with the provinces and I
repeat that we will be more successful in our efforts to do so
if we have a government in Quebec that believes in Canada, that
wants to improve it, and that will share with other Canadians
all the expertise, all the knowledge, all the culture of Quebec,
which is a culture of trust, not the culture of mistrust the
Bloc Quebecois is trying to impose on us.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is another consensus in Quebec that the federal government
is refusing to respect, and that is the consensus around young
offenders.
The approach the Minister of Justice has taken in her bill is
completely at odds with the current approach in Quebec.
How can the Prime Minister claim to have sorted out the issue of
Quebec's distinct character when his justice minister is getting
ready to impose Canada's young offenders model on Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact that which we are
proposing, as opposed to being in contradiction to that which
Quebec does, our strategy builds on much of that which the
province of Quebec has pursued. Indeed, let me say the hallmark
of the young offenders strategy is flexibility, because in this
federation we as a federal government believe it is important to
provide the provinces with the opportunity to pursue their own
individual agendas in key areas.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the President of the United States has publicly decried the
recent murder of an American doctor. He said that the United
States will not tolerate violence directed at those providing
legally protected medical services.
Our Prime Minister has said nothing. Three doctors providing
legal abortions for women in Canada have been shot in the past
four years. Why has the Prime Minister not spoken out?
Will the government announce additional support for the task
force investigating the shooting?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very
important and a very serious question.
The government is committed to working with law enforcement
officials in the United States. In fact this morning I
instructed my department to do whatever it can, including
providing additional resources to work with officials in the
United States to put a stop to this kind of horrendous violence.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday
of last week members of the Nova Scotia legislature held a two
hour emergency debate to discuss the serious plight of our
farmers who for the second consecutive year have suffered
enormous financial losses due to unusually dry conditions.
Considering the devastation farmers have experienced with their
crops over the past two years, will the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food make a firm commitment here and now to provide our
farmers with emergency relief?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member been listening, I
just answered that question a few minutes ago. I said that I am
calling the ministers of agriculture in Nova Scotia and across
the country and farm leaders across the country to discuss that
very issue on November 4.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I understand that the minister sets immigration targets each
year in order to meet the needs of the Canadian population. For
1998 why is the department not expected to meet the immigration
targets?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
projected number of immigrants each year is a planning target.
These targets are established for the different categories. The
department has been successful in meeting the targets for the
refugee category and the family class category, satisfying our
very important commitment to both humanitarian assistance and
family reunification.
Unfortunately due to events beyond our control, notably the
civil economic crisis in Asia, we are experiencing a decline in
the skilled worker category. We expect to meet the target—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Medicine Hat.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
five years the Reform Party has been asking questions about third
world conditions on native reserves across this country. For
five years we have had nothing but stonewalling from Indian
affairs ministers across the way.
They seem to be more interested in protecting entrenched
interests than in really helping natives.
1455
If the minister really cares about natives, why in the world
will she not give us a forensic audit to ensure that money gets
to natives on reserve?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is just the opposite I am
afraid. For the last five years all I have heard coming from the
Reform Party are things like “Why do we not just get rid of
section 35 in the Constitution. Why do we not cut $900 million
from the department of Indian affairs for the provision of
services and programs for aboriginal people. Why do we not just
pay aboriginal people a lump sum of money and tell them to go and
build their schools and roads”. I do not hear those questions
coming from the hon. member at all.
* * *
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Prime
Minister claims that everything is settled. Yet, nothing is
settled regarding Quebec's role on the international scene.
If everything is settled, how does the minister explain that, at
international meetings on culture, the Quebec Minister of
Culture is left behind and it is the Minister of Canadian
Heritage who speaks on behalf of Anne Hébert, Gilles Vigneault
and Robert Lepage, and who defends Quebec's culture, which the
Prime Minister of Canada said did not exist?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we form such a partnership that, next week, a meeting
will be held in Mont-Tremblant to deal with cultural issues, and
I personally invited Mrs. Beaudoin to take part in it.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, private health care is a booming business in Canada. In
this region alone, private health care businesses are on the rise
for the second year in a row. This rise in private health care
is a sure sign that this government's deep cuts to transfer
payments for health care are creating two systems of health care
in Canada, one for the wealthy and one for everyone else.
Will the health minister admit that health care cuts are leading
us down the road to two tier American style health care?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over a year ago this government announced that the era of cuts to
health care was over. Last year one of the first things we did
as we emerged from the deficit of the past was to reinvest in
health care by restoring $1.5 billion to the transfer payments.
The commitment of this government to the public single funder
system of health care is unequivocal. That is why the Prime
Minister has said clearly that health will be the subject of our
next major reinvestment, and it will be.
* * *
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the only
unfinished stretch of Highway 101 in Nova Scotia is located in my
riding between Digby and Weymouth. A heavy increase in
commercial traffic has local residents fearing for their own
safety and that of their children who must travel these dangerous
roads by school bus every day.
Can the Minister of Transport tell this House whether he and his
provincial counterparts have entered into any negotiations on a
cost sharing agreement to complete this unfinished section of
highway? If so, when can we anticipate the completion of these
negotiations?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport
has done everything in its power to provide a safe, efficient and
sustainable transportation system. In this situation the
provincial ministry is responsible for a great number of the
concerns. However, we will not renege on our responsibility to
continue to provide Canadians with one of the safest
transportation systems in the world.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-44
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the President of the Treasury Board told the House, in reference
to Bill C-44, that the administrators of cultural organizations
are appointed at the government's pleasure.
Does the minister mean that public organizations will be under
the government's direction, under the yoke of the party in
office and, ultimately, under the authority of a temperamental
minister?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CBC's
independence is clearly guaranteed under section 46(5) of the
Broadcasting Act, which reads: “The Corporation shall, in the
pursuit of its objects and in the exercise of its powers, enjoy
freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming
independence”.
1500
I think the government clearly indicated its desire to see the
CBC enjoy total cultural freedom.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I notice the Minister of National Revenue is to tax Canadians who
will be attending Christmas parties.
I have the Liberal caucus budget. It suggests that it is to
spend $86,700, not including donations and gifts, at a Christmas
party. I wonder if these Liberal MPs will be taxed or report
that as a taxable income.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As was quite rightly
pointed out to me, that does not fall within the administrative
responsibility of government. It is a caucus responsibility.
* * *
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, last Tuesday in the Standing Committee of Fisheries and
Oceans, Mr. Turner, acting director for the coast guard,
indicated that in no way would there be $55 million worth of cuts
to the coast guards.
In Saturday's Daily News, Neil Bellefontaine, regional
director for Atlantic Canada, said that they were close to
reaching their goal of $45 million in cuts. Commander Turner
also indicated that close to $200 million had been diverted from
the coast guard into DFO. What a wasteful move that was.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Are
you or are you not going to privatize the coast guard in the very
near future?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the minister
responds, I would remind all members to address each other
through the Chair.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member is
whether we intend to privatize the coast guard.
I can assure him that is not the intention of the government. I
can also assure him that we have made certain reductions in
expenditures which are necessary.
Nevertheless we have put safety, in particular search and
rescue, first. We will not have any reduction of safety levels
because we regard that as our most critical role.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 19 petitions.
* * *
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Mrs. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the report of a Canadian parliamentary delegation
that travelled to Cameroon last June.
This is a particularly opportune moment, moreover, because we
have the honour of receiving parliamentarians from Cameroon this
week.
[English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the pleasure of presenting,
in both official languages, three reports of the Canada-Japan
Interparliamentary Group, namely the report of the third annual
visit to Japan to meet with Diet members, business persons,
community leaders and academics. The visit was held in Tokyo,
Tohoku and Hokkaido from May 22 to June 2, 1998.
Second is the report of the ninth annual meeting between the
Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group and the Japan-Canada
Parliamentarian Friendship League held in Banff, Calgary,
Edmonton and Fort McMurray from August 21 to August 28, 1998.
Third is the report of the executive committee meeting of the
Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Lima, Peru, from
September 6 to September 8, 1998.
Interparliamentary associations provide forums at which
parliamentarians are ambassadors for their countries. Members of
the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group have been able to
address and promote issues such as the anti-personnel landmines
convention, cultural exchanges and trade matters.
[Translation]
We wish to thank all those who supported us in our work.
* * *
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-448, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (consecutive sentences).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to introduce this
private member's bill today to the House of Commons. I do it
because Canadians have been crying out for some serious changes
to our justice system. One of the areas that they demand to be
changed is the area that deals with sentencing, in particular
concurrent sentencing.
This enactment would require that a court, when sentencing an
offender for the commission of any certain or specific violent
offences against a person, shall direct that the sentence of
imprisonment imposed be served consecutively to any sentence for
another such offence.
I am pleased to introduce the bill today. I am certain that
members of the House will realize the importance of getting this
change done.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many constituents in Ontario who are
requesting that parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a
provision, as supported in Bill C-340, regarding the right of a
spouse's parent, the grandparent, to have access to or custody of
the children or the child.
MARRIAGE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present three petitions today.
Whereas the majority of Canadians understand the concept of
marriage as only the voluntary union of a single unmarried male
and a single unmarried female and whereas it is the duty of
parliament to ensure that marriage as it has always been known
and understood in Canada be preserved and protected, the
petitioners pray that parliament enact legislation such as Bill
C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be
entered into between a single male and a single female.
1510
These three petitions are signed by many people in my
constituency in and around St. Albert, Edmonton, and other areas.
[Translation]
BILL C-304
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
signatories of the petition I am tabling today are calling upon
parliament to support Private Member's Bill C-304, which would
strengthen the protection in the Canadian Bills of Rights for
property rights.
[English]
FOOD AND DRUG ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which is signed
by hundreds of residents of the constituency I have the honour of
representing, Burnaby—Douglas. It notes that freedom of choice
in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further
threatened by legislation and statutory regulations of the
Government of Canada.
The petitioners urge that Canada's Food and Drug Act be revised
in a number of ways, including that the definition of food
include dietary supplements and food for special health uses, and
that the definition of drug be amended to read that drug includes
any substance other than food. They go on with a number of other
proposed changes to the Food and Drug Act.
Finally, they urge that only foods the Government of Canada may
restrict from a market are those that are proven unsafe or
fraudulently promoted and that in all cases the burden of proof
shall be on the Government of Canada to establish that such foods
are either unsafe or fraudulently promoted.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions to present today. The first deals with human
rights.
In this year marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights the petitioners would like to draw to
the attention of the House that Canada is an internationally
recognized leader of promoting human rights around the world.
Whereas human rights abuses tragically continue in many
countries around the world, including countries such as
Indonesia, the petitioners call upon Canada to appeal for action
by leaders of countries where human rights are not being
protected and to seek to bring to justice those responsible for
the violation of internationally recognized universal human
rights.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition concerns police officers and firefighters.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that our
police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk on a daily basis as they discharge their duties and
that when one of them loses their life in the line of duty often
the employment benefits are not sufficient to take care of their
surviving families. Further, the public mourns the loss of
police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and
wish to support those families in a tangible way in their time of
need.
The petitioners call upon parliament to establish a public
safety officers compensation fund for the benefit of families of
public safety officers who are killed in the line of duty.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quite a
number of petitions so I would ask hon. members to keep their
prefaces brief.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 32 constituents of
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and pursuant to Standing Order 36
I would table a petition urging parliament to enact Bill C-225,
an act to amend the Marriage Act, which was introduced by a
Liberal member very recently.
[Translation]
ABOLITION OF SENATE
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition organized by Albini Lafontaine in
Frontenac, which is in my riding.
This petition calls for abolition of the Senate. This would
mean an annual saving of $50 million, as well as making the
operations of parliament more democratic, and more efficient as
well.
[English]
MARRIAGE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present two petitions today on behalf of the
constituents of Saskatoon—Humboldt.
The first petition is from residents who want to ensure that
marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada,
is preserved and protected. The petitioners pray that parliament
enact Bill C-225 so as to define in statute that a marriage can
only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition draws the attention of the House to section
43 of the Criminal Code that recognizes the primary role of
parents in the raising and disciplining their children.
The petitioners request parliament to affirm the duty of parents
to responsibly raise their children according to their own
conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 of Canada's
Criminal Code as it is currently worded.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition in the House of
Commons today on behalf of many of my constituents who do not
believe Don Johnston at the OECD with respect to the MAI.
They are very concerned that the MAI might likely still proceed
and it would have a very negative impact on Canadian life,
including environmental protection, employment, wage levels,
health care and other programs.
1515
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons that when Don
Johnston and the government decide to proceed with the MAI that
they have public hearings to express the concerns of all
Canadians.
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a
petition that states that the relationship between grandparents
and grandchildren is a natural and fundamental one and the denial
of access can constitute abuse and can have a serious and
detrimental emotional impact on both the grandparents and the
grandchildren.
GASOLINE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present
a petition signed by the residents of Waterloo, St. Thomas and
London who note that the use of MMT in gasoline has proven to
foul emission control devices and adversely affect engine
performances, resulting in higher smog levels.
The petitioners call on parliament to set new national clean
fuel standards for gasoline with zero MMT and lower sulphur
content.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36 signed by thousands of my
constituents. They are concerned about the MAI and are not
convinced that the government is going to back off on this. It
may have been sort of curtailed for the moment but they want to
make it perfectly clear that they have 101 reasons for opposing
the MAI, which I will not read.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): I present a second petition, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
a number of small business operators in central British Columbia
who are concerned about the massive increases in CPP premiums.
They support the principle of CPP but they want the government to
acknowledge that this will create serious hardship in terms of
one more type of payroll tax.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, on a totally
different topic. These petitioners from Kamloops are concerned
about the lack of serious consideration for people who hurt
animals. They want judges to give more serious sentences to
people who harm animals.
EUTHANASIA
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
three petitions. In the first, over 50 petitioners wish to draw
to the attention of the House their concerns for the sanctity of
life. The petitioners pray and request that parliament retain
the current provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted
suicide and that parliament not sanction the aiding of assisted
suicide or euthanasia.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): In the second
petition, Mr. Speaker, some 40 constituents draw attention to
their concerns about the impact of the multilateral agreement on
investment.
MARRIAGE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): The last petition, Mr.
Speaker, is signed by some 300 residents of my riding of
Cambridge who wish to draw to the attention of the House that the
majority of Canadians understand a marriage to be the union of a
single unmarried male and a single unmarried female.
The petitioners pray and request that parliament enact Bill
C-225 so as to entrench this definition and understanding in
statute and preserve and protect the institution of marriage in
the way it has always been known.
GASOLINE
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition signed by a good
number of constituents from the riding of Huron—Bruce. These
petitioners share the concern that the additive MMT in Canadian
gasoline presents an environmental problem affecting every man,
woman and child in Canada. They also call on parliament to set
by the end of this calendar year national clean fuel standards
for gasoline with zero MMT and low sulphur content.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
join many of my colleagues and submit a petition presented by a
number of residents from British Columbia who are very concerned
that the MAI is not completely dead. These petitioners would like
to drive a stake through its heart to try to make sure it
actually stays dead because they point out what sheer folly it
would be to enter into any kind of liberalized trade agreement
that would bind us for 20 years and have such obviously
detrimental effects.
1520
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, along with my NDP colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order
36, I wish to present a petition on the MAI. They do not believe
for one second that this current Liberal government has any
intentions, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said, to drive a
stake through its heart.
I would also like to advise the Liberal government that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. We
are presenting petitions. We are not in debate. Just read a
summary of the petition and we will get through the day.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I move
that all questions stand.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a point of order. I would ask the indulgence of
the parliamentary secretary if he could look into the status of
question No. 32 which was tabled almost a year ago, October 28 of
last year. It was a detailed question concerning expenditure
around the then upcoming APEC summit.
We have been waiting for almost a year for an answer. I would
ask the parliamentary secretary if he would look into that and
come back with an explanation for the delay.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, it does take longer with
some questions compared with others but I certainly will look
into this question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed that
the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the
parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, before Oral Question Period, the member for
Chicoutimi presented quite clearly the need for the government
to extend the small weeks program, if only out of a sense of
fairness, compassion and responsibility toward people with less
income.
I would nevertheless like to ask the member a question. He
knows that we support the Conservative Party motion. With this
small weeks pilot project, we have realized that many regions in
Quebec and Canada are not currently covered by the plan and
should be.
The problem does not necessarily lie just in the high
unemployment regions. In low unemployment regions as well,
people not covered by the plan are currently living with the
effects of not having the small weeks plan.
This may be the best example of the need to extend the plan in
regions of high unemployment. Would it not be a good thing if
we were, on reflection, to consider extending the plan to all
regions of Canada?
1525
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the
very efficient work done by our colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques on related issues.
Any issue touched on by Human Resources Development Canada is a
social issue.
For the time being, it is extremely important that the small
weeks program be extended, as this extension is anxiously
awaited by some people. As part of a more comprehensive reform,
looking into everything that concerns the absolutely
disproportionate surpluses in the EI fund, perhaps extending
this program should be considered, if only to show a little more
sensitivity.
I read an article, dated September 23, in which Michel Vastel
said “Elected representatives show an increasingly appalling
insensitivity to the demands of ordinary citizens”. I agree with
our colleague's comments. There is an extraordinary difference
between what he said and the remarks made by the Reform Party
member, who considered this measure to be completely superficial
and unproductive, while knowing full well that some families
could use a few dozen dollars more to have decent living
conditions, not perfect ones, just enough to live at subsistence
level.
It is extremely important to act quickly on extending this
program and to do so as part of a comprehensive reform.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, with the drastic changes of EI over the last five years,
would the member not agree this is just an insidious example of
this Liberal government's downsizing its responsibility on to the
backs of the provinces?
An example of that is that as of September 1, after the TAGS
program, close to 9,000 people in Atlantic Canada and Quebec had
to apply for social welfare because the EI premiums were either
very insignificant or none at all.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Madam Speaker, our number one goal in this
country should be to eliminate poverty, a situation for which
the federal government is responsible. This same government
enjoys a $20 billion EI surplus that is the result of measures
that, as I said earlier, were taken by the previous government,
measures like the GST, free trade and tax reform.
The federal government should take corrective measures to fight
poverty. Instead of apologizing, we must put more pressure on
the government to inject additional funds into everything that
impacts on poverty, including health care, social programs and,
of course, employment insurance.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to the motion by the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
Previously the minister said: “In light of the fact that we do
not have all the information required, I am afraid we cannot
support the member's motion even though we recognize his good
intentions”.
Recognizing his good intentions might be stretching it a little.
We are certainly all concerned and want the pilot programs
continued in one fashion or another.
I believe there is more than meets the eye here in terms of the
intentions of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche when putting
forward this motion.
I am pleased that the member does recognize the value of the
important changes this government has made in terms of the
previous unemployment insurance legislation, in particular as
related to what was called the short week issue.
I also point out a little recognition. This really happened
under the guidance and the hard work of the member for
Kenora—Rainy River in his previous capacity as parliamentary
secretary.
We saw that there was a problem in terms of short weeks.
We brought it forward and he, along with a number of us,
developed the process to fix that short week problem. We acted
on it and we have had the pilot program in place for almost two
years as evidence of where to go from here.
1530
Some of the earlier speeches concern me. The acting leader of
the fifth party said “There has to be compassion” and tried to
leave the impression that the EI changes brought about by this
government lacked compassion. The hon. member is flatly wrong.
In fact this motion highlights one of the better examples of how
we have been flexible and innovative in reforming the old UI
system.
It would be useful to examine how the small weeks became an
issue in the first place.
Under the old system of UI weekly benefits depended on earnings
in the most recent 12 to 20 insurable week periods; that is, the
weeks with more than 15 hours or $150 in earnings. That was over
the last year or 52 weeks. Depending on the work patterns under
the old UI system an individual's benefit could equal up to 146%
of insured earnings from work.
The intent of the original new EI legislation was to base
benefits on earnings from work within a continuous period. This
design ensured that benefit levels were more reflective of the
normal flow of earnings from employment and there was incentive
to work even small weeks as every hour at work would count toward
eligibility, duration and benefit level. It was, however, seen
as harshly impacting on individuals with gaps in their
employment.
One of the most illustrative examples of this happens on a
potato farm where an individual works in the spring for an
extended period of time, with long hours, for about six weeks.
They have a fairly slack period during the summer months and then
again have heavy employment in the fall during harvest.
What clearly was happening was that an individual would be
called back for a half day to grade potatoes for four hours. As
a result of coming back for those four hours of work, the gap
created a short week, which created a very serious reduction in
the individual's benefit level. Certainly the individuals did
not want to go to work with this serious impact. The employers
found themselves with the problem of getting workers to come in
for the very short period of time. That was not the intention of
the EI act. The intention was that every hour would count.
As a result of the earlier gap issue, the legislation was
amended to enable individuals to ignore up to 12 weeks of no
earnings within a 26 week period when calculating their benefit
levels. However, that improvement, ignoring weeks of no earnings,
resulted in a disincentive to accept a small week. That is, in
some instances it was better to have a week of no earnings versus
a small week with low earnings because it would have an impact on
future benefit returns. If a week with low earnings was included
in earnings, the individual's average earnings and thus benefit
level would fall and that worked against our stated purpose in
terms of the employment insurance legislation of having every
hour count. Therefore, fixing the gaps issue created the small
weeks issue which we then brought in the fix for.
1535
I am very pleased with the way we on this side of the House
responded. When the problem came to light, the Minister of Human
Resources Development asked a group of Atlantic MPs, of which I
happen to be one, to talk to Canadians and to find solutions. We
decided to pilot test a system whereby small weeks could be
bundled together or where they could be excluded in the
calculation of average weekly earnings in the determination of
the EI benefit.
So far the results have been encouraging. About 130,000
claimants have benefited from these pilot programs, including a
high proportion of women. Together their benefits have increased
by about $19 per week.
These projects are well received and effective. However, they
are slated to expire next month, which brings us to the following
questions. Do we extend the pilot projects? If so, which
project? Do we extend the exclusion pilot which is in place in
western Canada or do we extend the bundling project which is in
place in eastern Canada? The bottom line in both pilot projects
is the same. The benefit levels for EI participants are the same
under both projects. I can see how someone would want to make
sure the program continues, especially when that program is
delivering and being helpful, as has already been proven.
We need to wait for the facts. Once we have all the facts and
we have sifted through the evidence we will all be in a better
position to say whether or not these pilot projects have
accomplished what they were intended to accomplish in the
beginning.
That is why I come back to the question of whether there are
so-called good intentions on the other side in terms of proposing
this motion today. From my position I say that this program is
needed and it needs to be continued. However, today may not be
the day to make that decision. There were a lot of changes in
terms of the EI legislation. There are other areas where there
has been injury and there are other areas where there has been
improvement. We need to monitor all of those aspects. We cannot
just come to a quick, hasty fix. We have seen the kinds of Tory
fixes in the past under the old UI legislation. When we came in
we had to reconfigure, change and improve upon those quick fixes.
We need to take some time. We need to be very careful and
cautious. We need to make sure the evidence is there in terms of
what needs to be done, in terms of which program should be kept,
how it should be done, and in terms of what other measures we
should improve before we get into opening up the Employment
Insurance Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
had the pleasure of visiting the riding of the member for
Malpeque, who is also Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans. His riding is similar to mine in many
respects, with a rather high unemployment rate.
I would like to have his comments as the representative of the
Minister of Human Resources Development. A former BC Mine worker
from my riding came to see me.
During the period when he received EI benefits, he worked as a
pallbearer at the funeral home, earning $22 each time. So he had
10 small weeks with $22 in income, one with $44 in income since
he did it twice that week, and another with $66 in income since
he did it three times that week. When he applied for EI benefits
for the second time, the department took the last 26 weeks with
earnings, which meant 12 small weeks and 14 weeks when he was
working as a miner.
1540
Louis-Philippe Roy, from Black Lake, earned $375 as a pallbearer,
and his EI benefits were cut by $1,734. He lost $102 a week.
Therefore, because this unemployed miner earned $375, he lost
$1,359.
That means that Louis-Philippe Roy contributed, involuntarily of
course, $1,359 to the $20 billion in accumulated surplus.
Because the unemployment rate exceeds 10% in the riding of my
distinguished colleague from Malpeque, small weeks can be
adjusted into one single week, but this cannot be done in
Thetford or in Black Lake because these communities are part of
the greater Chaudière-Appalaches region, which includes the
Beauce region where the unemployment rate is very low.
I just wanted to draw to the attention of the House the flagrant
injustice of which Louis-Philippe Roy was a victim.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
question of the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic. However, I
cannot on the floor of the House of Commons get into the
specifics of an individual's case.
His point illustrates why we need to take a little more time to
look at this. I think what he is suggesting is that the small
weeks pilot applies to only 29 of the HRD regions for employment
insurance. The area he is talking about may be an area where the
small weeks pilot does not apply. If that is the case, then that
is evidence to show how useful the small weeks pilot is.
I suggest to the member that he bring the specifics of that case
to the Parliamentary Secretary for Human Resources Development.
Then we could look at it and use it as evidence in terms of this
monitoring.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have the highest regard for the Parliamentary
Secretary for Fisheries and Oceans who comes from the beautiful
riding of Malpeque.
However, one of his comments greatly disturbs me. Earlier today
I presented to him an EI statement from somebody in Nova Scotia
who got $25 a week EI, and if a person was married with children
they got $31 a week.
I would like him to respond to the interim leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party who indicated that we must have
compassion in our rules and changes. Where is the compassion
when somebody who has worked most of their life gets $25 a week
or $31 a week? Where is the compassion from the government
there?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Madam Speaker, again we are dealing
with a specific case and we do not know all of the details.
Did this individual and his family only manage to get two weeks
of work last year? Is the result that the divisor was 12 or 14?
Is that the reason the employment insurance is so low? I do not
know because I do not have the full details of the case.
I can tell him that we are working in other areas. The minister
spoke very eloquently in his speeches about some of the other
programs that we are working on. It is not just an employment
insurance pilot project situation that we are dealing with, it is
the total situation in terms of job employment measures and
labour market training. Those areas we have to grapple with as
well. We on this side of the House will improve those areas so
that these individuals will not find themselves in this kind of
situation.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member for Malpeque gave us a great cross-section of the small
weeks problem and how we are trying to resolve it.
During an earlier interchange the member for Saint John said
that some people in the House need a history lesson with regard
to their attitudes toward Atlantic Canada. She was responding to a
question of mine. I was basically asking why the premier of
Ontario was questioning whether that province should continue
utilizing the employment insurance system to the extent that it
does. He has often pointed out that Ontario, cash flow wise, is
a net loser through the employment insurance system.
It is certainly not the feeling of the government or Liberal
members, but it certainly was seemingly odd that the leader of
the Progressive Conservative Party here was taking major
exception to the premier of Ontario whose very view that is.
1545
Most of us understand the importance of underpinning our economy
wherever it is, whether it is in Oshawa, Durham, the maritimes,
Sydney and so forth. These are very important aspects. I was
interested, because I thought the history lesson should be
directed at Mike Harris.
The motion before us today says “in order to make adjustment
projects a permanent feature of the Employment Insurance Act”.
These pilot projects which are under way are to address the issue
of small weeks. Most of us can see it is some kind of
idiosyncrasy of the legislation that was written. This happens
in many things. I worked on another issue, the Canada-U.S. tax
treaty. It is amazing how many times things are written down
with good intentions and when they actually get out in the public
domain, they seem to have some unintended results.
This appears to be one of those very areas where it is possible
that we discourage people from seeking employment because they
have less than full weeks of employment. The result is that it
reduces the average. Therefore in small ways they are better off
not working at all than working.
I am sure the intention of the EI reforms was to make it a major
incentive to gain that extra hour of employment. That is what the
average Canadian would like to do. Rather than sit at home, he
or she would like to be employed even if it is only part time,
which is a positive thing.
The government is trying to deal with this issue. However the
order today simply talks about extending it, enshrining it. I am
concerned about that because here in Ottawa we do not do enough
program evaluation and accountability. These two projects, while
they are coming to fruition and cycling out of the system, if you
will, up until November 15, it is clear we have not had the time
to sit down and actually evaluate what impacts those two
solutions to the problem are having.
A theory among columnists and maybe even social engineers is
that people are totally conscious about how government programs
affect them economically and therefore they will always react in
their best economic interests. There is some concern that in
fact that does not actually happen and it is really the intention
of the government to ensure that those people continue to have
the incentive to work.
As well intentioned as the motion by the member for
Madawaska—Restigouche may be, I believe it is premature. We
have not had the time to evaluate that program. We have to go
through that process before we consider any concept of extending
it indefinitely.
Part of the EI reforms tried to encourage the productivity of
the Canadian labour force. This is something that is hard for
people to measure. Canada's productivity vis-à-vis many of our
trading partners is significantly lower. Some blame the
unemployment insurance system; some blame other processes and
some of our cultural differences.
The reality is that Canada's productivity has been increasing
since this act has been changed. It is on that issue which I
think it is very important that we get it right and in such a way
that we do the evaluation and our homework and we ensure that we
continue to be on the right course.
Obviously the minister has realized there is a problem. It is an
unintended one. Obviously we do not want people to sit at home
rather than work. Clearly there are some objectives we are
trying to seek.
1550
Some people look at the value of our dollar. Sometimes the value
of our dollar is underpinned somewhat with the labour
productivity factor. If our labour productivity factor does not
improve, the Canadian dollar will continue to go down. This is
the way international currency equates productivity. If we are
less productive, it means that the value of our dollar is less
vis-à-vis other currencies where the labour factors are more
productive.
It is to that issue I think these reforms are attempting to
address themselves. It is why we have to make sure we get them
right.
Within that legislation were a number of ingenious concepts. One
was the new hires program which the minister mentioned this
morning in his lead off debate. My riding of Durham has a
tremendous impact from the automotive sector and others. That
program has been a great incentive for young people to get work
experience because the first year of the employment insurance
premiums are negated. We talk about the great surplus and so
forth but right there are some people who are not paying into the
premium system and it is a major bonus. By the way, it is small
business week and we should be talking about that too. It is a
great incentive for our small business community but it is also a
great incentive for those young people to get some work
experience.
We also do the same thing in our summer youth employment
program. That is something which is taken advantage of by the
young people in my riding to get that little bit of work
experience so that they can access the labour market. I am sure
most people in Durham and the rest of Canada want to work. They
want to find the up ramp to the workforce.
The small weeks provision attempts to address the issue. The
realization is that, although we are not sure, it may cause a
disincentive for people to seek some employment rather than none
at all.
Some of the members, especially in the NDP, have raised the
concern about the deviation between unemployment insurance
reductions and tax cuts and why somehow these reductions should
go back to the people who actually put the money into the system.
Invariably tax cuts are assumed somehow to be benefits for the
wealthy. The reality is that our country has a problem, which
has been raised by other members, called bracket creep. In fact,
the people being hit by an inflationary spiral are in the lower
and middle income brackets, the workers.
It should be a policy of this government to take some of that
surplus and direct it to people who make $20,000 or $40,000 worth
of income. I am talking about the working poor. Some of these
people hit marginal rates of tax in excess of 50% or 60% by
moving from $18,000 to $20,000 worth of income. What does that
do? It creates a barrier. People cannot get out of poverty. They
cannot get out of that cycle of low income.
Why would it not be a great thing to shift that surplus from
corporations to some extent to assist those people by giving them
back the indexing of the income tax system. It would help them
increase their disposable income. That is a lot more beneficial
than some of the programs we talk about simply giving it back to
the corporations which paid 60% of the employment insurance
premiums in the first place.
In conclusion, as well intended as it may be, I believe this
motion is premature. The motion should be rejected because we
need to do our homework before making any decisions.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, I was listening with great attention to the member for
Durham. I have a clarification on a reference he made to the
member for Saint John. I know there were little questions and
responses between the two of them earlier in the day. I think I
know what the member for Saint John was talking about in
reference to Ontario and the premier of Ontario.
1555
I think the premier of Ontario is rightly upset because
Ontario's economy is very robust and we do not question that. I
understand that the member comes from an area where the economy
is going along very nicely, thank you very much.
The premier of Ontario was concerned that not very many people
in Ontario collect unemployment insurance in relation to the rest
of the country. Ontario constitutes about 40% of the Canadian
economy. It is the lowest area in the country for benefits in
terms of unemployed workers receiving benefits. The premier has
a right to be concerned about that as they are paying in but not
reaping the rewards. It is not that they want to because
obviously it is better to have people working than not working.
The statistics speak for themselves. I will quote statistics
released by the Department of Human Resources Development about a
week ago. The statistics will bear this out.
In Ontario fewer than 30% of the unemployed get unemployment
insurance, the lowest rate in the country. In comparing the 10
provinces and 50 U.S. states, Ontario is between Montana and
Missouri and just below the average for the United States as a
whole.
That is part of the point the member for Saint John was making
and probably the member for Durham as well. What we are looking
at and the premier is saying is let us look at what we are doing
with the surplus because the surplus does not exist. Premier
Harris is saying “You are taking more out of my workers and my
employers than you have to”. The federal government is applying
that surplus in the EI account against general revenues. It
simply disappears. There is no account.
In terms of the EI surplus I would like to hear what the member
for Durham has to say.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Madam Speaker, you cannot suck and
blow at the same time.
The reality is that within the province of Ontario we have the
same kinds of things. There are certain areas in the province
where there is high unemployment and there are net beneficiaries
of the unemployment system. In other areas, for instance in my
own riding, General Motors says that it puts in a buck and gets
60 cents back.
The point of the matter is that as a country we are bigger than
the province of Ontario. The Progressive Conservative premier in
the province of Ontario is clearly saying that we should amend
the unemployment insurance system so we do not share that money
with Atlantic Canada. So the coffee is cooking. Realize that
for what he is saying. The Progressive Conservative leader in
the province of Ontario is saying to hell with you guys. It is
not something we believe in. We believe this is a bigger country
than the province of Ontario but that is not the viewpoint of the
premier of Ontario.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for
Calgary Centre.
I am pleased to speak to the supply day motion put forward by
the fifth party in the House.
Many of the members preceding me have gone through the details
of the program. I would like to talk to a few points which cause
our party some concern. The first concern is that this program
which is due to expire on November 15 of this year still is
without any type of evaluation. While the supply day motion may
have some merit, I think it is quite premature.
The Liberal member opposite talked about accountability. I know
members of the government tend to choke on that word but we will
accept the fact that the member was sincere in his comments.
The SW program is probably one of those programs that should be
evaluated before we decide to make it a permanent fixture.
1600
The House would have been well served if the fifth party would
have put forward a motion that tried to cure the illness rather
than simply provide some medicine to look after the symptoms. We
should be demanding from the government that it create an
environment in Atlantic Canada where people can actually go to
work.
The EI programs are fine and the benefits are fine for those who
are temporarily out of work, but must we always be focusing on
benefit programs? I believe the motion focuses on the wrong
subject. We should be talking about what it takes to create
jobs. That should be what the government and all of us in the
House are paying attention to and not benefits. Let us get these
people back to work again.
While we are talking about Atlantic Canada let us talk about the
failure of the government, the Tory government before it and the
Liberal government before that, and how they sold out the
interests of the Atlantic Canada fishermen. Some years ago
someone on this side of the House decided it would be a good idea
to allow foreign boats to fish the waters off Atlantic Canada and
reap the harvests. There was a bountiful harvest back then
sometimes. They thought it would be a good idea to trade the
interests of the Atlantic fishermen and Atlantic Canada in order
for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to sell manufactured
goods in return to those European countries.
Someone got shafted in that deal, and who was it? It was the
Atlantic provinces and the maritimes. To boost the interests of
Ontario and Quebec those governments simply sold Atlantic Canada
down the tube by allowing this massive overfishing by foreign
interests in order that they could sell manufactured goods from
Ontario and Quebec in Europe.
That was a tragedy. The results of that tragedy, of that insane
decision, are still going on today. That is why we are talking
about how we provide benefits for Atlantic Canadians who have no
jobs.
The focus of the government should be jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs
are created by allowing the private sector to operate in an
environment that is conducive to establishing a buoyant economy.
They should be provided with low tax levels. There should be
incentives for investors and business people to start new
businesses and to expand their existing businesses. There should
be some tax relief for employees of those companies from the
massive burden heaped upon them by these governments. That would
put more money in the hands of consumers which would allow them
to spend the money within the economy and as a consumer driven
economy it would grow.
The focus is wrong here. We should be talking about the
obligation of government to create an environment that would
allow the economy to become more buoyant and that would allow
more jobs to be created in Atlantic Canada. That is where we
should be focusing our attention. We should not be trying to
simply put a band-aid fix on a very serious problem.
While we are on the subject of employment insurance programs I
must talk about the massive raids the Minister of Finance and the
Liberal government are embarking on in relation to the current
surplus in the EI program. There will exist approximately $22
billion in the EI surplus.
I am not saying that money is there. As a matter of fact there
is nothing there but an IOU from our finance minister because he
has already scooped it all.
1605
The EI commission has clearly said that in order to sustain the
EI fund and to provide a contingency fund for rainy days a
surplus of some $15 billion would be required. That would be
enough.
The finance minister is about to pilfer that fund to the tune of
about $7 billion simply because he wants the money. He will
change the law to get his hands on money that rightfully belongs
to Canadian employers and employees. If that money were turned
back in the form of reduced EI premiums, as the EI commission has
clearly said and as the finance minister's own actuary and
advisors have clearly said, massive jobs would be created.
The finance minister is not hearing anything about that. He
wants to get his hands on that money, plain and simple, so that
he can continue Liberal government overspending. Incidentally
the government overspent its spending budget by some $3 billion
last year despite all the crowing it did about balancing the
budget and maybe having a surplus. In times like this that is
atrocious.
What is even worse is that most of that overspending went to
build a millennium monument for our Prime Minister who will
probably be gone after the year 2000. He wants to leave behind
this millennium project legacy which the government says will
benefit post-secondary education. Billions of dollars will be
spent to benefit only about 5%, if that, of all post-secondary
education students.
The finance minister wants to scoop that $7 billion to make a
legacy for his Prime Minister. He wants to build an election
slush fund leading up to the next election so he can miraculously
open the dikes and let the cash flow out. This is just a farce.
I think members opposite realize what the finance minister is
doing.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. As much as I enjoy listening to the member, it is my
understanding that we are in 10 minute speeches and he is
splitting his time with his colleague next door. I am hoping
that we could hear from his colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member still
has 49 seconds left in his speech.
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member
from the fifth party would love to hear me speak all day about
how mismanaged the government is under the Liberals. Eventually
I would have to get to the performance of the Tory government
that preceded it. Probably I should wrap up.
Let me get back to my main point. Although the motion may be an
apple pie motion, it is premature. The program has not been
properly evaluated and that has to be done before we would
consider supporting the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Since there is a lot
of interest in asking questions I would ask that members
co-operate and keep their questions and answers short.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this will not
take long. The member should be congratulating us on foreign
fishing. Whereas it was 350,000 tonnes in the late 1970s, it is
down to 2,000 tonne per year now.
The member for Prince—George Bulkley Valley has demonstrated
that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He must have been
down there with the finance committee. That is what it
demonstrates.
Is the member suggesting that the EI fund should be used for tax
reductions rather than for employment measures?
Is that what he is suggesting?
1610
Second, would he not agree that the government is doing a lot in
terms of creation of jobs through the transitional job fund, the
Canadian opportunities strategy, the youth employment strategy,
new hires programs and others?
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond
to the hon. member across by reminding him that he knows very
well the best possible employment measure we can take is to
reduce the taxation burden on Canadian businesses and workers.
That is how to build a buoyant economy. That, contrary to what
the Liberals say, is backed up by mountains and mountains of
historical evidence.
We find that almost every country with a very reasonable tax
regime has a buoyant economy. We only have to look to the
province of Ontario where the Premier of Ontario has reduced
personal income taxes by 30%. As a result, did Ontario bring in
less taxes? No. Overall it brought in 10% more in taxes and the
employers, the workers and everyone are far happier.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker,
when the Liberal government agreed to bundle small weeks to have
more acceptable weeks, it agreed to do it in only 29 regions
where the unemployment rates were the highest.
If the unemployment rate is 10.5% in one area and 9.4% in the
neighbouring one, this does not mean poverty and hardship do not
exist there.
I would ask my distinguished colleague whether he would support
a motion asking the government to extend the program to every
region in Canada where small weeks could be bundled to have more
acceptable weeks so that a former miner at the BC Mine,
Louis-Philippe Roy, is not penalized for having been of service
by acting as a pallbearer for the funeral parlour.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises an
excellent point that I did not have time to mention in my
presentation. As a matter of fact what we have here is regional
inequality. If we are to give something to one part of the
country, why on earth would we not give it to the rest of the
family?
I have 17% unemployment in my home town of Prince George. We do
not have access to a program like this one. If this program
after evaluation has been determined to have some merit, to give
it to one section of the country, one small section only, is
basically saying to the rest of the country that it just does not
count.
The Liberal government has been doing this to Canada as long as
it has been in power, as have the Tories before it. It favours
one part of the country over another. It has fostered in the
nation everything that has given rise to differences, to dividing
the country through its policies. It is about time the
government started treating Canada like a family and treating
everyone equally.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the remarks of my esteemed colleague and want to touch
on a few key comments as well.
It might cause some confusion for those who are listening to
hear about small weeks, big weeks, and the difference between one
week and another. The motion deals with the unemployment
insurance adjustment program which allows individuals who have
worked only a portion of a week, perhaps part time or that kind
of thing, to combine this work and apply it to their overall
income to derive benefits from the EI plan.
1615
On the face of it there is some good rationale for that kind of
initiative to encourage people to continue to work, even if it is
only part time, and not be penalized by reduced benefits. It
sounds like a good idea.
I think what is a key element here is that the motion is perhaps
premature today because we have spent $230 million on this
program. There has been a $230 million increase in expenses
because of this change. I guess the member opposite pointed out
that this is a sign that the program is working. This is clearly
a program that is needed.
What we have to ask ourselves, now that we have spent $230
million, is has that actually encouraged people to work as
opposed to not working and collecting a higher premium when it
comes to the part time or short week type of work? Has it
actually achieved the result of encouraging people to take on
this part time or seasonal work? We do not have the answers to
those questions.
This is a fundamental issue that is at play. I want to speak to
this today because I see so many of the initiatives that are
taken by governments, the government across the way in
particular, and governments right across the land where there is
no evaluation. I mean a third party evaluation, not an
evaluation done by the government itself. Those kinds of
evaluations are subject to political bias and possibly moving
dollars in the way that will derive votes and support. I do not
like to make those kinds of accusations, but I have seen enough
to make me skeptical.
My concern is that there has been absolutely no evaluation. I
came from a business background and if we were to spend $230
million on anything along the way there would be assessments. Is
this actually reaching the target? Are we encouraging people to
continue to work? Are we achieving our goals? If not, shut it
down and come up with something better. If we are, try to find
ways to score more toward the goal to derive more benefit.
What do we have today? We have a motion that says “Keep it
going. Keep spending the money. Somebody is collecting the
money, therefore, it must be working”.
This is a fundamental problem with the Liberal government in the
way it approaches these types of issues. We have an auditor
general who evaluates the government and I have read many of his
recommendations. I think he often makes some very good
recommendations that point out shortcomings. A third party
evaluation of the money spent. Unfortunately it does not seem
that the Liberal government acts on too many of the auditor
general's recommendations. If it does it is very slow.
The key thing is that we must have some assessment of whether or
not these tax dollars are actually deriving the stated benefit.
If in fact they are, then perhaps we can improve on it.
As my hon. colleague said, why just Atlantic Canada? Why not
other parts of Canada? In my own riding there are people who are
unemployed. Do they have any less trauma by being unemployed or
any less of a challenge in making it day to day than someone in
Atlantic Canada? I would say not. Why do they not have access
to it if in fact it is working?
Another benefit of evaluation is that we might come up with some
better ideas, for Atlantic Canada particularly. In this day and
age, with the information age, there are many new challenges in
gaining new skills and that $230 million could retrain 23,000
workers at $10,000 a worker. There are a lot of potential
abilities and a lot of new markets that those people could move
into. If it was set up as a loan program we could benefit three
to four times that many people with new training.
We do not question these things when we do not properly evaluate
these programs. Someone is collecting. Just keep it rolling.
There is no accountability at the end of the day with respect to
where those tax dollars are going.
1620
But again, is this so unusual? Tragically no. The government
has treated the EI fund, basically, I am afraid to say, as a cash
cow. It is not really being treated as a benefit program for
workers. We have accumulated a $19 billion surplus. It is
accumulating at $7 billion a year. There is room for a 33%
reduction in the premiums that workers and employers pay and we
would still have some left over for that rainy day. Yet we do
not see it happening.
I have in my riding the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices
Association. Those people lobby me and talk to me on a regular
basis. I have many restaurant owners in my riding and they have
continually come to me and said “Please put pressure on the
finance minister to roll back the EI premiums that we are forced
to pay”.
This is an industry that employs many young people. It is their
first step into the workplace. This group of small business
people point out to me that this is the worst thing that the
finance minister can do. We all applaud and praise small
business as the engine of the economy, yet we skewer them with
higher taxes, particularly payroll taxes. These payroll taxes
must be rolled back, but we are not seeing that and I think it is
tragic.
These are issues that I believe are even more important than the
one we are debating today. It surprised me that this was
actually the motion the Progressive Conservative Party felt
needed to be debated here today.
Is it likely that we would actually see the Liberal Party roll
back these EI payroll taxes? I would suggest that it is not. I
would point to the budget debate last spring when the Liberals
said that they wanted to spend any surplus. The official
opposition at the time proposed broad based tax relief for
Atlantic Canadians totalling over $900 per year. That is really
what is needed. We do not need more in the way of strengthened
social programs. People get self-esteem and fulfilment from a
job and we should be working toward providing jobs to Atlantic
Canadians.
I am not the only one saying this. Let me quote Fred McMahon, a
senior policy analyst with the Atlantic Institute for Market
Studies. He says that the EI merry-go-round seems like a good
idea for Atlantic Canada, but it is often not working. He goes
on to say that the EI system has undermined Atlantic Canada's
growth prospects. It has marginalized thousands of workers and
even helped destroy our fish. Now, this is not me, this is Fred
McMahon, senior policy analyst with the Atlantic Institute for
Market Studies. It has not been good for Atlantic Canada by any
measure. These are people who have studied the situation and
they are saying that this is not the way to go in the best
interests of Atlantic Canadians.
I point out again that if we had followed the reducing taxes and
paying down debt approach in Atlantic Canada long advocated by
the Reform Party as opposed to holding on to these high payroll
taxes through the employment insurance program, if we had gone
instead with our proposals, we would see a grand total of over $1
billion a year in the pockets of long suffering Atlantic
taxpayers, money which could be spent and invested not by
bureaucrats and politicians but by Atlantic Canadians themselves
to improve their own lives and future.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
know that across this country we have a lot of different
interests and a lot of different concerns. However, it amazes me
sometimes that some of us in one area of the country can become
such experts on someplace else. It is one of the facts in the
House.
1625
I have a question for the hon. member. I appreciate his
sincerity in trying to deal with these issues. As with the
previous speaker, I support the concept that we have of
attempting to put together what I call small weeks or grouping of
hours in areas of high unemployment.
In Atlantic Canada, in particular, we have a good number of
industries that rely upon workers for very short periods of time.
I was home during Thanksgiving week and it rained every day of
that week. Fishing boats go out to sea, but sometimes they
cannot harvest fish every day of the week. If we want our fish
factories and our smaller firms to work in Atlantic Canada we
have to provide an opportunity for people to put their hours
together to constitute weeks for unemployment insurance purposes.
Is the member aware of this problem and the concerns that we
have? I point out to him that it was not the workers who came to
us in the Atlantic caucus asking for small weeks or days to be
put together, rather it was the industries in Atlantic Canada
that were having difficulty providing 40 hours of employment for
X number of weeks for their workers.
Perhaps he could relate to the House his concept of this problem
and how he and his party would deal with it.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
question. We should all be aware that we are all Canadians from
one side of the country to the other. The approach of saying
that what works in one part of the country will not work in
another is what underlies a lot of the policies of the Liberal
government that have caused division in this country.
I can tell members that there is seasonal work in my province.
There is seasonal work in my riding. The people who experience
seasonal work have the same challenges, the same problems, the
same concerns as people in Atlantic Canada. To say that the
Canadian in Atlantic Canada who is in this situation is different
than the Canadian in Calgary who feels that same set of
challenges works against the whole coming together of Canada and
making a stronger nation. I think the premise of his question is
incorrect.
As far as the short weeks program is concerned, we have stated
that it sounds like a good idea. It could be beneficial. We are
not necessarily against it. What we are against is extending
additional dollars to a program that has not been thoroughly
evaluated to see if it is actually encouraging people to get out
and work and to work part time as opposed to staying off EI
benefits. That is the crux of it.
A Canadian in Calgary, in our estimation, is no different from a
Canadian in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it is interesting to hear Reform members stand to quote
their friends in the right wing sectors of society.
I would remind the hon. member that the finance minister went to
Halifax after the recent EI cuts of last year and asked the
chamber of commerce a direct question: “If I reduce the
premiums by another 20%, how many jobs would you create?” He
asked the entire chamber of commerce that question at its
luncheon meeting. Nobody could give an answer. There was no
answer. Nobody could stand to say that they would create a job
tomorrow if he reduced EI premiums. Not one. That was the
finance minister asking the chamber of commerce that question.
The hon. member mentioned Fred McMahon. He was also there for
that meeting.
If the Reform Party really wants to cut taxes it should start
working on cutting the GST and the HST in this country. Then we
will have a serious tax cut that will help to create jobs right
across this country.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Madam Speaker, I point out to the hon.
member that a number of studies have been done which show that a
1% reduction in payroll taxes in this country will create
thousands of jobs.
It is interesting that he would note the fact that the people
this question was put to said they were not sure how many jobs it
would create. However, study after study shows that if we reduce
payroll taxes people hire more people.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough,
Fisheries; the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Millennium
Scholarships.
1630
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with a colleague.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche would like the
government to make the small weeks pilot projects a permanent
feature of the employment insurance system.
Like some of my colleagues on this side of the House, I greatly
appreciate this salutary debate on the employment insurance
system, but I must stress that these projects are, as their name
shows, pilot projects. They were established in March 1997 to
test other means of calculating EI benefits for a period ending
November 15 of this year.
When it set up the employment insurance system in 1996,
undertaking the first major reform of the unemployment insurance
program in 25 years, the government knew full well that it was
facing a very complicated situation.
Adjustment pilot projects were launched precisely to determine
how to solve the problems faced by workers earning less than
$150 a week. These adjustment projects were implemented in 29
Canadian regions where the unemployment rate consistently
exceeded 10%.
These measures were taken because some thought that the new
legislation was dissuading people from taking part time jobs.
Some workers thought a week without income was better than a
week with a small income that would reduce their EI benefits.
Since the government's general objective is to put unemployed
Canadians back to work, pilot projects were created to examine
possible solutions to this problem. Two methods of calculating
benefits were tested. The first one was to bundle small weeks
and the second one, to exclude them.
They were two different ways of solving the problem of reduced
work weeks in high unemployment regions. But both methods had
the same positive results for employment insurance recipients.
It was a matter of methodology, as one can except with pilot
projects.
The Government of Canada wanted to see which calculation method
would work best and to determine the impact of pilot projects in
general. It is important to remember this.
The purpose of the pilot projects was to find solutions and to
determine what would work best.
What were the results of these pilot projects? Since their
implementation in May and August of 1997, 130,000 benefit
periods have been established for small work weeks. Almost 12%
of benefit claims submitted in participating regions involved
small weeks.
What is important is that the people participating in the
projects received benefits averaging $19 or about 10% more per
week. I must specify that this group of recipients included more
women—about 61%—than men.
Also, since these projects were implemented in high unemployment
regions, more than 51% of applications came from Quebec and 35%
from the Atlantic provinces.
Overall, these preliminary results are encouraging.
However, these are preliminary—and I insist on this
word—preliminary results, and the analysis has not been
completed. After all, that is what pilot projects are for: to
provide information that will serve as a basis for the
development of long term policies.
Whether the hon. member likes it or not, policies cannot, and
should not, be developed without due consideration. The
government must thoroughly review the results before taking
action. To do otherwise would be to act hastily.
We in this House of the Parliament of Canada know how essential
the employment insurance system is to the social fabric of this
country. That is why small weeks projects must be put in the
appropriate context.
In establishing a new employment insurance system, the
Government of Canada wanted to introduce an hour based system.
1635
In particular, it wanted to encourage Canadians to accept the
work that was available. To all appearances, that is exactly
what the new employment insurance program has enabled it to do.
As the pilot programs have shown, the government is fully
prepared to listen and to act.
As I have said, this reform is the broadest in a quarter of a
century. That is why the government is prepared to examine the
effects of the reform, and to make the necessary changes.
During this debate, much reference has been made to the
beneficiaries to unemployed ratio.
I must start off by pointing out that the beneficiaries to
unemployed ratio was never established to measure the proportion
of unemployed workers receiving employment insurance, and also
more importantly that the it does not have a great deal to say
about how effective the employment insurance program is at
attaining its objectives. Why? Because the program is not
intended to pay benefits to unemployed persons with tenuous or
non-existent links to the labour market, or those who have left
their jobs without justification.
The employment insurance program applies to 78% of Canadians
with links to the labour market who have lost their jobs or
resigned for valid reasons.
And although we have made great strides in the area of
employment insurance, we should recognize that the plan cannot
meet the needs of all unemployed Canadians. Everyone must
realize that employment insurance is only part of the solution.
Other government measures are required and are in the process of
implementation: measures to help people with disabilities,
including a $30 million employability assistance fund over three
years to help them find work; the aboriginal human resources
development strategy, spread over five years and supported by a
board headed by the private sector aimed at improving native
people's access to employment; the youth employment strategy to
help young people, including those at risk, to make a successful
transition from school to work.
Finally, we set up the Canadian opportunities strategy to ensure
that all Canadians have greater access to education and to the
skills that will enable them to find and keep a better job.
Nevertheless, the government does not have all the answers.
The concerns of the unemployed must become the concerns of all
of us in the federal and provincial governments and in the
private sector.
We must work together to find solutions. We must also not lose
sight of the problems the employment insurance program was
established to attack. It is not enough to make the plan more
flexible in order to resolve the problems. That is not a
solution.
As I said earlier, the situation is complex and will not be
resolved with simple solutions.
That having been said, we must continue to assess how Canadians
and our economy are adjusting to the new EI regime.
Fortunately, the economic picture is improving in Canada. We
are achieving some success in our efforts to lower the country's
unemployment rate. In September, the unemployment rate was
8.3%, the lowest it has been in eight years.
We have also seen a 10.3% increase in the number of young people
with jobs since the beginning of the year. The number of jobs
has increased by a total of 1.3 million since October 1993.
Clearly, we are making headway. Together, we can attain our
common goal of helping Canadians rejoin the workforce. As the
statistics so clearly show, that is exactly what we are in the
process of doing.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the way the
government member is going on, it is clear he has his head in
the sand, just like the Minister of Human Resources Development.
They apparently do not want to move too quickly because we are
living in one of the best countries in the world.
The pilot project was rushed in right after the reform because
the new reform turned out to be unfair.
1640
The Liberals are making it up as they go along. They are
stalling for time on this issue. Why? Because there is a $20
billion surplus in the EI fund and it has come out of the
pockets of unemployed Canadians.
I would ask my colleague opposite to get moving. Money is being
slowly siphoned out of the pockets of the unemployed to plump up
the EI fund while this government is no longer contributing
anything at all. This is affecting employees and employers.
The Bloc Quebecois has introduced six bills to improve the
system. We have to stop worrying. We are only too aware of the
system's impact.
In fact, we have asjed the committee to give priority to the
whole issue of the impact of EI reform, but the government is
not interested.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
her question. I clearly remember that when we were elected in
1993, the unemployment rate—as I like to point out—was close
to 12%. The Minister of Finance and the government put in place
certain tax policies, with the result that the national
unemployment rate is now at 8.3%, if I am not mistaken.
I must say that even in Quebec, in spite of the terrible threat
of separation that hangs over our heads, the unemployment rate
has also gone down. I believe it is now around 10%.
I am the first to admit that there is work to do, but I am
convinced that in a few months, when a new government is in
office in Quebec, that rate will continue to go down.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
remind my distinguished colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of National Defence, that the pilot project is
currently being tried out in only 29 regions. The poverty to
which we often allude in this House does not exist only in these
29 regions of Canada. In my riding, for example, the government
refused to recognize the region of Thetford Mines, using the
pretext that it was part of a very large region, Region No. 13,
Chaudière—Appalaches, and also part of the Estrie region, where
the unemployment rate is artificially lower.
I ask the parliamentary secretary whether an unfair practice is
being used to penalize certain regions where the unemployment
rate is high, but which have a lower unemployment rate when
taken together. There is a reason why, within a period of four
years, EI contributions have allowed the government to
accumulate a surplus of $20 billion.
If there is a $20 billion surplus, it is because there are
people who make EI contributions, but who do not collect
benefits. It is somewhat like being insured against fire, having
your house burn down, and being told “You did pay premiums, but
you were not covered, so you should have avoided that
situation”.
It is not very bright on the government's part to make the poor
even poorer.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech,
these are only pilot projects, and the government will make
adjustments according to their results.
In conclusion I would like to point out that I do not entirely
agree with the numbers referred to by my honourable colleague.
According to the numbers I have, 80% of applicants receive
benefits.
1645
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in
this important debate on the motion brought forward by the hon.
member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
As the Minister of Human Resources Development and other
colleagues have already noted, the government is assessing the
viability of the small weeks concept and we are closer to making
a decision on how these projects can best serve the employment
needs of Canadians.
It is important to stress that employment insurance is the most
comprehensive reform of income support in 25 years. It should be
quite evident that a reform of this magnitude would require
certain adjustments.
Members opposite have also expressed concern regarding the
benefits to unemployment ratio, commonly referred to as the BU
ratio.
In this regard the government has conducted a study on the BU
ratio. The study indicated that the ratio was not a good
indicator of how well the employment insurance system is doing.
The problem is that the ratio does not distinguish between those
workers for whom the program was designed and those for whom the
program was never intended.
What the study showed is that the decline in BU ratio over the
past 10 years is the result of a 50:50 split between the changes
to the employment insurance program and changes in the labour
market. The study showed 78% of unemployed workers who lost their
jobs or quit with just cause were eligible for EI.
I remind hon. members that the purpose of EI is to provide
temporary benefits to unemployed Canadians who have an attachment
to the labour force. In that regard, the evidence strongly
suggests that EI is meeting its objective.
We have not forgotten the Canadians who do not qualify for
income benefits under the new EI system. We are addressing the
needs of those individuals through a number of EI related
initiatives. I am thinking of initiatives such as the active
employment measures under EI, the transitional jobs fund, the
youth employment strategy, the Canadian opportunities strategy
and the new hires program.
At the same time let us be realistic. EI alone will not be able
to address the needs of all unemployed Canadians. EI is not a
panacea. It is simply one of several tools that Canadian workers
can use to help return to the labour market.
As members opposite are aware, the EI act calls for five annual
monitoring and assessment reports to determine how well
individuals and communities are adjusting to the new system.
The 1997 report is the first, and naturally it gives us a
general indication of the impact EI is having. This is to be
expected with a new system as it encounters the real needs of
Canadians. We know, for example, that some people are finding
extra weeks of work before applying for unemployment insurance.
It is terrific to see that in areas with strong economic growth
people are finding jobs rather than having to apply for EI
benefits.
Speaking of jobs, over the past five years 1.3 million Canadians
have found employment. The International Monetary Fund and the
OECD predict that this year Canada's job growth rate will be the
fastest among the major industrialized nations.
While we acknowledge that the unemployment rate remains a
challenge, although it is now at the lowest level in eight years,
no one can say we are not making progress.
That is the real measure of success for this new income support
system, fewer unemployed, not more EI beneficiaries. The goal
after all is to help unemployed Canadians get back to work.
The government recognizes that monitoring and assessment reports
are a crucial part of EI reform. It is important to inform
Canadians on the impact that reform of the income support system
is having on individuals and their communities. Given its
magnitude and the limited time the EI system has been in place, I
believe this first of five annual reports indicates that we are
moving in the right direction.
I said EI cannot be expected to address the needs of all
unemployed Canadians. That is why we have other measures that I
have mentioned.
Our goal is inclusive. We are committed to helping Canadians
move into the economic mainstream and become self-reliant,
contributing members of their communities.
I am sure hon. members will agree that nothing fights poverty
better than a rewarding job.
1650
That is the thrust behind the transitional jobs fund which has
helped to create 31,000 jobs in high unemployment regions.
We also have the family income supplement which helps low income
EI claimants with children. We have contributed $190 million to
a new federal-provincial initiative that helps people with
disabilities to gain better access to the workforce.
As well, we have taken steps that directly address child
poverty. We increased the Canada child tax benefit by $850
million in July and we will further increase it by another $850
million in the next two years.
These initial investments which will benefit low income families
will increase our total investment for children to about $6.8
billion by the year 2000.
I remind the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche that
Canadians told us in no uncertain terms that the old unemployment
insurance system was out of date and badly in need of reform. It
was a passive system that did not encourage unemployed workers to
return to the labour force. EI on the other hand encourages
workers to take all available work before applying for funds.
We do not want to return to the days where the UI system was
regularly used to supplement incomes. The government is
monitoring the system carefully. I encourage members opposite to
join with us in helping Canadians find work. For these reasons I
cannot vote in favour of the hon. member's motion.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member and the speaker before him spoke of job
creation. I would much rather be talking about that today. The
way to create jobs in Canada is to reduce taxes. Until that is
done, there are regions in Canada, not only Atlantic Canada,
which are affected. What do we do with these people, these
regions? This pilot project helps them considerably.
The hon. member talked about fiscal measures that have been put
in place. I would like the hon. member to please tell this House
what measures they put in place. Was it the GST? Was it free
trade? Was it the cut to transfer payments? Was it the cuts to
unemployment that affected these people we are talking about
today?
Does this member not think that the measures put in place after
the reform to employment insurance helped these 29 regions
throughout Canada? Does the member not think the government
should have a measure in place today, that the study should be in
place three weeks before the deadline, and that the pilot project
be renewed immediately?
Mr. John Richardson: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his intervention. Does the member not think it is
worthwhile that the active measures are far more effective for EI
than giving supplementary income and keeping people on the
margin, not getting trained for a new job?
Does the member think the transitional jobs fund is not
worthwhile by helping people get training so they can upgrade
themselves for jobs that are available? Does the member not
think these employment strategies are good strategies for these
people?
Mr. Jean Dubé: They are not working.
Mr. John Richardson: How do you know?
Mr. Jean Dubé: Why is the employment rate so high?
Mr. John Richardson: We are leading all the OECD
countries at the moment in job creation.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Not all regions of Canada.
Mr. John Richardson: I agree with the member. It is
spotty. There is no doubt about it. We have to target those
regions. The member is right on.
The Canadian opportunities strategy and the new hires program
are positive initiatives. This is the first year through. We
have seen it. There are problems. We admit that. We have to
address them. I agree with the member that one of the best ways
is to cut taxes.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member mentioned that Canada is leading the G-7 in job
creation but I wonder if the hon. member is aware that in 1986
Canada and the U.S. were tied in terms of the employment rate at
approximately 60%.
In the last 12 years in the United States the employment rate
has grown to 63%. Our employment rate has stayed at 60%. If
they had stayed at the same level we would have over one million
more jobs in Canada today.
I suggest to the member his statistics do not tell the whole
story.
1655
I suggest that if Canada were creating jobs at the same pace as
the United States we would have virtually no unemployment today.
While I understand why the member wants to pat himself on the
back, it is not as clear cut as he suggests.
How in the world can he justify getting up in this place today
and saying we are not going to support the motion because we do
not have our study done? His party is putting together the
study. Three weeks away from the time when the program comes to
and end it still does not have an assessment. How can that
happen?
Mr. John Richardson: Madam Speaker, just to put the
record straight, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD
have predicted that Canada will lead the job growth rate in the
industrialized nations. We will see it this year.
The Americans are by far the best off of the industrialized
countries at the moment. There is no doubt about that. We are
not trying to oversell that. At the same time if they are
predicting right, we are catching up because we will be leading
this year in job creation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will
share my time with my colleague, the member for Rosemont.
It is with a great deal of interest that I take part in the
debate on the motion moved by the member of the Conservative
Party asking the government to amend the Employment Insurance
Act in order to permanently extend the small weeks adjustment
projects put in place by the Minister for Human Resources
Development in March 1997.
As we know such pilot projects are being tried out in 29
regions. We also know that they will come to an end on November
15.
The Bloc Quebecois supports the Conservative Party's motion.
However, if it had been possible, we would have liked to move an
amendment asking the government to make the pilot projects a
permanent feature in the 54 EI administrative areas, and to
address the unfairness in the current Employment Insurance Act,
which promotes increased poverty and deprives millions of people
from the benefits of economic growth.
We know that a great many people who are not eligible to EI end
up too quickly on welfare. Last December, the Bloc Quebecois
introduced six bills aimed at improving the lean program the
employment insurance system has become.
Bill C-296, introduced by the Bloc Quebecois, dealt among other
things with small weeks, and was aimed at extending them to
every region.
We know that the level of benefits should be determined based on
the average of the weeks with the highest earnings, rather than
on all the weeks worked, including the small weeks, as is
currently done in the 25 areas where the pilot projects are not
being tried out.
Thanks to this formula, the cheques for some of the unemployed
would not be greatly reduced and those who work very few hours a
week would not be penalized.
I would like to give a concrete example. A lady who teaches
adults has a 26 week contract, 35 hours a week at $25 an hour.
At the end of her contract, she signs a new one for six weeks at
the same hourly rate, but for only three hours a week. What
would happen? I will show how this lady is penalized.
Under the current legislation, in an area where there is no
pilot project, this lady would be entitled to $327 a week,
because the last 26 weeks are taken into account, including the
six weeks at only three hours a week. So, she is penalized.
Under the plan put forward by the Bloc Quebecois in Bill C-296,
this lady would have been entitled to $413 a week, because the
small weeks would not have been taken into consideration. Before
the 1996 reform, that teacher would have got $448 a week, again
because the small weeks did not come into play.
As we can see, the Bloc Quebecois has come up with a balanced
solution between the reformed EI system as we know it now and
what the old system provided in terms of EI benefits.
1700
Previously, maximum insurable earnings were $815 a week,
instead of $750, as is the case today. With the small week pilot
project, a person can receive $406 a week, in the same
circumstances.
The current Employment Insurance Act will thus penalize this
person by $121 a week compared to 1996 levels, by $35 a week
compared to the Bloc's proposal and by $42 compared to the
Conservative Party's proposal. This illustrates once again that
the Bloc Quebecois' approach is balanced, fair and equitable.
We know there are a number of other unfair aspects in the
current Employment Insurance Act and the Bloc has condemned
several of them since the reform.
One of these aspects is the immediate elimination of
discrimination against some categories of unemployed on the
basis of their so-called presence in the workforce.
We know that a woman who has taken care of her child from birth
to age two and who goes back to work will have to work 30% to
117% more hours to be eligible for the same benefits as regular
claimants. It depends on the regional unemployment rate.
When the minister says that the reform is helping women and
young people, we can see, with figures to back us up—because we
also have figures—that women who stay at home more than two
years are considered as new entrants in the workforce and have
to work 910 hours, according to the regional rate of
unemployment, while a regular claimant will have to work between
420 and 700 hours.
If that is what the Minister of Human Resources Development
means by adjustment to labour market realities, he is on the
wrong track.
There are other situations that are just absurd. For example, in
the same region, a woman who worked 420 hours is eligible for EI
benefits whereas if she were pregnant, she would have to work
700 hours. Before the reform, a woman had to work 300 hours to
be eligible for maternity benefits, and now she has to work 700
hours.
Some say that this reform helps women, but, on the contrary, I
say it does not encourage women to leave their jobs, take care
of their children for two years and then go back to work.
Knowing how difficult it often is to re-enter the work force, a
woman will certainly think twice before leaving it.
The EI fund surplus is another irritant.
The government is always carrying out studies. I just heard a
colleague from the government side say that things must not be
rushed, but by not rushing, billions of dollars are being
accumulated in the employment insurance fund, at the rate of $6
billion a year, when we know very well that the government is no
longer putting a cent into the fund and that it comes from the
pockets of the workers.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois has called for a separate fund,
one that is administered outside the control of the Minister of
Human Resources Development. The auditor general is very clear
on this. He says it would not be legal to use contributions for
any purpose other than the one set out in the legislation.
What does the government do? It puts the money into the
consolidated revenue fund, and we know now that those $20
billion are more or less virtual money.
While they are talking about their compassion for the
unemployed, they are busy piling up the money and carrying out a
reform that tightens up eligibility.
What the minister is not saying is that fewer and fewer people
who contribute qualify for benefits. Now, 38% of contributors
have access. Since the Liberals came along, eligibility has
eroded, and fewer and fewer people are eligible for benefits.
1705
I find it regrettable that $20 billion are being taken away from
people in need, with seemingly no concern for what happens to
them. Today, we agree with the small weeks. The pilot project
put in place in a mad panic by this party because no thought was
given to the impacts the reform would have on people. This
pilot project was inaugurated in a mad panic because too many
people could not qualify for employment insurance.
We want all regions to have access to this, because it is not
only the high unemployment regions that can benefit from it.
We would like to see everyone able to qualify for employment
insurance in other regions which also have a high unemployment
rate.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for her comments. I understand
what she said. The situation is the same in my riding. There are
more and more people who do not qualify, and those who do get
very little money.
Today's motion is justified. It is unfortunate that it is not
the Liberals who are prepared to make the necessary changes,
because some people are suffering now. We told the government
there was a problem with the act as such. This is very clear. I
remember very well phoning Liberal ministers and telling them
that one hour would be equal to one insurable week. They told me
“No, do not worry, it is not what you think”. When the act was
implemented, some employers phoned us to ask what was going on.
We are hurting our workers.
It is sad to have a government that purposely caused such
problems to people who are laid off through no fault of their own.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I thank my New Democratic
Party colleague for her remarks. Earlier, I heard a Liberal
member tell us that the government cannot meet all the needs.
But, with $20 billion in the EI fund, a fund that does not
belong to us, and only 38% of those who pay premiums qualifying,
my thought is that this government does not want to take action
because it suits it not to do so.
There has been no change in the reform. The matter is being
studied. We know very well that this reform is having a
catastrophic impact on the unemployed. Several thousands of
people are on welfare. Again, the provinces must pick up the
pieces because, in addition to not contributing to the EI fund,
the federal government is preventing even more people from
qualifying. This reform is unfair and the eligibility criteria
are too restrictive.
We introduced six bills to improve the system and strike some
sort of balance between the previous and present situations.
The government is stalling, with answers about how things were
before the reform, precisely so that it can rack up billions of
dollars on the backs of the unemployed.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to
thank the member for Quebec for her very interesting comments
and for her work on this issue.
1710
I would like her to remind us of the adverse effects that the EI
reform has had on women. I would like her to repeat the example
she gave a few moments ago and explain to us how pregnant women
have been adversely affected by the reform.
I would also like her to tell us what the Bloc Quebecois thinks
should be done with the EI fund surplus, why that money, which
does not belong to the government, should be returned to the
workers and the employers.
This situation has been strongly criticized throughout Quebec
and Canada.
By amending the Employment Insurance Act in order to use the EI
fund surplus for other purposes instead of reinvesting it to
lighten the workers' heavy financial burden, the government is
practically stealing that money.
I would like my colleague to comment on that so we can better
understand the situation.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Speaker, I would need half an hour
to answer my hon. colleague. What I can say is that, while the
minister's objective is to encourage people to get back to work,
that is not what we are seeing in real life. Including small
weeks in the calculation of benefits discourages people from
going back to work.
My colleague suggested that women, for instance, be encouraged
to stay at home to raise their kids for two years because they
need 30% to 117% more hours to return to the labour force.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is never
easy to speak after hearing remarks as eloquent as the ones made
by my colleague from Quebec. I will nevertheless try to clarify
the motion before us today.
It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the important issue of
employment insurance reform. For more than two years, we have
been questioning the Minister of Human Resources Development
about the steady decline in the number of unemployed workers who
qualify for EI benefits.
All this time the minister claims to be concerned by this tragic
situation, but does not do a thing to change it. Once again, the
minister is full of good intentions, but does not act on them.
It is always the same thing on the government side: all talk and
very little action.
Worse yet, this government is trying to divert—and that is a
rather strong word—the $7 billion it has taken—not to say
“stolen”, for I do not want to use unparliamentary language,
although the choice of words is still important—from workers
and employers to spend as it pleases. This money does not belong
to the government but to Canadian workers and employers.
As my colleague from Quebec said very eloquently a moment ago,
the motion before us today concerns specifically an urgently
needed amendment to the employment insurance plan. It must be
recalled that this motion by the Conservative Party reads as
follows: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government
should continue with the Employment Insurance Small Weeks
Adjustment Projects and amend the legislation in order to make
the adjustment projects a permanent feature of the Employment
Insurance Act.”
As my colleagues have already said, we in the Bloc Quebecois
support this motion. We have in fact been calling for
essentially the same thing for quite some time. My colleague
has said that a number of bills have been introduced on this
side of the House, but, unfortunately, the government has
repeatedly ignored them.
Last December, we introduced Bill C-296, one of whose clauses
provided a method for resolving the problem of the small weeks.
Unfortunately, once again, the government has refused to deal
with it. The opposition has therefore been obliged to use an
opposition day. Yet again, the government is rejecting both the
recommendations of the Conservative Party and Bill C-296, which
the minister should frequently refer to. The Liberal government
must pass this amendment as quickly as possible in order to
repair one of the many inequities it has caused with its reform.
1715
I will first explain what the small weeks adjustment projects
are. Then I will explain why it is vital to make these pilot
projects into a standard that will be universally applied.
Finally, I will explain how the government is trying to hide
behind a commissioned analysis in order to justify its inaction
in this matter.
Currently, the Employment Insurance Act includes a new method
for calculating benefits, which penalizes claimants by
calculating a lower benefit amount. This method also
discourages people from working who might otherwise be working a
limited number of hours and weeks.
This problem particularly affects high unemployment areas and
some categories of workers, mainly the young and the women.
We believe however that this motion is not explicit enough,
since it does not specify if the areas involved would only be
those where pilot projects are currently under way or all the
areas in Canada. Under the current EI system, only 21
administrative regions out of 54 are affected by the lumping or
exclusion of the small weeks. We are convinced that the new
formula, whether it be the lumping or the exclusion of the small
weeks, should apply throughout Canada.
But first, I want to say that the government must act quickly
because the small weeks pilot projects are coming to an end on
November 15. As we all know, the purpose of these projects was
to reduce some of the disincentives and devastating effects of
the Employment Insurance Act.
In fact, the new legislation unfairly penalizes those who agree
to work small weeks, where they earn less than $150.
I think it is also important to mention, because it not only
affects the formula, that these projects were to pacify the
employers who were complaining about being unable to find
employees ready to work small weeks. So, for some time now, some
workers have agreed to work small weeks, because they thought
the program would be renewed. The minister has to set things
straight right away and tell us what he intends to do with these
projects. If not, he would be penalizing these workers whom he
has kept in the dark, without telling them what he was going to
do.
Let me remind the House where this program to reduce the effects
of the federal government's drastic cuts in the EI program comes
from.
On March 5, 1997, barely two months after the coming into force
of his new program, the Minister of Human Resources Development
had to announce adjustment projects to mollify employers and
workers in areas where unemployment rates were very high,
including eastern Quebec and the maritimes. This admission of
failure was the sign of his lack of vision and understanding of
the impacts of a reform crafted mainly to save billions of
dollars at the expense of the unemployed.
The main problem, already mentioned by the Bloc Quebecois, is
the disincentive to work. A worker who accepts to work a few
hours a week for a while, combining small and big workweeks,
will probably be penalized financially the next time he puts in
a claim. This is due to the new way benefits are calculated.
Suppose a worker in eastern Quebec works 20 big weeks at $450 a
week, and six small weeks at $60, for a total of 26 weeks and an
income of $9,360. Now he will have to make do on $198 a week.
Before the reform, he would have been entitled to $248 a week,
and to $245 under the pilot project. In Quebec, 13.7%, that is
nearly 14%, of people who lost their job have worked at least
one small week. This rate is much higher in the maritimes and
eastern Quebec. It is 24% in eastern Quebec and in the
Chicoutimi—Jonquière area.
1720
There are reportedly 25,000 persons in this situation in
Montreal, which represents 11.8%. Women are more likely to be in
this group: 22.7% compared to 5.5% of men. Young people are also
affected: 17.2%, or almost 18 of young people under age 30, as
opposed to 8% of people over age 30.
I think these figures are self-explanatory. The federal
government has tightened EI eligibility criteria to such an
extent that it is making young people and women pay for the debt
with premiums they pay to protect themselves from unemployment.
This misappropriation of funds is unacceptable and the
government must agree now with today's motion.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Madam Speaker,
once again I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc.
When we listen to these speeches, we realize that what is
happening in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, in terms of
unemployment insurance, is much the same. I think I will call it
by its real name, even though the name was changed to
“employment insurance” to try to convince people they will find
a job, despite the fact that the Liberal government will not
make an effort to create jobs.
I would like to know if my colleague encounters the same
problems as I do in his riding. I receive calls from people
concerning their cheques. A lady called me yesterday and said “I
think the employment centre has made an error in my calculation.
I have worked more than 20 weeks, but it only calculated six
weeks. My cheque is only for $60 a week; I cannot live on that.
I think it made a mistake”.
I told her no, it did not make a mistake. It added the famous
divider of the 26 week period to make the calculation. I even
received calls from people getting $32 a week.
I would like to know if my colleague from the Bloc receives the
same type of complaints in his region.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for her questions. Her questions are
always well founded.
I remember last week's debate on APEC. The question was very
much to the point, and it enabled me to inform the House of the
Canadian federation on APEC.
Yes indeed we are getting calls at the office. Why? Because
this government must understand immediately that the employment
insurance reform and the new employment insurance legislation
serve to exclude and to discriminate against young people and
women, in particular. The Bloc Quebecois considers it
unacceptable to have contributions paid into a plan that denies
benefits. I think this must be said loud and clear.
It is as if we had paid insurance premiums, but were told “We
will not pay you”, after a fire in the house.
That is unacceptable. It is an exclusion clause and a
discriminatory clause that affects not only young people and
women, but entire regions and thousands of Quebeckers and
Canadians.
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: I hear the members opposite reacting to my
words; clearly they do not come from regions hard hit by
unemployment.
1725
They are certainly not from the regions excluded, whose
constituents are excluded, by the plan. In this regard, I agree
entirely with what the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac said.
Many people in my riding have told me of the pitiful state of
this plan.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to point out something about EI that completely stunned and
staggered me.
Employers must pay their share to the EI fund. All businesses
must pay. It is not only the employees who pay. The Government
of Quebec is an employer and, as such, its share exceeds the
real needs, so it contributes to reducing the federal deficit to
the tune of $200 million a year.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, this is the whole issue of the
surpluses. I know that I do not have much time to answer, but I
will try to do it quickly.
Employers and employees contribute every year to a program, but
cannot get benefits. For us, that is unacceptable. In the past,
before the reform, more than 75% of young unemployed people
could claim UI benefits.
I will conclude with a question: What percentage of young
unemployed can now claim EI benefits under the new system? Only
25%.
[English]
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak to this
motion brought forward by the hon. member for
Madawaska—Restigouche.
It will please members to no end to know that I will be sharing
my time with the hardworking vivacious member for
Guelph—Wellington.
I have a speech which took me hours to prepare, but basically I
am going to touch on a few nuances brought forward by some of the
members opposite, in particular members of the Reform Party.
It is interesting to note that in the weekend's paper it was
clearly evinced that one of the members of the Reform Party, I
believe the member for Medicine Hat, practises some of his
dialogue before speaking in the House of Commons. Other members
of the Reform Party perhaps better take a look in the mirror
before they start making disparaging remarks about this piece of
legislation and condemn it in its entirety for the simple reason
that they say it is isolationist and it targets one part of the
country, which is absolutely and unequivocally a falsehood.
They are indulging in nothing more than verbal turpitude. They
are the people who want at the end of the day to speak for all
Canadians, whereas this piece of legislation basically does
address all Canadians. One member said it does not reach into
his riding because he has 17% unemployment in his riding. If he
has 17% unemployment in his riding and he wants to rail against
the government, he better look inward and say perhaps there is
something he personally should do to alleviate those concerns.
In this piece of legislation when we talk about the big weeks
and the small weeks, we are actually looking for a formula to
address unemployment.
We on the government side do not look upon unemployment
favourably. We are trying to do everything we possibly can to
ameliorate the situation and address the concerns.
1730
When we look at the big weeks I think of the word big and my
hon. colleague from Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle. He is big in
heart and big in empathy for those who are dispossessed and those
who are out of work. When we look at the small weeks I think of
the word small and the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
[Translation]
[English]
He has a small vision of the country. He is from the Bloc
Quebecois Party which does not really care about the rest of the
country. Everyone knows that it is an isolationist party. Dare
I say that the opposition party, the Reform Party, in some
instances also delves into the realm of being isolationist
because it does not want to address the entire situation.
I know my hon. colleague opposite is a business person. He
knows that the best way to alleviate unemployment is to have a
strong, vibrant economy. I know the hon. member, the little
fellow from Medicine Hat who has certain Thespian qualities about
him, has said that they would create in the blue book about one
million jobs by the year 2000. I believe that is their mandate.
All of Canada knows that we on this side of the House have
already reached that point. We have created about 1.3 million
jobs and growing, less than two years faster than the Reform
Party suggested. Talk is cheap. It is easy to say what one is
going to do. We have actually done it. We have the lowest
unemployment rate now in about eight years.
Another thing that is great for business and will help the
employment picture is that we have the lowest interest rates in
over 30 years.
I am a business person besides. When I had a real job I was in
business, until I got elected as a member of parliament. I see
what goes on here on occasion. It is dreadful. Let us face
reality. If there are low interest rates which we currently
have, the lowest in over 30 years, it is very propitious for the
job sector. That is one of the reasons we have the lowest
unemployment. It is now down to about 8.4%. When we took over
in 1993 I believe it was something around 12.4%. That in itself
propagates that the unemployment picture will look better.
To get back to this piece of legislation, I agree a lot with
what the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has been saying,
but I cannot say to him at this stage, today, here and now, that
I am in complete agreement with him on this issue because it is a
pilot project.
We will take a look at it on November 15. The hon. member
should hold his horses, or perhaps I should say to him sharpen
his blades. He has already told me that he is a hockey player. I
believe he is skating on thin ice on this one. He should get his
skates sharpened because we on this side have sharpened our
pencils. That is why the employment picture is at the best it
has been for years and years and years.
I know the fourth party, the NDP, is very concerned about the
unemployment picture. Its members are very eloquent
spokespersons in that regard. However I disagree with them. I
do not believe that we should have generations and generations of
people on unemployment. I would like to see these people get job
retraining and upgrading. I believe they agree with me in that
regard, but that is where they viscerally disagree with the
Reform Party because the Reform Party's agenda is to cut them
off. Anybody who has come back year in and year out to the
employment insurance fund would be arbitrarily cut off. The NDP
agrees with the Liberal Party in the area of job retraining.
We look after our students. We have the youth employment centre
programs which are generated with the money from employment
insurance premiums. Everyone would like to see a reduction, but
at what expense? The finance minister has clearly indicated that
we are a caring, compassionate country. We will reach out to all
sectors of the population to try to help them.
1735
Some people think employment insurance is a fund but it is not.
It goes into the general revenue fund. That was passed in 1986.
I was not here in 1986. I do not know who was here then but I
believe that is when it was passed.
We have managed that fund remarkably well. I remember back in
the early 1980s when the unemployment insurance fund was running
at a deficit of about $500 million a year. Now, because we have
a surplus and because we are managing it extremely well, we are
to be penalized and we are to be looked upon in a pejorative
manner. I emphatically state we will not apologize for managing
that fund extremely well, better than it has been managed in
years.
I know the member for Medicine Hat likes to get involved in
Shakespeare. Alfred Lord Tennyson said:
Come, my friends.
`T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,—
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
That is what the Liberal Party of Canada will do. We will
strive to find resolutions to the unemployment issue. We will
seek the solutions in good Liberal policies. We will find a way
to help all people throughout the country because that is the
Liberal tradition.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a serious matter today.
This is no time for fooling around.
The issue of small weeks does not affect people who are
unemployed in the usual manner. It affects those who work for a
living every week that they have a job, for 20, 24, 25 or 26
weeks a year.
If the system is not extended, a person earning $450 a week for
20 weeks and $60 a week for six small weeks will receive
benefits of $198, instead of the $245 the program now allows.
This is no joking matter. We are talking about salaries of
$20,000 or $25,000 a year.
Only people completely cut off from reality would laugh at such
a situation. This is not a case of asking people to become more
eligible. We are asking that benefits be reasonable, because
the cost of this system for one year represents one half of 1%
of the surplus in the fund.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Paul Crête: I would like the member to listen to what I am
saying and take this a little more seriously.
Could he not ask his party to devote one half of 1% of the $20
billion surplus in the fund to maintain a program that has been
around for two years?
In conclusion, I would remind the member that the Auditor
General of Canada said that, if the federal government used the
money for anything other than unemployment, administration costs
and training expenses, it would be illegal. Right now, the
federal government is receiving interest on the EI fund and it
would illegal for it to use it elsewhere.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised and
astonished at the comments of the member opposite.
Does he think that government members are not serious minded?
We are indeed, but you are not, because the former Bloc
Quebecois leader said that Canada was not a real country.
[English]
It is not real. Your leader said that, so what are you talking
about over there?
1740
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would again remind
members to address each other through the Chair.
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I saw the member getting upset just a minute ago. I am
a little concerned because I have to give credit where credit is
due.
Definitely the Bloc has been fighting, like the NDP has been
fighting, to try to bring justice to this program which has been
destroyed by the Liberal government. The member has talked about
how well they manage and how proud they are of what they have
achieved. What they have achieved is the creation of the biggest
gap ever between the rich and the poor.
They sit there and are happy about it and so proud that they
managed. I can manage my finances very well at home. I can save
50% of my money if I want to starve my two kids. I can be very
proud that I have money in the bank. I get upset when I see
members of parliament saying that they are proud of the surplus.
Yet they do not talk about the hardship they have created for the
people and for the community.
This is not just a seasonal worker problem. It is a community
problem created by the Liberal government that is so proud of
this surplus. I do not understand it.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like the member
opposite to understand this, and I will make it very clear and
very plain to you. We have reduced—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Make it plain to
everybody but make it plain through the Chair.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, we have reduced the
employment insurance premiums not once, not twice, not thrice but
four times. We have managed that fund very well. We have
reduced unemployment from 12.4% to 8.4%.
I remind the hon. member opposite through you, Mr. Speaker, that
I suffered through an NDP government in the province of Ontario,
and let me say that it was not a pretty sight. It is a travesty
to see that Ontario's Bob Rae was named man of the year for
creating jobs in Buffalo.
We are doing what has to be done to alleviate the difficulties
with employment insurance premiums. We are doing a remarkable
job. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member opposite, but
deep down where it really counts I know she agrees with our
policy in this regard.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for his eloquent comments. I think
they were most interesting.
I rise in the House today to take part in this extremely
important debate on the employment insurance system. I am
pleased the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has brought
the motion before the House. It gives the government the
opportunity to help Canadians understand why it was necessary to
reform the old unemployment insurance income support system.
The hon. member's motion specifically addresses the small weeks
adjustment projects. These pilots have served as an added
incentive for workers to take any employment, even for a few
extra hours. That is the thrust behind the new EI program to
ensure that every hour of work counts toward eligibility for
benefits and to encourage people to work as much as possible.
I think that is very important. I do not have a problem with
the small weeks adjustment projects per se. They are an
important means of helping seasonal and cyclical workers, a means
of making the system a little more fair. However, I do not think
that small weeks adjustment projects should continue in their
current form indefinitely.
As the hon. member knows, these projects are being carried out
in 29 high unemployment regions. While I understand the need for
these projects in these areas, I would ask the minister to
consider the advisability of making them less regional and
applying them more evenly across our great country.
Employment insurance is an important part of our social safety
net. I emphasis the word employment because I think the change
from unemployment to employment insurance was an important one.
1745
This program was never intended to make being jobless easy but
rather to tide the person over between jobs and to act as a
buffer while the person is looking for work. The idea is to get
unemployed workers to use EI as temporary income support while
looking for a new job or upgrading their skills so they can
return to the workforce as quickly as possible.
The new EI system has been restructured and redesigned to be
more inclusive. For example, a number of those who are taking
part in the small weeks project also receive the family income
supplement, a supplement introduced by this government to address
the needs of Canadians who may be living in poverty. A $50 floor
on earnings also applies to low income earners so that these
workers can earn more while still receiving EI benefits. Workers
with an annual income of less than $2,000 also have their premium
payments refunded and are eligible to participate in active
employment measures.
The reform of the EI system has benefited many people. EI is
now more accessible to women. Close to 700,000 women who work
part time now have their EI payments refunded and because every
paid hour of work counts the 14 hour job trap women used to find
themselves in under UI has been lifted.
The small weeks adjustment project is just one example of how
the Department of Human Resources Development is responding to
the changing labour market.
Today very few people stay at the same job for more than 10
years. The average person changes careers, not just jobs, five
times between the time they finish school and the time they
retire.
People have to be flexible and willing to adapt to new work
environments and working conditions. The good old 9 to 5 does
not apply to every job. Some people work 40 hours a week while
others work at two or three part time jobs or are employed
casually on a day by day basis.
This is why small weeks adjustment projects can be so
beneficial. I would like to ask the minister to consider the
advisability of seeing the project standardized and nationalized.
As the member of parliament for Guelph—Wellington, a riding
representing a high number of construction workers, I use the
construction industry as an example. A construction worker may
work 40 hours one week and 20 hours another week. Construction
is not a 9 to 5, Monday to Friday industry. Workers work until
the job is done be that on a Monday, Wednesday, Saturday or any
other day of the week. When the worker gets laid off, somewhat of
an inevitable occurrence in this profession, and if they choose
to apply for EI their benefits are calculated on their last 20
weeks of work.
Let us take a mason who has worked 40 hours a week for 6 months
on a construction week then during the last 20 weeks of the
project the nature of the work changes and his hours are cut back
to 30 years for 5 weeks and then 20 hours for the next 5 weeks.
The amount of EI the mason is now eligible to collect will be
considerably smaller due to those small weeks. That does not seem
very fair to me.
The small weeks adjustment projects were implemented for
situations like this one, the ones we have in Guelph—Wellington.
However, we cannot access this project. In practice they have
only been developed in certain regions of the country.
Employment insurance is part of Canada's social fabric and a
reason why Canada is ranked number one by the United Nations in
terms of our standard of living. It is the Canadian way to help
others in need. Charity and community spirit are two identifying
features of our national psyche.
When Quebec was devastated by flooding a few years ago Canadians
from every region responded. Even though Quebeckers did not want
to be a part of this country Canadians went there and responded
because they are Canadians, Canadians who live in Quebec.
A year later when the Red River overflowed people in every
province and territory reached out to the people of Manitoba.
Just last year when the ice storm struck Ontario and Quebec
citizens from my riding of Guelph—Wellington and communities
like ours everywhere responded immediately to the call for help
in Quebec again.
I see that Bloc members are laughing because other Canadians
responded to their needs. I think that is a terrible thing. It
is very sad that the Bloc Quebecois responds by laughing and
mocking.
Given this track record of helping our fellow citizens, no
matter where they live, it does not make sense to help unemployed
workers in one region of the country more than in another region.
1750
All hon. members agree we have a responsibility to do everything
within our power to help Canadians and their families avoid
poverty and its traumatic effects.
I believe the small weeks adjustment projects are an important
addition to the employment insurance system. I would like to see
them continue, but nationally as well as regionally. The
government knew that some regions had higher unemployment rates
and that EI reform would impact some communities more than
others. However, labour market conditions are changing
everywhere and small weeks is a problem encountered by EI
applicants across the country. This is a problem that needs to
be addressed.
It is my understanding that the government is now analysing the
projects to determine what action may be required. The
government is close to being able to make a decision on the
future of the small weeks adjustment projects experiment. These
projects are scheduled to be completed on November 15. It would
be premature to commit to renewing them without first assessing
their impact and the effectiveness in the regions in which they
will be implemented, then taking a serious look at where else
they could be of benefit to all Canadians.
As I mentioned, Canada is considered the best country in the
world when it comes to our standard of living. Our social safety
net is a big reason why. Canadians look out for one another in
times of need. Whether the hardship is caused by a national
disaster, illness or unemployment it is important to help our
fellow Canadians wherever they are, wherever they live.
I understand that unemployment is higher in certain regions of
the country, but we also have to look at the unemployment levels
by industry to ensure we are helping as many Canadians as
possible and helping them equally. That is what being Canadian
is all about.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think my distinguished colleague is totally disconnected from
human reality in this country. She must surely live in a posh
neighbourhood, and she probably does not meet her voters in the
places where she should.
In 1997, Quebec paid $475 million more than it received.
Federalists can no longer use the argument they relied on in
1980, when they tried to scare people by saying “We cannot
separate from the rest of Canada, or else we will lose access to
the unemployment insurance program”.
The hon. member spoke about poverty. I would like to know what
she thinks of the people in my riding who work as volunteer
firefighters. These people clean fire trucks, hoses, etc., on a
volunteer basis.
The fifteen or so volunteer firefighters in Black Lake spend
hours of their free time doing that work and maintaining a
volunteer firefighters unit in the community.
When they fight a fire, they are paid $14 or $15 per hour. There
is a volunteer fireman who helped fight 12 fires. He suffered a
shortfall of $1,534. Because he earned $526, the government
knocked $1,534 off his benefits. This is a volunteer fireman who
does volunteer work and who contributed $1,534 to the $20
billion accumulated surplus. Is this what we mean by poverty?
This government is taxing poor people to death in order to lower
its deficit. EI contributions are too high, given the benefits
paid by the government to the unemployed.
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me
to sit across from the Bloc Quebecois and listen to this.
Quebec derives many things from Canada because it is a Canadian
province.
It willingly take everything from us. When the ice storm
happened, and the flooding, it took all the things that
Guelph—Wellington brought to it. It took them gladly.
1755
But here Bloc members sit. They mock and they laugh. They do
not represent all of Canada here. If they truly believed what
they are saying they would not sit as members of parliament
because they do not represent Canada. They should be representing
provincially if that is what they believe. But they do not
believe that. They take everything from Canada—
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
want to point out that I was elected democratically in the
riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, just like the Liberal member
opposite, and I must represent—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a point of
debate and both sides have their oars in the water. We have a
minute and a bit left for questions and comments.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
sometimes it is unfortunate that we are limited in time. The
member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke stated that the EI fund
had been very well managed by the Liberal government. That is
exactly what he said.
My opinion is that a $19 billion surplus which does not exist
because it has been spent is atrocious management.
I wonder if the member for Guelph—Wellington would agree that
misappropriation of $19 billion is very good management as stated
by the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party
that wants to privatize the plan and that does not wish to help
other individual across the country or even help its own citizens
in the ridings it represents continually tries to look at the
dark side. Reformers do not want to lift people up. They do not
want to help their fellow human beings.
The Reform Party says that it wants us to be fiscally
responsible. Nineteen billion dollars should be fiscally
responsible, should it not?
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
must say I was really wanted to speak today. I must also say
that this is a sad moment, because the subject of the debate is
not a happy one at home. Unemployment insurance is always a
subject of sadness for us.
In the Atlantic region, as in my riding of
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, many people are suffering as the result
of cuts to EI made by our famous Liberal government.
As I keep
saying, this is the government whose Prime Minister campaigned
in my riding, making promise after promise, saying that he would
scrap the GST, that he would make sure seasonal workers did not
have to worry about managing to live in our regions. The people
believed him. They elected him. And this is the thanks we get.
We have not forgotten it.
There is a lot of sadness. As I said earlier, I got another
call last night, from a woman who said “I think the employment
centre has made a mistake. They did a calculation and included
only the past six weeks, the money from the past six weeks,
although I worked 26 weeks”. She ended up with just about
nothing.
At the same time, we have Liberal members who say they are very
proud of themselves, that there is a $20 billion surplus. They
are proud of the way they managed the account, but they do not
say a thing about the suffering there is everywhere.
1800
More and more people are living in poverty. Mothers come to me
and say “It's not just a problem for the seasonal workers. It's
a community problem”. They have taken $927 million out of the
New Brunswick economy since the cuts, and the government is as
proud as punch of having done so.
We will not have the opportunity to see the Minister of Human
Resources Development come to our region and face these
problems. He does not have the gumption to do so, because he is
not capable of looking the poverty and misery he has created in
the face. He is not the one getting calls to his office. I am
sure he is never there. In my opinion, he is not even aware of
what is going on, three-quarters of the time.
I would really like to see him go to northern New Brunswick, to
Kent and Albert County, to face the reality of employment
insurance reform. The government has found the path to the pot
of gold, and now it can boast it has paid off the deficit. Very
proud of themselves they are, those Liberals. The only ones who
should be proud are the workers. They are the ones who paid off
the deficit. Nobody else.
We had the Prime Minister come to tell us he was going to “scrap
the GST”. What was the outcome of that? An additional 15% on
electricity bills, an additional 15% of workers on unemployment,
an additional 15% on the cost of children's clothing, while
employment insurance cheques are cut at the same time. Then
people wonder why there is more violence in our communities.
They blame it on the parents: broken homes, some other problem.
We know the source of the problems. They have been right in
front of me for over a year. That is the problem.
I cannot imagine that members on the other side can say they are
proud of the society they are creating. At home, in an area
where there had never been a bank robbery, there were three in
four days in the county of Kent. There was one in a store in
Bouctouche last week. These things did not happen at all two
years ago.
We used to have a program that had been established to share the
wealth. Now we have another problem. Some children go to school
hungry. Why? Their parents are poor. We do not find a poor child
if his parents are not poor.
The government brags about that fact it has created many jobs.
It never talks about the jobs that it has cut, the jobs that
were lost, the jobs that will be lost with bank mergers.
We do not hear about those things.
We do not hear about the women who were penalized. The Liberal
member said a few moments ago that part time workers with three
or four jobs now qualify for EI. That is good for urban areas,
but it does not do much for rural communities where finding even
one part time job is difficult. Those people pay EI premiums but
never qualify, while the Liberals keep playing with numbers.
Those people pay thousands and thousands of dollars in premiums,
but they are not eligible. A distinction must be made.
And what about women who are no longer eligible for maternity
benefits? Before the reform, they had to work 300 hours to be
eligible. Now, they have to work 700 hours. What is good for
women in that program? Nothing. Part time workers in education
are also affected. Some of them no longer qualify.
In the past, if they did not qualify, at least they did not have
to contribute. Nowadays, they must contribute, but they do not
qualify. The same goes for health care workers.
The famous dividing factor must also be discussed. They are
saying: “Yes, people can qualify with 10 work weeks, as long as
they have the required number of hours worked. People can
qualify with six work weeks, as long as they have the required
number of hours worked”. However, they forget to mention that,
in their regions, the number is to be divided by 14. In other
regions, it is divided by 18. And then the benefits will be
calculated over 26 weeks.
I get calls from people who receive cheques for $32, $65 or $85,
and I see Liberal members standing up to congratulate
themselves.
1805
I would be ashamed if I had approved a decision that caused so
much misery. So many children hear their parents arguing at
night about where they will find the money, the $2 they need to
pay for their kid's lunch at school the next day. The members
opposite never talk about this. No, because most of them are
rich. They know nothing about being hungry. They need to learn
what it is to be hungry.
[English]
I want to talk about Albert county. People in Albert county
which is an hour's drive from Moncton need the same amount of
hours as someone working in Moncton. They are down to 18 weeks
for the benefit period. I have workers who will be out of
employment insurance in January. Those are the workers who
qualified. Many are not going to qualify at all because they
need the same amount of hours as someone living in Moncton and
the minister says this is good. We have proved to the minister a
number of times that he is wrong. His arguments do not stand up.
He needs to change it. A lot of people in Albert county are
suffering because the Liberal government does not want to admit
that it makes mistakes. It is making mistakes that are costing
lives. How many people are committing suicide because of their
difficulties?
We also have to talk about the unfair accusations of fraud
because people make a mistake on the form. Even though the
Canada employment centre has not paid them one penny, if they
happen to not put the right amount on their form they will be
charged with fraud. Someone explain that to me. This was drawn
to my attention on Friday.
People opened a claim, did the waiting period, kept their claim
open, reported their hours and earnings, reported an amount and
the Canada employment centre did not give them an EI cheque. If
there is a discrepancy, even though the government has not paid
them a cent, they are accused of fraud and have to pay the
difference between what they actually made and what they
reported. It is armed robbery. That is attacking the unemployed,
attacking honest people who could make a mistake. A lot of
honest people are being accused of fraud. This has got to stop.
It is time to wake up. There is a lot of legislation out there.
We have to wake up and show the Liberals that this cannot
continue. There is just too much poverty.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just figured out why the hon. member for
Beauséjour—Petitcodiac got elected. She has become a seasoned
speaker but, more importantly, she is a person who tells the
truth, who describes what is going on in her region, who has
heart and tells it like it is in this House.
There is a message in there for the Liberal majority. This
member defeated Dominic LeBlanc, the son of the Governor General
of Canada. In the neighbouring riding, Doug Young, the sponsor
of this EI reform, was also defeated. I think these two men
personify the Liberal Party's arrogance in the maritimes.
We will not rewrite history, but I would nonetheless call upon
the members who will participate in the vote on this motion
tonight or tomorrow to think it through, especially those living
in high unemployment regions, as well as any member with
constituents who, as a result of the small weeks program,
receive ridiculously low benefits that are practically
impossible to live on.
At the same time, they hear that there is a $20 billion surplus
in the EI fund, that running the small weeks program costs
between $100 million and $125 million a year, or 0.5% of this
surplus, and that the government is responsible for the
increased poverty across Canada. I think they get the message.
If they do not send a clear message to the contrary very soon,
the Liberals will pay the political price, and deservedly so.
1810
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be
clear. The pilot project has to go on, and the legislation needs
to be amended. If you think we have a poverty problem now, just
imagine what it will be like if the government decides not to
extend the pilot project.
Some people work part time all winter long. It is not true that
these people all end up in the tavern drinking all winter long.
That was what the Prime Minister said, and he was quite pleased
with himself, when he came back here. These people work during
the winter when they get a chance. If the pilot project
disappears, these people will be penalized. I cannot understand
a government that goes on stomping on people who are in dire
straits. It is the only thing it can think of.
Keeping the pilot project alive is not enough. We also need a
comprehensive review of the program. Some employers have come to
realize this. They have started calling us on the phone and they
tell us: “Employees are being penalized. I cannot hire workers
anymore, and I do not blame them”. People are getting cheques as
low as $65 right now. If the pilot project disappeared
overnight, they would get big weekly cheques of $5.
I cannot believe we have to fight the government over this,
because we have all the evidence we need. We are told to wait
for the reports, to wait for the studies. Send the Minister of
Human Resources Development to our region, and he will get his
report.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I was hoping that everybody in the country could listen
to that. Then they could understand exactly what goes on when we
fool around with the EI concerns.
First of all I would like to bring greetings from the hon.
member for Acadie—Bathurst who unfortunately could not be here
today.
It appears that this motion at the outset seems to be an act of
desperation. Because of all the changes to the EI legislation
since the Liberals got into power, this is the kind of motion one
has to figure out.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry for
interrupting but I first needed to be assured that both the
member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and the member for
Sackville—Eastern Shore were splitting their time. I thought
that had been made clear but I was not sure.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in the
debate the Minister of Human Resources Development said that he
has not yet come up with a decision about the issue, but it is
only three weeks away. We need a decision within three weeks. I
should remind the House that one of those weeks we will not be
here.
I have a feeling that typically, like the government did with
the TAGS program, it will announce the program when we are not in
the House to debate it properly. This is where things should be
debated, in the House right here in Ottawa.
I want to talk about the Reform Party for just a moment. Every
time we talk about EI concerns or anything of that nature,
Reformers very quickly switch the debate to tax breaks but not
once do we hear them talk about a reduction of the GST-HST. All
they wish to talk about is taking EI funds from workers and
employers so their corporate friends can enjoy further tax
breaks. They want to take that money from workers and employers.
The remarkable thing is that the Reform Party constantly talks
about Atlantic Canada as if it were a basket case. I am from
Atlantic Canada and it is not a basket case. The fact is we have
some very serious problems. We have some very serious concerns,
but as everyone knows after the Swissair disaster, Atlantic
Canadians and especially Nova Scotians are some of the finest
people in the entire country. Atlantic Canada is not a basket
case.
Shortly after the last EI reductions were brought in last year
by the finance minister and the human resources minister, I think
to the tune of $1.4 billion, the finance minister went to Halifax
to speak to the chamber of commerce. They said that he had not
reduced it enough and that he should have given them a further
reduction in EI premiums. The finance minister in his wisdom said
“If I reduce it another 20 cents, how many jobs would you people
create tomorrow?” The entire chamber of commerce was silent.
They could not guarantee one extra job if the EI premiums were
reduced another 20 cents. They could not do it. Yet the Reform
Party stands here with its right wing policies and says that if
EI premiums were reduced, all these jobs would be created.
1815
I would like to tell the Reform Party that if it wants to give
tax breaks to people, then reduce the GST and the HST. That
would be the biggest job creator for every single Canadian in
this country from coast to coast to coast.
We never hear Reform Party members talk about reports or
objective concerns from labour. They never discuss the concerns
that come out of the CLC, the CAW, the PSAC or the FFAW.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am very sorry to
interrupt, but the time has expired.
It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the
question is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, October 27, 1998 at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak tonight on an issue of grave
importance to my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and,
in particular, Guysborough county.
It is an issue that I have vigorously pursued with the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans through personal interventions,
correspondence and, as well, through statements and questions in
this House.
The issue is this Liberal government's continued refusal to work
with the fishery workers in communities such as Canso and
Mulgrave to ensure that these communities remain economically
viable.
Although the government's treatment of Mulgrave and ACS Trading
has been extremely disgraceful, I am going to focus my comments
tonight on the community of Canso and, in particular, on the
efforts of the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op which has been championed
by Pat Fougere.
This is an extremely timely adjournment debate because this
coming Saturday there is a large public meeting taking place in
Canso on the future of the fishery in that community.
Canso is the birthplace of the modern era fishing industry. I
say this out of respect for our First Nations fishermen. Since
1504 when Basque sailors first set up camp on Nova Scotia's
shores, Canso has been known as the hub of the commercial
fishery.
In more recent years, despite the overall downturn trend in the
Atlantic fishery, the Seafreez company has been operating a
processing plant in Canso in which a number of species are
utilized.
I am pleased to highlight that it was through the efforts of
former Progressive Conservative governments, both federally and
provincially, that Seafreez commenced operations in Canso.
To cut right to the chase, the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op has
developed a proposal in conjunction with Seafreez to catch an
additional 2,200 tonnes of northern shrimp out of the additional
7,000 that the Government of Canada was planning to allocate this
spring.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans denied the application from
Canso, as he did for three similar applications from Nova Scotia
ridings, including the riding of Bras d'Or. The minister's trite
answer at that time was “The fish come first”.
While nobody would take away from the importance of
conservation, least of all the Canso Trawlermen's Co-op, the fact
is that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to allocate
every single additional tonne of northern shrimp quota to
Newfoundland and Labrador, pitting two regions in the country
against one another.
Nothing was given to Nova Scotia. Nothing was given to a
community that has nearly 500 years of tradition at stake within
the fisheries. So much for Liberal fisheries policy that is
based on fairness and equity.
I do not know whether fish actually come first with the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, but I do know who comes last with this
minister and that is the people of Nova Scotia and, most notably,
those of Canso.
The Canso Trawlermen's Co-op has made more than 50 requests to
meet personally with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. They
want to advance their cause. They want to put a face to the
disastrous consequences of the minister's decision. They even
travelled all the way from Canso to Ottawa so they would have a
chance to meet with the minister, but did not get a chance to
meet with him.
Did he have the courage to meet with them face to face? No. I
have repeatedly urged the minister to meet with them in Canso and
again his answer has been no. Even the premier of Nova Scotia, a
former colleague of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has
asked the minister to meet with the co-op. Again his answer was
no.
It is further proof that the current premier of Nova Scotia has
no clout with his former Liberal friends and is therefore of no
great use or advantage to Nova Scotia.
Who does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans think he is when
he will not show the decency to meet with hard-working people
like those from Canso? Pat Fougere of the Canso Trawlermen's
Co-op said that the minister demonstrated complete disrespect for
the area's fishermen and that he must take responsibility for the
slow death of the fishing community in Canso.
Pat Fougere is absolutely right.
1820
As I said, there will be a meeting in Canso on November 1.
Members of the provincial government, representatives of DFO and
other community leaders will be present. I urge and challenge
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to have the courage and the
guts to show up at that meeting and tell these people to their
faces what their future will be if his decisions are not changed
in the near future.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware and I
fully understand the concerns of some Nova Scotia communities
with respect to their lack of fishing opportunities. However,
this is not just a Nova Scotia phenomenon. Every year DFO
receives many requests for access to various fisheries from
people in similar situations. The total allowable catch, TAC,
increases in the northern shrimp fishery announced in May 1998
were allocated according to principles which were developed for
the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, stakeholders, the
Atlantic provinces and Quebec to ensure that the benefits of the
fishery were shared in as fair and open manner as possible.
As one of these principles is that those adjacent to the
resource will have priority in fishing the resource, new entrants
from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. were not included in
the temporary sharing of northern shrimp. Nova Scotian interests
received a share of the increase through existing licences held
by Nova Scotian companies, which represent two and a half
licences out of seventeen. The existing licence holders received
90% of the increase off northern Labrador and 10% of the increase
off eastern Newfoundland.
Fishing communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, northern
Quebec and the lower north shore of Quebec benefited from the
increase. In addition, those who received temporary access in
1997 received the same level of quota in 1998. The traditional
offshore fleet also shared in the quota increases.
Following the May 15th announcement, DFO approved temporary
sharing of the gulf shrimp and Scotian shelf shrimp resources
with fishermen in Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec.
The sharing in these fisheries was also consistent with the
principle of adjacency, with access based on the department's
sector management policy which governs the access of inshore
vessels.
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1998, I asked the Deputy Prime
Minister a question. He answered that there were ongoing
negotiations about the millennium scholarships. In particular,
he said, and I quote:
We are trying to arrive at an agreement to co-operate with the
provincial government, and our negotiations are continuing.
We know today that all that was simply a smoke screen, and that
the federal government, at the urging of the Prime Minister, had
decided that the millennium scholarships would be established in
spite of the opposition: against the wishes of the Quebec
government, against the wishes of the Quebec student
federations, against the wishes of the Canadian student and
university federations, which today still ask that they be
turned into something else.
Two and a half billion dollars were set aside for the millennium
scholarships. Quebec's share is thus some $600 million. At the
same time, transfers to the provinces were cut.
Quebec has the best student loans and scholarships system in
Canada. That is recognised by all the players. In fact, it is
the only system where scholarships are given based on financial
need. There are also loans that are provided based on financial
need.
As for the Canadian system, it provided loans only. This has
created a much higher debt load for Canadian students. In
Quebec, there is a consensus that this $600 million should be
reinvested in the system.
Of course, Mr. Charest came and softened the position of the
Liberal Party of Quebec. As we know, Mr. Charest does not have
any constitutional demands. He has no demands for Ottawa.
Besides, the Prime Minister told him so very clearly.
1825
Saturday, the Prime Minister of Canada put it back in his face,
saying “What do you think Quebec needs? My allied in Quebec, Mr.
Charest, tells me he needs nothing.” That is a problem we face.
But everyone in Quebec still wants this money to be returned to
Quebeckers, to the Government of Quebec so that it can invest it
in accordance with its priorities.
Out of this $600 million, Quebec could invest $20 million in the
Lower St. Lawrence region that I represent.
We could use the $20 million to better purpose in our schools,
in our colleges, by allowing them to offer professional options
better suited to the new economy, to offer agricultural programs
on new production methods, on all sorts of very important
sectors.
The millennium scholarships program is probably the measure that
shows most clearly the government's centralising approach, but
we still hope to see the government back down, and give the
money back to the provinces, which are the real experts in
education.
Is it possible to make the government see reason, to make it
reverse its decision and give the money back to Quebec, thus
allowing Quebec's educational institutions and students to
redistribute the money in accordance with their needs and not to
use the money for scholarships based on merit that nobody wants
in Quebec?
[English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to
comments made last May by the member opposite on the millennium
scholarships.
My colleague raised comments made at the time by the three
largest employer organizations in Quebec on the scholarships and
on the constitutional jurisdiction of Quebec.
The Government of Canada recognizes that education is a matter
of provincial jurisdiction. We are not interested in stepping
into provincial jurisdiction in terms of education. What we
believe strongly about is helping Canadians have proper access to
the good education and the knowledge provided by the provinces.
That is why we introduced the millennium scholarships. We have
always stated that the enabling legislation offers all the
flexibility needed to meet much of what Quebec wants.
The millennium scholarships will be managed and delivered by an
independent foundation that will work closely with the provinces
to establish criteria and to avoid duplication with what the
provinces are already delivering.
The foundation will be undertaking consultations over the next
few months with the provinces and the educational community to
increase access to post-secondary education everywhere in Canada
for low and middle income Canadians in a manner that avoids
duplication and builds on existing provincial programs and
processes. This makes good sense for students, for the provinces
and for Canada.
Quebeckers should feel confident that the millennium scholarship
foundation will act responsibly and will work with all the
provinces in a way that will avoid duplication with provincial
systems. Jean Monty, the president of the foundation, is a well
respected and responsible individual. We are confident he will
work well with all provincial governments, including the
Government of Quebec, to ensure students have better access to
education provided by the provinces.
The foundation will make every effort to establish the
millennium scholarships in a manner that respects the needs of
each province, including Quebec.
I urge the hon. member to recognize that both orders of
governments have a role to play to increase the equality of
opportuntiy for Canada's young people. Through partnerships we
can achieve results which are beneficial to all Canadians, each
and every one of us.
The millennium scholarships are not about jurisdiction. Rather,
they represent Canada's unique way of celebrating a new
millennium by investing in all Canadians and their future.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands ajourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.)