CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 5, 1995
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17201
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17201
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17206
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17207
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17220
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17222
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17225
Mr. Bernier (Beauce) 17229
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17230
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 17231
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17232
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17233
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17233
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17233
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17234
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17234
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17234
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17235
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17235
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17235
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17236
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17236
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17237
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17238
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17238
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17239
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17240
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 17240
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17240
Consideration resumed of motion 17241
Motion moved and agreed to 17250
Motion moved and agreed to 17250
Consideration resumed of motion 17250
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 17257
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 17257
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 17258
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 17258
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 33;Nays, 190 17258
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 42;Nays, 181 17259
(Motion negatived.) 17260
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17267
17197
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 5, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
Translation]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am now prepared to make a ruling
on the admissibility of the amendment, moved last Wednesday,
November 29, by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, to
government business Motion No. 26 relating to Quebec as a
distinct society.
I have reviewed the interventions of the chief government whip,
the chief opposition whip and the hon. member for Calgary West,
and I would like to thank them for their helpful comments.
[English]
Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the
Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at page 321 states:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question
on which the amendment has been proposed.
This idea is also repeated as citation 568 in Beauchesne's sixth
edition.
[Translation]
Beauchesne also notes in citation 567 that
567.-the object of an amendment may be-to modify a question in such a
way as to increase its acceptability-
[
English]
In his presentation the chief government whip quoted citation
579 of the same work, arguing that the proposed amendment would
introduce a foreign proposition and would raise a new question
which could only be considered as a distinct motion after proper
notice. He also referred to the 1923 and 1970 Speaker's rulings on
which this citation is based. I have reviewed these decisions, and
while it is indisputable that these are accurate references, they are
not germane to the case now before us.
The Chair has reviewed the terms of the main motion and has
taken into account the nature of its wording. The wording of the
proposed amendment is linked directly to the text of the main
motion and touches on various concepts found therein. It appears to
the Chair that the proposed amendment does not stray beyond the
scope of the main motion but rather aims to further refine its
meaning and intent.
Thus the Chair is of the opinion that the requirements for
amendments outlined in Beauchesne's citations 567 and 568 have
been met.
[Translation]
I therefore rule that the amendment is procedurally acceptable
and will be proposed by the Chair when next this government order
is called.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1010)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (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 four
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
17198
That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform
unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the
manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a
true manpower development policy of its own.
-She said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present this motion here
this morning. I would like to read to the House a motion that was
adopted yesterday by the Quebec National Assembly: Yeas, 96;
Nays, 0; Abstentions, 0; it was therefore unanimous, with the
clearest possible consensus.
That the National Assembly reaffirm the consensus expressed in this House
on December 13, 1990, on the occasion of the ministerial statement on
manpower adjustment and occupational training, to the effect that Quebec must
have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and
occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding
allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec.
Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services
to customers, Quebec must take over the control and management of various
services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all
programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund
within Quebec's borders, and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to
such responsibilities.
The motion adopted unanimously by the Quebec National
Assembly goes on to say:
The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the
co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government
that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives.
Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to
immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order
to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the
Quebec people.
Especially after the referendum vote on October 30, it is
important for the government to be aware of this consensus and
realize it cannot be satisfied with the guidelines in this new bill,
Bill C-111, in part II under the heading ``Employment Benefits and
National Employment Service''.
(1015)
In fact, throughout part III, what predominates is not Quebec's
right to control, develop and take responsibility for its manpower
policy but a renewed affirmation of the central government's
primacy in this area over which Quebec has jurisdiction. All the
federal government's noises about being prepared to negotiate and
being open to suggestions cannot obscure a very important side to
this question. Today, money collected from Quebec workers and
businesses in the form of unemployment insurance premiums goes
to and is controlled by the federal government.
The federal government determines under what conditions it
would be prepared to agree that the government or, as
appropriate-and this is something we will find in another bill we
will discuss later on- agencies, individuals or any other intervenor
the government may consider would be called on to implement the
measures provided in the bill.
Primarily for the sake of efficiency and also from a cultural
standpoint, Quebec insists on being in charge of implementing this
manpower policy, on being the only one in control and in charge of
this policy. Culture is basically a demonstration of differences. And
we know that as far as the implementation of manpower policy is
concerned, countries have different ways of doing things, different
objectives and different priorities. In Quebec, we do not proceed
the same way they do in France, Japan, the United States and the
rest of Canada.
We have this consensus in the National Assembly which was
expressed in the past and confirmed again yesterday, so it is a
matter of efficiency and our own culture. Why efficiency? So we
can stop this endless bickering which prevents us from improving
the circumstances of ordinary people whose needs are tremendous,
with the unemployment rate still around 11 per cent. Of course, the
unemployment rate only indicates how many people want to enter
the labour market. It does not consider all those people who are
discouraged, who are on welfare or are trapped somewhere without
benefits of any kind and have become discouraged.
(1020)
Given the rate of unemployment and Quebec's need for a strong
and vigorous economy, it is not only unacceptable, it is downright
intolerable that this issue of control over manpower is once again
caught in a tug of war, which prevents ordinary folks-women,
men, young people, seasonal workers-anyone with needs, from
getting the most out of the services they are entitled to.
This is why, for reasons of efficiency relating to our culture, that
the official opposition has tabled this motion this morning, which it
will speak to throughout the day.
The government has to realize the extent of the need of those it is
penalizing by insisting on running the show. These people need
jobs, help and a strategy. They cannot live with a system full of
holes, a system that is in fact not one, but two. It is a useless
system, because two governments are competing within it: one is
on its own turf and the other is endlessly butting in. It has
broadened the meaning of the constitutional amendment on
unemployment insurance and, once again, with employees and
employers' money, it is pushing aside the Government of Quebec.
The Prime Minister of Canada said, in the final days before the
referendum, that he would do everything to keep Canada united.
Now, in an area where consensus is so strong and less than a month
after October 30, the government introduces a bill that ignores the
unanimous will of Quebecers. The government is acquiring the
means to prevent Quebec from doing what it considers appropriate.
It is giving itself the wherewithal to control. Worse, if, at the end of
negotiations, Quebec, with the knife to its throat, refuses to bow to
17199
the dictates of the federal government, Quebec will be unable to do
what it wants.
I am sorry the minister finds this funny; he could say he was
open, but he has not managed to call even a single meeting of
ministers of manpower and employment in the time he has been in
office. He has not been and still is not known for his flexibility.
It is hard to avoid feeling worried and discouraged in the face of
a text such as this, regardless of the minister proposing it, because
it is absurd to find ourselves once again in this endless twisting and
turning at the expense of the ordinary folk.
(1025)
Subclause 61(2), which deals with training, stipulates that the
central government, through the commission, and I quote:
-may not provide any financial assistance in a province in support of
employment benefits mentioned in paragraph 59(e) without the agreement of
the government of the province.
But paragraph 59(
e) reads as follows:
59. The commission may establish employment benefits to enable insured
participants to obtain employment, including benefits to:
(e) help them obtain skills for employment, ranging from basic to advanced
skills.
It is important to have a good understanding of this provision. It
means that, this time, with respect to the so-called employment
benefits the government wants to introduce, it can, in case of a
misunderstanding, proceed on its own by giving the commission
the required mandate. In this specific case, however, it goes so far
as to say that if the province-Quebec, in this instance-disagrees,
it will not give anything. Great.
It would make people responsible for Quebec's refusal to
relinquish its jurisdiction. The last time we saw this was when
Maurice Duplessis was in office.
These provisions are extremely disturbing and do not appear to
portend successful negotiations, far from it.
These measures, which are supposed to help workers, are in fact
modelled after other measures already in effect in Quebec to help
welfare recipients improve their lot and find jobs they can keep.
These measures already exist in one version or another. Except
that, in this case, the federal government-that is the beauty of
it-is set to introduce similar initiatives that will create an
inextricable web of overlap and duplication so that two individuals
in the same business could each receive a different kind of income
supplement: welfare in one case and job benefits in the other.
This kind of chaos is unacceptable. Co-ordination is needed. We
must see to it that workers and people looking for jobs benefit from
a real labour policy. The only way such a policy can become a
reality is if Quebec has control over all these measures.
This bill was expected. The minister had said that it would make
people change their attitudes and that it would really help, as the
ambitious title ``employment insurance'' shows. Yet, I cannot help
but point out that the $800 million that will be spent on these
measures will in fact only be spread over five years, another $200
million for all of Canada, because measures are already in place
whose effectiveness needs to be reviewed but whose total cost is $4
billion, with the difference that only $1.9 billion comes from
unemployment insurance.
(1030)
How much will that make by the year 2001, when this reform is
complete? Some $4.2 billion, or a mere $200 million more, with
this difference however, and a crucial difference, that an additional
$800 million will be paid out of the UI fund then while, as a result
of the general tax currently levied to cover the cost of most of these
measures, $600 million less will come out of the consolidated
revenue fund.
This whole operation that had raised hopes results in $200
million in fresh money, but also and again, for Quebec in particular,
in the imposition of measures causing duplication and overlap,
jamming the labour market and preventing Quebec from putting in
place an urgently needed manpower policy.
I hope that, even though he laughed earlier, the minister will
understand that the consensus in Quebec calls for the government,
as a modern constitutional system, to recognize Quebec's
jurisdiction and to accept that Quebec should have sole
responsibility over this manpower policy for ordinary people and,
therefore, that the allocated funds made up of money coming from
businesses and workers should be transferred to Quebec to
administer according to its own needs and priorities.
I repeat, this must be done not only with the consent of the
parties, but also that of business, labour, the co-operative
movement, community groups, which may have been more active
in Quebec than elsewhere, perhaps because Quebec was seriously
hit by the 1982-83 recession. But this consensus is the best
guarantee of what could be the Quebec model, in which we will be
able to use our resources, our scarce financial resources, to help
ordinary people whose individual well-being is in great need of
improvement.
I sincerely hope that our plea be heard in the interest of the
people, because the government has no right to stubbornly keep
preventing Quebec from fully playing its role like this.
17200
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I welcome the opportunity to ask some questions and make some
comments on the speech of the hon. member for Mercier. As
always, she takes a very pessimistic outlook on this legislation.
For the record, Canadians from coast to coast to coast
participated in what was perhaps the most extensive consultation
process in Canadian history. Over 100,000 people participated. The
hon. member for Mercier was a very active member of the human
resources development committee that was looking at the
modernization and restructuring of Canada's social security
system. The hon. member heard what I heard. She heard what the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister heard.
What Canadians were saying was that they wanted an
unemployment insurance system, a social security system that
would help the most vulnerable in our society, that would help
Canadians find jobs and keep their jobs and to do that in a
sustainable fashion. They realized the skyrocketing costs of
unemployment insurance from $8 billion in 1982 to $20 billion in
1992. They realized the distortions which exist in the marketplace
where 38 per cent of benefits are directed to 14 per cent of the firms
and represent 12 per cent of the people. They realized that all these
things needed to be changed because the status quo simply was not
serving the people it was supposed to serve.
(1035)
Throughout this process we engaged Canadians in a serious
debate about the issues. If we look at the objectives and clearly
analyse the EI bill which was tabled, we find that those objectives
are met. The hon. member said that this is a regressive piece of
legislation. She should rethink, re-read and re-analyse what is in
the legislation.
The hon. member does not talk about the progressive measures
found in the legislation. Over 500,000 Canadians who were
excluded and marginalized by the Unemployment Insurance Act
will now be covered by the legislation. Part time workers count.
Every hour, every dollar, every effort which they make will be
rewarded under the legislation.
The hon. member did not talk about the family income
supplement which will allow people to receive up to 80 per cent of
their average earnings. The hon. member did not talk about that
because it is too positive to mention. She did not talk about the
people who are included in the legislation. She did not talk about
the fact that low income Canadians will be able to earn $50 without
being penalized or taxed back. She did not talk about the fact that
by reducing premium rates for business, job creation will be
enhanced. Employees will be helped because they too will
participate in the employment insurance fund.
The hon. member tried to depict the federal government as a
government which imposes its rules and regulations upon the
provinces. That is not the case. The legislation is quite open. It says
that the federal government will negotiate with the provinces on
wage supplements, top ups, self-employment assistance, skills and
loans. It will also work together with the provinces on job corps
partnerships.
Why is the hon. member continuing, like every member of the
Bloc, this misinformation campaign? They are trying to confuse
Canadians. Canadians know that the employment insurance
program which was introduced speaks to the number one issue
facing Canadians, and that is job creation. Over 100,000 jobs will
be created directly as a result of measures taken by the bill.
I am quite surprised. The hon. member knows that the province
of Quebec has historically benefited from the unemployment
insurance program and it will continue to do so under the
employment insurance program. She also knows that she will
benefit from the $300 million transition fund in high
unemployment areas.
I have a simple question for the hon. member: Why does the
Bloc Quebecois continue this misinformation campaign? Why does
it not tell the real story to Canadians?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon.
member did not address the motion because, given its wording, he
could only have agreed with me. We will discuss the overall UI
reform project when we debate the UI bill.
The motion before the House this morning provides that Quebec
should control manpower policy. The hon. member remained silent
on that issue, because he knows that I am right. What is really
important is to ensure that the unemployed have the best guarantees
to get help to find decent jobs.
(1040)
Let me digress for a moment to say that, yes, I did participate in
the consultation exercise. Canadians from everywhere told us that
the real issue was jobs, not employability. And in order to create
jobs, it is essential to have a co-ordinated manpower policy.
This is why this motion deals with manpower policy. In that
regard, and regardless of the October 30 results, the National
Assembly was unanimous in demanding, yesterday, that Quebec
have control over the manpower sector, and that the central
government leave that field of jurisdiction and stop interfering in it.
The vote was unanimous: 96 to 0, with no abstentions. Moreover,
that unanimity also exists among businesses, unions, co-ops and
community groups.
17201
I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to comment on
our motion. I can only conclude, with some pleasure, that if he
did not do it, it is because he would have had to say, assuming
he is in favour of an efficient manpower policy in Quebec: ``Yes,
you are right. The central government should get out of that
sector''.
The parliamentary secretary said that Quebec benefited from the
UI program. The fact is that Quebec and the Maritimes were the
ones that bore the brunt of the 1994 reform. The same is true again
with this reform. Indeed, by the year 2001, Quebec alone will have
to deal with an annual shortfall of $735 million, in addition to a
reduction of over $640 million in UI benefits.
I thank the hon. member for finally agreeing with me that the
central government had to leave that sector.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a few brief questions for my colleague from
Mercier.
It becomes very obvious to me as I listen to Bloc members that
they are only interested in Quebec. Because of that I question the
fact that they should even be the official opposition in this matter,
but that is simply an aside. We have to take into account the
concerns of all Canadians. I have a very difficult time seeing how
the concerns she has expressed differ in any way from the concerns
all Canadians have. Therefore, I cannot support this motion as it
presently stands.
We all want jobs. She states that Quebec wants a vibrant
economy and jobs. Is that not true for all of Canada? Should we not
be moving toward a policy that addresses this across the nation?
She says there is a culture in Quebec. Do we not have a culture in
the rest of Canada? Yes we do. That also has to be taken into
account.
Why is Quebec asking only for control over the educational
aspects of this and not control over the rest of the program? I
cannot understand why Bloc members are only picking and
choosing some of the things they want. I find that very difficult to
understand. Perhaps the member can clarify for me her party's
position on this.
I realize that education is a provincial matter. I agree with the
member that the provinces should be looking after the training
programs because those are truly educational aspects of the
program. If that is the case, why not reduce the premiums to the
point where they do not include the educational aspect? The
government has admitted that by reducing the premiums a lot of
jobs would be created. Why is the member not working on that
aspect of reducing the premiums and letting the Government of
Quebec tax its own people for the educational aspects of this
program?
(1045)
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. First of all, I would
like to tell my hon. colleague that yes, Canada does have a culture.
What I am saying is that we ought to organize along cultural lines,
since the economy, the organization of manpower policy, are linked
to culture, after all.
The Quebec National Assembly's demand-I could provide a
Translation of it, but I imagine the interpreter will deal with it
now-goes beyond the educational aspect. It is stated, and it has
been adopted unanimously, that Quebec must take over the control
and management of various services pertaining to employment and
manpower development and all programs that may be funded
through the unemployment insurance fund within Quebec's
borders.
It is, therefore, a matter of jurisdiction and of encroachment, but
for the sake of efficiency. We want to have control over overall
co-ordination because we can see the inefficiency of the present
system and the great needs. Now he is accusing me of not speaking
for all of Canada. Let me tell you, if anybody has travelled across
Canada and given voice to the needs I saw everywhere, it is I.
Except that this morning, with the National Assembly
resolution, I felt it extremely important to state that these demands
have unanimous support in Quebec. I am, however, aware that
debates need to be held in Canada on centralization and
decentralization. Knowing that I am not able to answer for
Canadians on this, I wish for a debate. I think one is necessary.
But the debate is over with in Quebec; this is the consensus of
Quebec, the consensus of a variety of groups, unions, businesses,
community groups, and so on; it is true for the province as whole, it
is true for the regions. So now we wonder what are they waiting for
before giving us back the tools needed for results, instead of
continuing along with this unproductive duplication and overlap.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part
in the debate in the House of Commons on the motion, particularly
since the hon. member for Mercier could be nominated for the
Quebec prize for literature, the Prix Athanase-David. Her speech is
a great example of fiction writing, and I trust that all of her
colleagues in this House will support her nomination after hearing
it. This is an excellent example of the Bloc's talent for writing
complete and utter fantasy.
17202
[English]
When we read the Bloc motion, we wonder where its members
have been. Like Rip Van Winkle, they have been asleep for the last
while. They neither take into account the statement made by the
Prime Minister, which says very clearly that we will be prepared
and in fact will welcome the opportunity to give full responsibility
for education and training to the provinces.
The tabling last Friday of the legislation for employment
insurance clearly indicates once again that the area of education
and training is the jurisdiction of the provinces. Furthermore, we
would go beyond that and take in those areas of direct employment
activity that are within our constitutional orbit and share with the
provinces, sit down and work in concert with the provinces, plan
with the provinces, co-operate with the provinces for one reason: to
develop a partnership for employment.
Yet the Bloc members bring in a motion that totally and
completely misses the point. They are saying that somehow there
will be more intrusion, more activity, and no withdrawal. It seems
to me that this group simply cannot take yes for an answer. When
we say we are going to do exactly what is being proposed, they
seem oblivious, unable to filter it out. That only confirms my
suspicion that all the speeches, all the motions, and all the
commentaries were written before we even got around to making
good on the initiative of the Prime Minister or tabling legislation.
They just pulled it out of the old vault, took out the old speeches
from the old drawers, put a new date on it, and presented it once
again without taking a look at reality or the facts or the hopeful
signs.
(1050)
With the initiative we announced on Friday I believe we can
begin developing a whole new set of relationships with provinces,
communities, and individuals directed toward the creation of jobs
and employment in this country. It is the beginning of a new
dialogue about how we can come together and form arrangements
so we can share responsibility. If people are unemployed they do
not care whether it is a provincial or a federal jurisdiction, they
simply want a job. That is what it is all about.
As I listened to the hon. member for Mercier carefully, what was
beginning to creep into the language was that she was far more
concerned about transferring power to bureaucrats in provincial
capitals than putting money directly into the hands of individuals
so they can get back to work. That is the real issue. It is power that
is at the heart of this motion, not employment. It is the opportunity
to control and manage, not to provide a new form of empowerment
for individuals. That is what the debate is really about. It is really
oldspeak government. It is really setting the clock back.
When Canadians, in whatever region, are looking for
government to provide new leadership, new formulas, new
methods, we have an opposition party that is retreating back into
the romantic past, trying once again to dig up the old speeches that
were written 30 or 40 years ago and not dealing with the difficult
new realities in a world where work has changed.
The major modernization of the insurance system of Canada for
employment is pegged on one important reality: the world of work
is changing and we must keep up and be relevant to that world of
work. That is why the measures we have introduced state that the
clear responsibility that was given by the provinces to the federal
government in 1941 to be responsible for the basic insurance
program for Canadians dealing with unemployment had to be
modernized. I will be the first to say that throughout the years it has
been a good program. It has provided an enormous bridge of
support for generation after generation of Canadians who have
faced unemployment.
We should take some real pride in the fact that the federal
government has been able to ensure not only security for the
individual but security for the regions. Areas where there was
wealth, growth, and jobs were able to share with those who were
less advantaged. That has been the genius of the program. It was
built on sharing, something our hon. friends opposite forget about.
Sharing is not part of their vocabulary. Co-operation is not part of
their vocabulary, the notion that somehow they can have a national
system of insurance that enables Canadians to distribute support
and security because we all mutually benefit from it. It is not a
matter of charity but of good investment. We must make sure we
can support the various measures in areas where they are faced with
high unemployment so that those areas with lower unemployment
do not have to bear the full burden in a geographic way.
This plan has worked for most of its years, but it is changing
because Canada is changing. What we have been discovering in the
last decade or so is that the original architecture was no longer
sufficient to meet a world where the work has changed, a world
where we now have hundreds of thousands of part time workers,
where there are multiple job owners who were not being given any
protection, where individuals were facing much tougher problems
of adjustment when jobs or skills changed.
There is one thing that is clear from every single analysis and
study that has been done internationally and nationally: the higher
the level of literacy, skill and education, the better the chance for a
job. There are lots of anecdotes and examples of people with good
degrees who cannot find work. That is one reason we have
introduced the youth internship program, which enables young
people to move from school to work in an easier fashion through
industry support and small business.
17203
(1055)
We know we have to invest in those areas. We also know that
increasingly people need to get re-employment much quicker and
faster than they do now and that there are useful tested means of
achieving that.
We spent the last two years working on various projects using
wage supplements where the small business community that wants
to hire a new worker but does not have quite the cash flow or is
concerned it will not get full productivity or full learning in the first
six or eight months is reluctant to make that commitment. Wage
supplements open the door. We have seen in place after place that
we have 70 per cent to 80 per cent improvement in job retention as
a result of that measure and that we can extend work by 14 or 15
weeks. This is what is important, that we add about $4,000 to
$5,000 additional income.
In talking about the employment insurance program, people get
tied down talking about their benefits. What we have to talk about
is their income. How do we improve people's income? The best
way to improve income is by employment. That is the best way of
doing it. If people simply rely year after year on a benefit program
they begin to lose the ability to be in the job market and also their
income does not grow. Governments are having tight times.
Provincial governments everywhere are cutting back on those
assistance programs. The real thing is to have a springboard back
into the job market.
We have said we are going to take all the programs we have, 39
programs, and bring them down to five simple employment
measures. These are not programs with their own organizations and
their own bureaucracies, but a basic set of measures that are
available to individuals to get back to work. They make the choice.
I find it amazing that the members of the opposition do not have
much trust in individual choice, that they really do not believe that
individuals can exercise the right to decide how to get back to work
and how to make these tools work. They really have lost faith in the
right of individuals to be able to choose and decide, not exclusively
but with some support. We know that oftentimes individuals
thrown totally into the market by themselves do need some
assistance, but assistance that works.
However, the opposition members talk about transferring from
one government to another and all these kinds of things. They have
lost the sense that individuals are what really count and that they
should be given the opportunities to make those choices. At the
same time, they have also lost something else that is very important
to recognize. It goes back to the fundamental importance of the
employment insurance system: it is a federal constitutional
responsibility and people pay in premiums.
The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois shakes his head. This
is a party that spends its entire question period and its entire
existence in the House arguing about federalism in the
Constitution. Yet this hon. gentleman does not know that in 1941
the provinces ceded responsibility for unemployment insurance to
the federal government. That is incredible ignorance for someone
who likes to say he knows what he is talking about. He does not
know a simple reality of the history of this country.
When people pay a premium they have a right to a benefit. That
is what they are investing in, the right to that benefit. Now the Bloc
Quebecois is saying no, just turn the money over to a bunch of
bureaucrats and they will decide whether they get the benefit for
not; it is no longer his or her right as an individual to have that
benefit. That is what the Bloc members are saying in this motion,
that individuals in Quebec who pay a premium no longer will be
assured of the right to get the benefit of that because it is going to
be decided somewhere else. As a result, the fundamental principle
of the insurance program is taken away.
I do not think that is a very popular notion in Quebec or
anywhere else. What is recognized is that they are fundamentally
undermining the philosophy of the insurance program, which is
that people contribute to protect themselves against the risk of
unemployment. That is what it is all about.
(1100)
I am surprised at the lack of understanding of the hon. member
about the history of federalism in the country wherein that was
ceded by the provinces to give us the insurance program. I am even
more concerned about the sense of neglect of the principle of
insurance, that is that people pay for the protection.
Basically we are saying that they will be eligible for an income
benefit and an employment benefit. The employment benefit has
within it five basic measures: a wage supplement, with highly
effective evaluations in terms of getting people back to work.
Income supplements tested out in New Brunswick and British
Columbia over the past year show that people on lower incomes
who would not take jobs because the income was not sufficient to
pay for their family needs will take the jobs if there is a small top
up. Thirty-three per cent are now back to work today compared to
only 3 per cent in the general area of proven success.
Turning to self-employment, Canada is the self-employment
capital of the world. We are generating more opportunities for
individuals to start their own businesses. In a matter of two years of
testing the program for unemployment insurance, over 30,000
people started their own businesses. Each created a job for another
person. In other words 60,000 jobs were created as a result of the
measure.
17204
Hon. members of the opposition want to deny people that. They
say: ``Don't do that. Don't give people the right to
self-employment, to start their own businesses, to create jobs for
themselves or somebody else''.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): They have lost faith in
the individual.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): They have lost faith
in the individual. Yet that basic benefit was built into the program.
We also built in the basic partnership arrangement for job
creation. Job fare is working in New Brunswick today involving
1,000 people from the forestry industry, older workers mainly.
They are now back to doing reforestation, rebuilding that resource
of the nation, cleaning it up and creating a resource that will be
richer for the next generation of people.
Then we have the skills voucher that is available to individuals.
That is where we come to an interesting point. We have said clearly
in the legislation that in terms of the application of the voucher we
will do so only with the consent of the provincial governments
involved because it is their jurisdiction. We will not deliver it if
they say no. It is not our right to do so. We think it is important that
individuals have the right to make that choice. If getting back to
work means a three-week program in computer upgrading, they
should have that right. If the province says no, I will respect that.
I want to go beyond that. In all the measures I have talked about
we are prepared to sit down with each province to work on a
business plan of protocol, a year by year arrangement to determine
the best allocation of the measures and to eliminate all duplication.
Where the province has a program that can deliver that kind of
opportunity to an individual who is our client, I am prepared to use
it.
This is contrary to what the member for Mercier said. We should
not listen to her. Frankly the hon. member for Mercier has an
incredible track record in the House of crying wolf on
misinformation. A year ago she was saying: ``Oh, my God, you
have changed the UI system. There will be 200,000 people on
welfare''. Where did it go? It did not happen. In fact it began to get
a bit better. We have to look at her track record.
I make very clear that in the province of Quebec the SPRINT
program provides a training voucher for people to go back to work.
If the province is agreeable we can use it. Clients who pay a
premium and get the benefit can use that direct program. I have no
problem with that. It is perfectly good. I do not want to duplicate
but that means sitting down province by province to work out the
arrangements.
The one test I must have as a trustee of the insurance program is
to ensure that those people who have paid into the program are
eligible for the benefits and that they have a chance at being
re-employed because that is the nature of the new benefits.
The member is creating a great fantasy of huge standards and
intrusions. Once again the prize for fiction goes to the member for
Mercier for fabricating, making up, fantasizing and, more
important, trying to scare people, fearmongering again. It is
unfortunate. In many ways I have a great respect for the hon.
member for Mercier. She is a good person and a compassionate
person. The problem is that every time we have a debate in the
House-
(1105)
Mrs. Finestone: First of all she leaves.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): That is another
problem. She does not listen too well. Let us put it that way.
Nevertheless everything is filtered through the prism of her
separatist philosophy. That is the problem.
She cannot look at a major new program to help unemployed
people. She cannot deal with the fact that we want to totally rework
federal-provincial relations to transfer far more responsibility to
the provinces, to transfer all responsibility for training. She cannot
see that because everything is filtered through a separatist black
box. It does not allow the hon. member and her colleagues to see
the opportunities which exist.
I should like to clarify another important point. The hon.
member made claims that this would be offloading on the
provinces and that it would create problems. I point out something
that has not been deliberately omitted but certainly has not been
commented on by opposition members. An important initiative in
the legislation is to extend for up to three years to all those who
have had an attachment to the insurance system their eligibility for
employment benefits. People who have exhausted their claims will
now be eligible to start their own businesses with a
self-employment program, to get a training voucher or to receive a
wage supplement.
This means that 40 per cent of the people presently on the social
assistance rolls in the province of Quebec will now be eligible for
re-employment benefits. At a time when the provincial government
is cutting back on those benefits we are filling the vacuum. That is
a very crucial reason negotiation is so important.
There is an opportunity to harmonize our efforts. There is a real
opportunity to separate those on assistance from those on the
insurance program because in many cases they are the same person.
Let us deliver through provincial programs such as APPORT. Bloc
members have forgotten that last summer I signed an agreement
with the provincial Government of Quebec to contribute to the
APPORT program, specifically to test how provincial governments
could deliver direct employment measures. Now we are seeing the
benefits of that.
17205
I am pleased that the assembly has agreed to negotiate. It is a
first step; it is a good first step. The minister of employment for
Quebec has already thrown conditions into the process, but I do
not mind. I invited her over a month ago to have discussions. I
am willing and open. Once we get together to form a partnership
we can talk about how to bring the measures together to help those
who have exhausted their benefits but want to be employed and
about how we can ensure that the benefits paid out are delivered
efficiently and without duplication.
Those are the real opportunities this measure opens up. It is a
way of redefining how we work as governments and how we can
work together. It means redefining the role of government for the
individuals and giving far more responsibility, choice and hope to
individuals of being able to find work. They will know there is
support and they are not being left alone.
It also means an opportunity to help rebuild communities. One
of the interesting developments in Quebec is that it is reorganizing
down to the community level. I am doing the same in my
department. We are reorganizing so that we have far more
autonomy and discretion at the local, community and regional
levels. If we can get together with provincial governments to agree
on decentralization down to the community level, to let them make
choices about the best way of employing people, we have done
something very exciting. We have redefined governments in their
relationships with each other, with individuals and with the
community. We can provide the strength to rebuild the
communities, to rebuild the employment system in Canada and to
rebuild the country while we are doing it.
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
comment, to set the record straight. Reacting to my shaking my
head-it was not even something I said-the minister went off on a
tangent and said I did not know the history of Canada and the
Constitution.
I shook my head to indicate that there was nothing in the
Constitution originally, although of course the minister is right, in
that the provinces agreed to a constitutional amendment that gave
the federal government responsibility for unemployment
insurance. I want to make that clear, and I think it was in 1941. I
wanted to make that clear.
The minister is intelligent, dedicated, energetic and well
intentioned, and he probably wants to improve things, except when
he says that the hon. member for Mercier does not listen too well. I
want to appeal to his own ability to listen, because in the days to
come, it seems there may be a meeting between the minister and
the Quebec Minister of Employment. I hope he will go to this
meeting with an open mind. In fact, I hope both parties will.
This morning, he seemed to be open to discussion. I am not the
Quebec Minister of Employment. I am in the opposition here in
Ottawa. I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development, and like the hon. member for Mercier, the
minister's parliamentary secretary and the parliamentary secretary
to the Prime Minister, I travelled with the committee across Canada
last year. I listened to people, and of course I do not share the
assessment that was made of a consensus in this respect. I may
remind the minister that everywhere there were demonstrations,
and 75 or 80 per cent of the briefs boiled down to the following:
Mr. Minister, no cuts, please. That is history. But yesterday in the
Quebec National Assembly, and that will be the subject of my
question to the minister-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Of the Government of
Canada?
Mr. Dubé: Yes, of the Government of Canada, of course. There
are some things that I, as a Quebecer, would like to say to the
minister, and this morning I have the opportunity to do so. The fact
is that throughout the year, throughout our travels, we saw two
ways of looking at reality. The majority of Quebecers, in all parties,
including the Quebec Liberal Party and the Conseil du patronat,
have the same perception of reality. The people of Quebec have the
same perception of reality.
The minister made it clear this morning. I am not criticizing his
personal values which dictate that the individual is entitled to
insurance. I can go along with that. I heard that very often in
English Canada too, I must admit. But in Quebec, as long as it was
unemployment insurance, there were never any complaints. It is
true that Quebec had agreed, I think it was in 1941, to have
unemployment insurance come under federal jurisdiction. But
since that time, especially these last few years, Quebec has
demanded control over funds allocated to unemployment insurance
from the federal consolidated revenue fund for training and
employability improvement services, arguing that these matters
came within the same jurisdiction as education and training. There
lies the source of the dispute, if you will, that has been going on for
some time now, namely that when the federal government takes
money from the unemployment fund for training it is meddling in a
provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has surely received a copy of the
resolution passed by the National Assembly. As I have been asking
him since yesterday, is the minister ready to recognize Quebec's
sole responsibility for labour adjustment and job training policies
in Quebec, according to the unanimous wish of Liberal Party
members, even those who were in the no camp in Quebec?
(1115)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before giving the floor to
the minister, I would simply remind my colleagues that all
17206
questions must be put through the Chair in order to keep the
discussion within parliamentary rules.
[English]
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to direct my remarks to such a distinguished resident
of the central office of the House.
First let me apologize to the hon. member if I misinterpreted his
earlier comments about the Constitution. His clarification is
certainly reasonable. It will fully restore my respect for his
constitutional knowledge and judgment.
Let me get to the central point which is the question the hon.
member raised. The reality is that we have clearly said that all
choices and decisions about the nature of education and training
will be made by provincial governments. We are withdrawing from
the course purchases which have been the standard pattern over the
past few years where federal bureaucrats would sit down with their
counterparts and decide which courses would be available to
clients. It will be purely a provincial choice.
We are withdrawing from apprenticeship training, co-op
education and a number of other measures because we believe that
the fundamental questions of curriculum, supply, institutions,
course, faculty, all the things that make up the basic training and
education are provincial choices, purely within their jurisdiction.
We are also prepared to go one step further and say there are
other programs, not training, but which are directly related to
employment and if a provincial government is able, wants to, is
prepared to and has the mechanisms to decide how to make them
available, that is fine. All I have to make sure is the person who is
the insuree, who puts the money into the pot, is able to get the
benefit back. That is the test and a requirement under the act, under
the Constitution as the trustee for that insurance program.
The design, system of delivery and the nature of how training
takes places are clearly and simply provincial responsibilities. It is
important to recognize it cannot take place through a simple block
transfer. As we have learned in the past, a block transfer with
provinces does not end up in the programs it is intended for.
Quebec has been one of the better provinces in ensuring transfers
for education and health end up in those programs. There are a lot
of provinces in which a lot of roads have been built with money
that was supposed to go to universities and a lot of provincial
public buildings built with money supposed to go into the health
care system.
As a result we have to ensure that when my colleague pays into
the program she has a right to expect a benefit in return. That is all.
We are saying we are substantially simplifying those benefits. We
are basically saying that the 39 programs my department would run
are being taken down to five measures. Those are not even
programs, they are simply a tool. The provinces will be able to
design that tool.
I use the example of the SPRINT program in Quebec which I
think is a good program, a system to get people back to work. If
Quebec is prepared to make that available to clients in the
employment insurance program, let us do it and get them back to
work. Those are the kinds of discussion I want to have.
I can assure the hon. member that we will discuss in good faith.
We have invited the provincial ministers to meet with us and I am
looking forward to that because I think there is a chance for a new,
fresh, innovative dialogue with the provinces on this very crucial
issue.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the experience the minister displays in his career in
politics is very obvious. He is a very good speaker and I
compliment him on that. I am sure he would do very well selling air
conditioning units at the north pole.
(1120)
As I listened to him there were several glaring contradictions. I
have a series of questions related to these. He makes the same
mistake as the Bloc when he appeals to history for what he is doing.
Back in 1941 the government was given permission to run an
unemployment insurance program. It is no longer a true insurance
program.
My question is a very obvious one. Why does he appeal to this
mandate back in 1941 to support what he is presently doing,
making this a grand federal scheme that does not include only
insurance? Why does he not return this to a true insurance program
and only that?
Is there a long range plan behind all this? It is obvious this is
simply tinkering. Is there some direction? Are we going to go
beyond this?
The minister's press releases said a five-cent reduction in the
premiums will create 20,000 jobs approximately. If that is true,
20,000 jobs with the unemployment we have is a drop in the
bucket. If we can create jobs by tinkering with it only five cents,
what is stopping the minister from reducing the premiums even
more and creating more jobs? That is a very obvious question and a
contradiction as far as I am concerned in what the minister is
saying. If he wants to really create jobs why is he not doing more?
There is doublespeak. He says we are putting money in the hands
of the individuals for empowerment. Why is he taking it out in the
first place? The federal government charges a big handling fee
whenever it takes money and does whatever it wants with it.
Bureaucrats do not work for free.
17207
I have several other questions. Perhaps throughout the day I will
have a chance to ask them. I have asked three key questions we
need answered now.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for his compliments. I wish my father were here
to listen to him. He may actually believe them. My father was an
insurance agent. He had a small insurance agency in the north end
of Winnipeg. It was enough to keep us together and to go to school.
I learned one lesson when he was involved in the insurance field
and that is the best way to be a good insurer is to reduce the risk.
When he sold casualty insurance or fire insurance he always went
along with a good program to ensure that people would have good
wiring in their houses, that they would reduce the risk of accidents,
whether it was health or safety or whatever.
When we have an unemployment insurance system, what do we
do? We reduce the risk of unemployment. That is the best way to
bring costs down, to protect against it. That is why it is a full
insurance program. That is why as a trustee we have to invest in
getting people back to work. That was the fundamental purpose.
It would be interesting if the hon. member read the debates from
the House in the early 1940s. He would learn from that. The basic
premise was that only on a national level could we ensure there was
both a spread and sharing of the risk but also that we would try to
reduce the risk. Only a national government which was responsible
for the management of the overall economy could provide the kind
of priorities and judgments in concert with others. That is why the
provinces ceded responsibility at that time.
The hon. member would know that insurance is very much a
question of reducing risk. That is why in our business we want to
invest in bringing down unemployment and giving people a chance
to get back to work.
The second question is legitimate. As the hon. member knows,
we try to balance our program. When we want to talk about
creating jobs we do not do it by one mechanism alone. Reducing
costs for business is one important way but it is not the only way.
I have explained in the House a couple of times that what we
want to do first is build up a reserve. It means we can protect
against the really quite tragic and disastrous effects of what
happened in the early nineties when the previous government did
not have a reserve fund. When the recession hit it had to escalate
premiums by almost 95 cents. It was the classic putting on the
brakes while trying to go up hill.
(1125)
The reality is the unemployment insurance system was designed
to put money into the economy as a counter cyclical measure at a
time when a recession is taking place. That government pulled
money out because there was no reserve built up in order to insure
and stabilize employment.
It was a clear recommendation to the House of Commons
committee by business, labour and other groups that we have to
build up a reserve, which is what we want to do.
We are still paying off the deficit of the nineties. We inherited a
$6 billion deficit in the UI account when we came to government.
We have been wearing that away for the past two years. That is why
we need to build up the reserve. Each year the Minister of Finance
will take a look at the accumulation in that reserve and how it can
then be adjusted for further reductions for business.
This year we thought we would be prudent and give a premium
reduction. We have also provided savings to business by making a
substantial simplification of the system. We will have the ROE, the
bugbear of business, which will be substantially simplified and will
save $150 million. That is a good first step.
We froze premiums when we came in. We have now reduced
them as a first step. We are bringing down the cost for business and
each year it will be reviewed.
In the meantime we can assure Canadians, at a time when the
business cycle becomes more difficult, we will have a reserve so
we will not be taking money out of the economy when we actually
want to stimulate the economy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While these compliments
are going across the floor and directed to the Chair, I must say it is
appreciated. However, what we appreciate the most is the respect
the House continues to show for our institution through the Chair
and its occupant at any one time.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to request of you and through you to the minister that
any remarks on the presence or absence of my colleague from
Mercier, as was made in the previous portion of the debate, be
deleted from Hansard.
She is accorded the respect of all of us according to
parliamentary procedures. One of the core issues relevant to that
respect is that we do not remark on whether she is here or not.
There were comments made by the minister during his speech and
by colleagues surrounding him that may be part of the blues. I
would like that to be addressed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me see if I can be helpful
from my perspective. I am certainly satisfied that at no time did the
Minister of Human Resources Development make any reference to
the absence of anyone in the House. I will review the blues and if
someone else did then it would be a matter for the Chair to take
under advisement.
17208
I appreciate the reminder by the member for Calgary Southeast
not only of a tradition but a rule of the House that is very
important to our deliberations. We all know the constraints on our
time away from the House. Therefore I fully respect the member's
intervention.
I do not think there is a point of order. We are engaging in
debate. I will return to the debate on the motion of the official
opposition.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
your comments.
Like everyone speaking today, I am honoured to address this
motion. I clearly do not support the motion because referencing
only Quebec narrows its scope. When the intent behind the motion
is applied more appropriately to all provinces then of course I
would support such an action.
At the end of my speech I will amend the motion so that it refers
to the powers of all the provinces. Given they should all be treated
equally, we must ensure motions such as these reflect that.
The motion proposed by my hon. colleague allows us to address
some of the points made in the recent so-called employment
insurance reforms. We believe the government intends to prorogue
the House but in doing so may try to manipulate House procedure
to ensure this legislation does not die on the Order Paper. Tabling
the bill so close to Christmas break demonstrates that the
government either does not expect to give it second reading until
next February or that it hopes the bill will die on the Order Paper.
Either way, tabling the bill as it has amounts to nothing more than
irresponsible governance.
(1130)
I will first address some of the amendments to employment
insurance and then will focus on the government's failure to
transfer powers to the provinces for labour market training. In its
throne speech on January 18, 1994, the government stated that
Canada's social security system must be responsive to the
economic and social realities of the 1990s. This was a noble
sentiment and we agree with it. However, the government also said
in the throne speech that it would announce an action plan for
major reform of the social security system to be completed within
two years.
The minister's announcement is not major reform of the social
security system and it barely qualifies as reform of the
unemployment insurance system. I say this because the minister's
tinkering will not create a single sustainable job.
Let us take a closer look at some of the changes. This is cosmetic
change, not the kind of real governmental changes that Canadians
are demanding. It is a name change; unemployment insurance is
now employment insurance. Do we think that Canada's
unemployed care about what the program is called?
Unemployment by any other name is unemployment. It is this kind
of rhetorical grandstanding of which Canadians have grown weary.
Changing the name of UI to EI will not create a single sustainable
job in Canada.
There is a rollback of payroll taxes of five cents for every $100.
This is a tax rollback of one-twentieth of one per cent. This
amounts to a savings akin to a wooden nickel. It is hard to imagine
this so-called tax cut will create a single sustainable job in Canada.
The minister wants Canadians to think he has rolled taxes back
but let us look at what is really going on. Part time workers will
now have to pay the UI payroll tax which includes employer and
employee shares totalling a 7 per cent tax hike. When eligibility is
changed from weeks to hours, the government is imposing a tax
grab on part time workers, a tax grab of over $1 billion.
This means youth in Canada and working moms, many of them
single parents, will have to foot the bill. Youth and working
mothers will have to work many hours to be eligible for benefits.
While they are accumulating benefits the minister will be sure to
tax their paycheques. The big problem with this is the lengthy
period of eligibility. It is often the case, as it is with the nature of
part time work, that the contributors will move from job to job with
short periods of unemployment in between. This means youth and
working moms will pay benefits and seldom will be able to collect.
This amounts to a substantial tax grab on a segment of society
which can least afford it.
The government has no estimates of how many jobs will be lost
because of it. It does not know how many jobs will be lost because
it has failed to do a thorough analysis of this aspect of the bill.
According to statistics ending in October of this year, youth
unemployment in Canada stands at 15.6 per cent. We needed to
hear yesterday and today some ideas on how to get our youth into
meaningful work situations. Instead of positive change we have
learned that today's proposals will cause employers to hire fewer
part time workers because a tax is effectively imposed on the hiring
of part time employees.
Let me restate this point. Part time workers now represent a
massive tax hike on employers. This will not create a single
sustainable job. In fact this change may choke off part time work
altogether. This is especially disturbing when one considers that a
growing percentage of the labour force is employed part time.
The minister announced an $800 million job training program.
The auditor general's recent report indicated that these expensive
and wasteful schemes do not create jobs. He criticized the Western
Economic Diversification Program, ACOA in the Atlantic
provinces and FORD-Q in Quebec. We all know what a colossal
failure
17209
the TAGS program has been. The government itself admits that the
$6 billion infrastructure program only created a few thousand short
term jobs.
(1135 )
Perhaps what is most disturbing about this announcement and
more specifically related to the motion we are debating today
relates to labour market training. It is clear from the government's
package that the Prime Minister broke faith with Canadians when
he announced he was giving labour market training to the
provinces.
The minister is trying to sneak through the back door a new
made in Ottawa social program scheme which will intrude on
provincial jurisdiction. He has created two mega programs and for
all these new programs all the provinces must reach agreement
with the federal government. The Liberal government needs to give
power and resources to the provinces with no strings attached. If
not, then the gesture is meaningless. The government simply does
not understand what decentralization means.
Let us move on now to decentralization, an issue that has
garnered significant attention of late, especially given that the EI
changes break the Prime Minister's Verdun commitment which he
reiterated on Tuesday last week.
It is ironic that we debate the government's broken promise of
decentralizing manpower training today. Today at committee we
will hear the bureaucrats explain to us how Bill C-96 also fails to
decentralize powers. In fact, the bill may even create new powers
for the federal government. Even if this new power never manifests
itself, the bill at a minimum entrenches the status quo of federal
intervention into provincial areas of social policy jurisdiction,
areas I am sad to say for which the new EI bill fails to relinquish
power.
I find it quixotic, though I suppose not entirely uncharacteristic,
that the government would try to enact legislation which engenders
and champions the notion of centralization and the status quo. To
do so amidst the decentralization forces pressuring the country to
change is profoundly absurd.
Recent events have shown to all that fundamental change is
required of our federation. There is almost universal agreement
that the federal government needs to rethink its current role as
provider of services and programs. In areas of social policy we
cannot continue to support a system which separates the revenue
raising capacity from the expenditure function. In other areas too
there is strong evidence to support devolution to the most logical
level of government.
In October the Reform Party released its vision for a new
confederation. Reform believes that decentralization will permit
future governments to respond more effectively to the needs of
ordinary Canadians. It also addresses many of the historic concerns
of individuals from all provinces.
Reform's plan includes giving provinces exclusive control over
natural resources, job training, municipal affairs, housing, tourism,
sports and recreation. It gives the provinces control over setting
their own interprovincial standards for health, welfare and
education, replacing federal cash transfers with tax points, and
allowing provinces to raise their own taxes to finance social
programs.
This decentralization will lead to a more balanced federation,
one in which Ottawa will play a co-operative role rather than a
dominating role. The proposals outlined in the new confederation
speak to the long term. They furnish Canada with a vision. They
put flesh on the conceptual bones of a new federalism. This is the
kind of leadership that has been conspicuously absent from the
current government benches.
How can one govern without a coherent direction? It is
incomprehensible. I am not talking about prescience here, but
about the courage to say: ``These are my ideas; this is my vision''.
We have seen none of that from the government.
The traditional response to fiscal crisis has been centralization,
consolidation and concentration. This instinct increasingly leads to
failure. Centralized control and consolidated agencies create more
waste, not less. There are many reasons that Reform speaks for this
vision of decentralization and they will be outlined.
Decentralization will engender greater flexibility allowing
institutions to respond more quickly to changing circumstances and
client needs. Decentralization will create more effective program
and service delivery, as the deliverers and providers of government
assistance are closer to those they serve.
Decentralization will reduce waste, overlap and duplication
created by concurrent jurisdictions and poorly co-ordinated
government programs and services. Decentralization will engender
greater fiscal responsibility, for a government that spends the
money it raises will inherently be more accountable than one that
spends the money someone else collects.
(1140 )
Decentralization in regard to the tax system is most compatible
with the tenets of federalism. The efforts of a federal form of
government is local autonomy. In its designated spheres, each unit
is free to exercise its policy discretion unencumbered.
It is important to remember in this debate on labour market
training that decentralization is neither a celebrated buzzword nor a
passing political fad. It is a policy movement that has been
vigorously championed in Canada since the 1960s. It represents
reconfiguring the locus of attention in the federation.
17210
Former B.C. Liberal Party leader Gordon Gibson writes in his
new book: ``Canadians ultimately want less control by Ottawa and
more local management of their affairs. The basic concept here is
government closer to home. Now home is where the heart is in our
private lives perhaps, but in government terms, home is where the
folks have the knowledge and resources to do the job. That single
thought takes us a long way''.
Adhering to the rule of thumb that the responsibility for
addressing problems should lie with the lowest level of government
possible does not require that we disavow the notion of federal
leadership. A federal government with fewer employees, fewer
departments and smaller budgets can still have a steering role in
Canadian society. There would still be a policy framework setting
function in certain areas even if no services were delivered.
These would include: policy areas that transcend the capacities
of state and local governments such as international trade,
macroeconomic policy and much environmental and regulatory
policy; social insurance programs like employment compensation
where paying equal benefits to all citizens requires that rich and
poor share differentiated burdens; and investments that are so
costly that they require tax increases which might discourage
business from locating or staying in a city or province. These are
fundamental to leadership and to federalism at the central
government level.
Even in these cases, Reform believes that programs can be
designed to allow for significant flexibility at the provincial or
municipal level. The federal government can and must work with
provincial governments to define jointly the mission and the
outcome, but in doing so it must free lower governments to achieve
those outcomes as they see fit.
Today we see that British Columbia is going to be penalized to
the tune of $47 million for trying to do just that. What has been the
Liberal response to decentralization?
Mr. Bevilacqua: Breaking the law.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Decentralization is not about
breaking the law with all due respect to my hon. colleague on the
other side of the House. The government has resisted the natural
ebb and flow of this federation by operating completely oblivious
to its surroundings.
We saw this in the recent referendum. The government grossly
miscalculated by adhering to a status quo position. Only when it
became obvious that its policy was a complete failure did it move
to make insincere promises of change. Now where is this change?
Where is this vision for a new federation, a new federalism? Where
is the blueprint for a renewed Canada? Where is the leadership to
bring forward such a plan, given this government's previous
attempts at major change? I would suggest that we will be waiting a
long time before we see substantive and meaningful change.
Let me give one example of how this government is failing to
deliver on its promises to reform and decentralize social programs.
Consider the current welfare issue in British Columbia. I wanted to
come back to that in my text because it is extremely significant
today. When the province made changes to its own program by
stipulating a residency requirement for welfare qualification, the
federal government stepped in, and it has indeed stepped in, in a
punitive fashion today, and threatened the province. Yesterday the
artificial deadline passed in B.C. and we now see the results of
what has happened.
There is no question that the B.C. government should be
permitted to administer its affairs without federal interference. The
minister, rather than taking such punitive action against the
province should back off and leave it free to run its own programs.
It is absurd for the minister, who has radically reduced transfers to
the provinces, to turn around and intervene in provincial
jurisdictions.
The minister continues to refuse to meet with the provinces over
the Canada health and social transfer. Now when the provinces try
to move forward, he stands in their way. Go figure. It would seem
this is the Liberal position on co-operative federalism. How
terribly predictable. How truly unfortunate. How really ``made in
Ottawa'' it is.
(1145)
During our briefings on Bills C-111 and C-112 we were provided
with a briefing package on the changes these bills provide. At every
twist and turn and at every reference to labour market training it is
very clear that the provinces must negotiate with the government.
They must seek to enter into a formal agreement with the federal
government on how employment insurance benefits will work and
how they will be delivered. Instead of giving complete power and
adequate resources to the provinces, these amendments give a de
facto veto to the federal government over the management and
control of manpower training programs.
Ironically, the Liberal government is holding on for dear life to
programs it has proven it is absolutely incapable of managing
properly.
Just two weeks ago the auditor general stated in his report that
there are grounds for concern that a lack of training in key areas
may be producing a braking effect on jobs for the unemployed
when the economy is expanding. Clearly, Canada's auditor general
believes that the Liberal government is failing in its attempt to
create those long term sustainable jobs, jobs, jobs we keep hearing
about from the other side of the House. In fact, one may conclude
from his comments that the government is actually hindering job
creation, not helping it.
17211
The minister's changes amount to mere tinkering, not a
sweeping and comprehensive reform. What we need are systemic
reforms that address the needs of the chronically unemployed,
which was what UI in 1940 was intended to do. It was to provide
a bridge for short term unemployment, not the massive social
safety net we now see.
I would like to share briefly with the House three options for
change the minister did not address. Two of the options involve
decentralizing power for training programs to the lowest level of
government: directly to the individual. Our options for
relinquishing control to individuals are motivated by the desire for
individuals to care for themselves when they are capable of doing
so. That is absolutely fundamental to the Reform ideology of
individuals accepting responsibility to take care of themselves
when they are able to do so. That is not too difficult to understand.
However, the government wants to maintain control over
training because it is a traditional political activity to maintain
visibility in the area of employment and job creation. After all, the
election is only two years down the road, and we want to be visible
out there. Boy, we went out there and created those jobs, jobs, jobs.
Are we not good?
The first option to be considered is that employment insurance
could be returned to a true insurance plan, as it was originally
intended to be when it was created in the 1940s. This would mean
doing away with regional inequities in the program and ensuring
that only those who truly need benefits receive them.
The system has become an income supplement. Income
supplement does not, in my definition, translate to insurance. We
believe there is a need and place for income supplements, but they
should not be in UI or EI or whatever it is called. UI was meant to
provide workers with temporary assistance for brief periods of time
when they were between jobs.
The second option would be for individuals to change how they
contribute to unemployment insurance. They could contribute to
registered employment savings trusts, or REST accounts. These
accounts would be mandatory and would be used at the discretion
of the individual. As many people never use UI, it is only a tax with
no benefit. With a REST account, similar to RRSPs, if the funds are
not used the money could be directed into their super-RRSP
accounts. This idea is not without its problems; I acknowledge that.
The period of transition would be difficult and youth and the
intermittently employed may find the plan difficult to manage.
A third option for the government is to drastically slim down EI,
return it to a true insurance plan, and at the same time have
individuals contribute to REST accounts. These things would
happen together. This plan would ensure that the chronically
unemployed are cared for and that those people who are seldom
unemployed would be able to administer their own employment
insurance program. They would not be taxed.
These are three options we are developing. We hope that in the
new year we will be able to finalize our research and bring our plan
forward to Reform's general assembly in June, where the
membership, the people, can debate and come to a final decision on
this important policy plank.
(1150)
Having proposed options for decentralizing training, and after
having demonstrated yet again how badly the Liberal government
has broken its promise to transfer labour market training, I move:
That all the words after ``prevents'' be deleted and replaced with the words
``the governments of all the provinces of Canada from adopting a true labour
market training policy of their own''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): On the proposed amendment
to the official opposition motion moved by the hon. member for
Calgary Southeast, I will take it under advisement and the Chair
will respond to this matter in the shortest time possible and get
back to the House.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the
Reform Party, the human resources development critic. At a time
of constant change in our society, we welcome the meeting of
minds and any exchanges that can take place between legislators
and other individuals who are willing to propose new ideas.
Although I may not agree with the concept prescribed by the hon.
member, I certainly congratulate her on making at least the effort to
come up with a new employment insurance plan.
I have some fundamental questions in relation to a couple of
points. One deals with the issue of federal-provincial relations,
which is preoccupying the minds of the Reform Party members and
of course the Bloc Quebecois as well. Other questions relate to the
employment insurance package as it relates to small business.
On the issue of decentralization of federal-provincial relations,
members of Parliament who have followed this file attentively
would probably find that the federal government has made many
efforts with all the provincial governments to come up with a plan
of action that speaks to the reality of the various provinces. As a
matter of fact, the Minister of Human Resources Development has
met with many of his counterparts. Part and parcel of this
employment insurance legislation speaks to the fact that when we
are talking about the tools, namely the self-employment assistance,
the skills and loan grants, the top-ups in earnings, the federal
government is co-operating with the provinces.
17212
Second, on the definition of decentralization, local
empowerment, and the redefinition of the relationship among the
individual, the community, and government, it is clear to me that
if we are to give vouchers or give the opportunity to an individual
to make up his or her choice, that is the ultimate form of
decentralization. May I add, it speaks to the confidence the federal
government has in the people of Canada.
(1155 )
We believe the people of Canada can make the best choices for
their own lives. They understand that in a changing economy they
need to upgrade their skills, they need training opportunities, they
need the types of vehicles that will ease their transition from the
unemployment rolls onto the payrolls of our country.
Talking about payrolls, the issue of job creation is extremely
important for the people of Canada. As a result of the measures
taken in this bill, 100,000 to 150,000 jobs will be created. Who will
create them? Small business, which is responsible for the creation
of 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all new jobs in this country.
What have we done to enhance the opportunities for small
business? We have lowered the premiums. The hon. member from
the Reform Party says it is only a nickel. The reality is that if the
hon. member were to calculate the reduction that occurs, not only
to premium rates, and include the fact that maximum insurable
earnings have gone down from $43,000 to $39,000, business also
incurs that saving.
Equally important in this discussion is that it is not only business
that gets the tax break, it is also individual Canadians who pay into
the fund. That is a very important point to underline.
Another issue is that we believe in building a strong
entrepreneurial spirit in this country. I think our actions speak to
that. One of the five tools we have outlined in the human resources
investment fund is the self-employment assistance program. Since
we formed the government, 34,000 people have participated in this
program, creating 60,000 jobs. That speaks to job creation and it
also speaks to empowering people and giving people the
opportunity that is required.
How else is small business being helped? The five tools will
enhance the human resources potential of our country, which
means we are going to have a better skilled workforce. A better
skilled workforce means we can set as a goal high-paying, highly
skilled jobs that produce high value added products. That is
extremely important to underline as we modernize our economy.
When we talk about modernization, what about the new labour
market information system that is going to connect business and
people from coast to coast to coast so we may match people and
also reduce the time people spend on the unemployment rolls of
our country?
These are extremely positive measures, not to mention what we
have learned from the past government's error in reference to
reserves. By building up a higher reserve we are going to make sure
that the next time there is a recession, hopefully not for a long time,
or the next time there is a downturn in the Canadian economy, we
will not be taxing small business and employees at a time when
they need tax relief. This reserve will make that transition from
economic downturns to better economic times a lot easier.
This will create stability in the premium rates. It will create jobs.
It will create confidence. It will generate the type of confidence
that is required so employment opportunities can be increased.
I would ask a simple question to the hon. member. In the
employment insurance package the Reform Party introduced to the
media a few months ago there are some fundamental flaws. One
flaw is that it excludes more people than it includes, unlike our
package, which brings in 500,000 people, including 44,500
seasonal workers who were excluded by the old unemployment
insurance package. Why does the Reform Party, whether it is on the
pension reform package or the employment insurance package,
continue to practise the politics of exclusion?
(1200)
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
I concur that this is a welcome meeting of the minds. We can
have reasoned debate. We can come to the House of Commons and
feel secure in knowing that at least our ideas will be received and
debated in an atmosphere of collegiality, understanding that we
come to this place with differing ideologies.
The simplest answer to the hon. member's question when it
comes to differing ideologies and how we understand and view the
unemployment insurance system is that there is no doubt in the
minds of the Reform Party that the unemployment insurance
system is a fundamental labour market institution as it was
developed in the 1940s. When it was developed in the 1940s it was
for a specific reason: temporary assistance as an individual moved
between jobs. It was not as it has now become, and I am quoting:
``a cornerstone of Canada's social safety net''.
If we look at it in those terms it is coming at the question from
two very different points of view. On the one hand we would like to
see it as part of and included in the labour market as a tool. On the
other hand it has become part and parcel of the fabric of social
support in Canada. Quite frankly, I do not quite know where a
meeting of the minds would find agreement. We could see where
each of us is going, based on our belief systems, on what we
believe to be right.
17213
Another comment with respect to the question of differing
ideologies is from something which appeared on page 20 of the
briefing notes we were given the other day. It comes back to the
question he asked. I question the political motivation behind the
part of the proposal dealing with employment benefits and
services.
The federal government is now committing to work in concert
with each province. The alarm bells start to sound when we start
thinking about each province. The hon. member talked about
inclusion and the same kinds of support across the country. Yet in
my mind it will obviously be different because each province is
invited to enter into agreements.
For the decentralization the hon. member has described, it tells
me there will probably be a different set of circumstances for each
province given its particular debt, deficit and unemployment
situation. This will include the agreements. That is why I say there
could be quite a difference when we are talking about
federal-provincial alignment.
The design of the employment benefits and measures, how they
will be implemented and a framework for evaluating the results tell
me there will be consistency across the country. It just opens a
social safety net to all kinds of expectations that perhaps the
government has not thought about.
With respect to the member's comment about growth and small
business in the country, there is no question that small business
generates lots of jobs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I ask the member to
summarize in the next minute or two, if she could, so that we could
resume the debate.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I have one
more point with respect to building up the reserve. I will move
away from the small business comments I wanted to make.
Regarding the surplus in UI, I maintain the finance minister will
probably do some very creative accounting with that surplus. He
will reach his 3 per cent of GDP in the next budget and it will be on
the backs of taxpayers in a UI surplus. Our growth rate right now,
as was just reported, has moved from 4.2 per cent to 2.3 per cent.
No one can tell me our economy is going anywhere. We have not
created a single sustainable job since the government came to
power.
(1205 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before we resume debate I
will return to the matter raised by the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast in her intervention about another member on the
government side referring to a member of the official opposition,
the Bloc Quebecois, not being present in her seat. I told the hon.
member at that time that I would review the blues.
I have the blues before me and a reference was made by a
government member that first of all she leaves. The member for
Calgary Southeast was entirely right that it occurred. Second and
most important it goes against the convention of the House to make
any reference to the absence of any member at any one time from
the Chamber.
I know other members such as the member for Lévis, and I
believe someone on the government side, wished to rise on the
point. I will consider the matter closed now that it has been raised
correctly by the member for Calgary Southeast. I thank her for her
intervention and the matter is closed.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in support of the motion by the hon. member for Mercier.
Before going on, I would like to thank the member for Calgary
Southeast for her vigilance, her attention and especially for having
raised the matter. I appreciate the intention, because the member
for Mercier indeed participates a lot in our work, she is very much
present in the House. I think the remarks in question were
inappropriate.
The debate is on a motion which reads as follows:
That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform
unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the
manpower sector and thus prevents the Government of Quebec from adopting a
true manpower development policy of its own.
I listened to the arguments by the member for Calgary Southeast
on the amendment she is proposing. I shall reserve my comments
on it for the moment, but I would like to thank her for her attention.
Her remarks indicate that other provinces would like to take charge
of manpower training.
However, after touring the country with the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development last year, I felt that some
provinces, such as the Atlantic provinces, were less keen, were not
necessarily fuelled by the same desire. They wanted the federal
government to remain very visible in this area, because they felt
that their province was perhaps experiencing economic difficulties
in this regard.
I simply want to say that the amendment proposed by the
member for Calgary Southeast would not be easy to apply, because
there does not appear to be a consensus, unlike in Quebec. This has
been shown very clearly. I say this to the member for Calgary
Southeast, I will discuss it in my speech, I will recall the historical
background of this claim by Quebec and the reason it is so
important to us.
To us, manpower training means education. Under Canada's
Constitution, education is a provincial matter. This is particularly
17214
important to Quebec, because education is also a cultural concept,
very close to our culture. It is a treasure to the people of Quebec.
All those involved in this area agree. I would point out that
yesterday the Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to again
remind the federal government of its position. When I speak of the
Quebec National Assembly, I am not talking just about the
members of the Parti Quebecois, but also the members of the
Quebec Liberal Party.
Yesterday's motion was passed with a vote of 96 in favour, none
against and no abstentions. It was therefore passed unanimously.
(1210)
What does this resolution say? It says:
``That Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to
manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate
accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs
in Quebec; ``Within the current constitutional framework and in order to
improve services to customers, Quebec must take over the control and
management of various services pertaining to employment and manpower
development and all programs that may be funded through the Unemployment
Insurance Fund within Quebec's borders, and must therefore receive the
funding appropriate to such responsibilities;
``The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the
co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government
that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives''.
Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to
immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order
to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the
Quebec people.
I stress that this motion was adopted unanimously.
A while ago, as I was shaking my head at something he said, the
minister introduced a historical dimension to the debate. I had
mentioned 1941 a bit earlier when answering a colleague's
question. I must make a correction, I was wrong by one year. The
constitutional amendment which enabled the federal government to
set up and run the unemployment insurance program was passed on
July 10, 1940. It was the British Parliament-as you know we had
to ask its permission-which amended section 91 of the British
North America Act, making it possible for the federal government
to set up the unemployment insurance program.
It would be useful at this point to summarize Quebec's claims.
Stakeholders in the labour market have recognized unanimously
the need to patriate to Quebec all responsibilities and federal
funding in the area of manpower training. The Liberal Party and the
Parti quebecois are in agreement on this.
It is also worth recalling that, in 1991, the former minister in
charge of manpower, income security and manpower training
claimed, in a policy statement from the Government of Quebec
about manpower development: ``For many years, Quebec has
claimed control over policy instruments affecting the work market.
In other words, the Government of Quebec and its economic
partners want laws, budgets, institutions, programs and services
concerning manpower or the operation of the work market to be
under one authority. Partners on the Quebec work market are
almost unanimous in recognizing that manpower policies must be
prepared by authorities as close as possible to the various work
markets''.
This request for devolution of manpower training goes back a
long way. In 1989, the job forum was a critical step in the
advancement of this cause. This is when the job market partners,
that is unions, employers and government, agreed to asl that
Ottawa hand over full responsibility for manpower training.
With such a consensus, the Government of Quebec officially
requested, in December 1990, that any federal moneys for
manpower programs be handed over to Quebec, including money
from the unemployment insurance fund used for that purpose. In
December 1990, the Liberal Party was in office, not the Parti
Quebecois, and Robert Bourassa was premier. The Liberal Party of
Quebec claimed exclusive jurisdiction not only over manpower
training, but also over other aspects of manpower development,
such as placement, employment assistance, job creation support,
etc.
(1215)
To back up this demand, the Quebec government created the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, or
SQDM, which was to serve as a link between all labour market
stakeholders and manage all manpower development programs in
Quebec.
The Quebec Liberal Party went even further, asking for an
administrative agreement allowing Quebec to manage the
unemployment insurance program within the province. It was
asking for a return to the pre-1840 situation. Quebec wanted to be
given jurisdiction in this area.
Otherwise, the federal government would have to maintain a
rather cumbersome administrative structure in Quebec. To make UI
benefits and related services accessible to the Quebec people, a
whole network would have to be maintained with all the
inconveniences of this kind of duplication.
In concrete terms, this agreement would have resulted in the UI
program running the SQDM.
This happened under the liberal government led by Robert
Bourassa, a true blue federalist. Now, you will ask, what sort of
problems is this situation creating in Quebec? At the same time,
one must recognize that there is a problem with vocational training
in Canada. In 1993, Canada was ranked 22nd out of 22 developed
countries for on-the-job training.
17215
According to available statistics, the federal network runs 27
training programs-the minister said earlier 38-and the Quebec
network 5. The federal government-which has started cutting
down-operates close to 100 Canada Employment Centres in
Quebec, while Quebec set up the SQDM to replace the former
Commission de formation professionnelle.
The original mandate of the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre was to work towards the creation of true single
windows in every Quebec region. Today, it acts more as a mere
manager of federal funds, without much of a say.
I would like to point out that in 1993-1994, transfer payments
accounted for 56 per cent of the SQDM budget, or $150.7 million
out of a total of $269.5 million, a true description, if ever there was
one, of Ottawa's control over manpower. The lack of co-ordination
between the two networks results in the unemployed being ill
served by the various manpower training programs.
An internal memo of the federal government did reveal that in
the spring of 1993-this is a federal memo, remember-nearly
25,000 unemployed people referred to a training program could not
register for lack of sufficient available places.
The policy statement of minister Bourbeau described how two
different manpower training networks could cause problems. It
said: ``We understand how hard it can be for an uninitiated person
or business to find its way among the multiple service centres like
the Canada Employment Centres, the offices of the Commission de
formation professionelle de la main-d'oeuvre, Travail Québec
centres, school boards, colleges, universities and the Department of
Manpower, Income Security and Skills Development.''
Minister Bourbeau, a liberal federalist, estimated at $275 million
the cost of these overlaps and duplications in manpower training
programs. The minister who said that was not a PQ member, not a
BQ member, not a sovereignist, but a federalist.
Both governments agree that manpower training programs must
change. The Minister of Human Resources Development said, in
his discussion paper on improving social security in Canada:
``Unfortunately, existing programs don't do this well enough. Too
many people end up in programs that have little to do with their
needs, aptitudes or opportunities. Many get training for jobs that
don't exist locally. Many are shunted from one program to another.
There are too many mismatched programs, with inconsistent rules
and too much red tape. Programs offered by different levels of
government are often not coordinated.''
(1220)
According to him, the system had to change. The federal
government is not alone in adding to the mess of manpower
training programs. We must recognize that, at the time, there were
too many manpower training programs. The present minister has
merged a number of programs, but she is having problems because
the federal is ever present and nothing leads us to believe that it
will willingly leave the field, since it is actually introducing new
measures. Yes, it says that it is offering them to the provinces, but it
intends to keep imposing guidelines. It intends to keep control.
The minister said a while ago, in his presentation, that we cannot
do away with controls because certain provinces-not Quebec but
others- had used the program's money to build public buildings.
He feels this is enough to justify a permanent control by the federal
government.
Basically, what he wants to do, what he would like to see is the
provinces, Quebec included, manage the programs listed in his bill.
He would like the provinces to do what he wants them to do. He is
treating the provinces has mere pawns. For us in Quebec, this flies
totally in the face of the established consensus.
I will quote someone else. The president of the Business Council
on National Issues, Mr. Thomas d'Aquino, added his voice to the
voices of those who recommend that the federal government hand
over manpower training to the provinces as fast as possible. On
October 28, 1994, Mr. d'Aquino said: ``There is no doubt in my
mind that decentralization in this area would be beneficial for the
Canadian economy. The sooner the politicians come to an
agreement on this question, the better''.
Last year, members of the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development travelled throughout Canada. When the
minister suggests that he is implementing recommendations that
the committee heard, let me say that I disagree with that. I travelled
to all the provinces of this country and to all the large cities of
Canada while travelling with the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development-the parliamentary secretary knows that,
he had to suffer the consequences. On some occasions, I had to
admire his courage in facing those who opposed his reform. But
when he tells us later that this is what Canadians want and wish,
after what I have seen and heard, when I know that 75 to 80 per cent
of briefs were against what the minister is now proposing, that is,
cuts of some $2 billion in unemployment insurance, I know that is
not what Canadians wished for.
People who came to testify before this committee said that what
is missing today is work, job opportunities. They wished that the
government would follow the policy outlined in its red book. The
Liberal slogan during the last election campaign was even ``Jobs,
jobs, jobs''. But we see that, in fact, there are not more jobs today.
But worse still, the proposed changes will create two kinds of
unemployed.
17216
As critic for training and youth, I see that a young person will
now have to work 910 hours over 52 weeks in order to qualify
for unemployment insurance. That represents 17.5 hours of work
per week in one year, every single week, in order to qualify.
Otherwise, he will not be eligible. He must reach this minimum
number of hours. So, it is now twice as hard for newcomers on
the labour market to qualify for unemployment insurance.
(1225)
And what do they do to unemployment insurance? They create a
fund and make it available to the provinces, and tell them: ``You
can help yourselves to some of it, but only under certain conditions
because we want to keep control over it, or else we are going to
take it away''.
But this fund the minister mentioned is made up of money
contributed by employers and employees. Why is the federal
government messing with this fund when, as everybody knows, it
has not contributed a single penny to unemployment insurance
since 1991? It is not this government who did that, but the
Conservative government. But now it is a profit nowadays with
unemployment insurance and is using part of this profit to provide
manpower training in a field which comes under provincial
jurisdiction.
This is what we are against and what we are condemning. There
is a small opening here. We saw that the Quebec National
Assembly, while establishing some parameters, is continuing to
emphasize the Quebec consensus on the need to repatriate all the
money spent by the federal government in manpower training, even
UI funds, because the federal government would use that money to
continue to multiply programs and to maintain duplication.
To conclude, I ask the government and the Minister of Human
Resources Development to be on the lookout, to listen more
carefully to what Quebecers want. He will see that Quebecers, not
only the sovereignists, the members of the Bloc Quebecois or the
Parti quebecois, but all Quebecers want the Quebec government to
be in charge, to be responsible for its policy concerning manpower,
training and all related services. I will conclude on that and I thank
you for your attention.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the comments made not only by the hon. member but
also by the critic who preceded him.
What struck me is the lack of sensitivity to individual
Quebecers, whether they live in Montreal, in my riding of Mount
Royal, in Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Lac-Saint-Jean,
or anywhere else in Quebec, because people who used to pay UI
premiums now have a need and a right to receive some money to
help them when they are jobless.
What stands out from all their arguments and remarks is that
they want the power to make decisions with Canada's money. As
usual, they forget to tell the truth. In fact, for every dollar invested
in Quebec by an individual in the labour force, this individual
receives $1.33 when unemployed. They want to deprive every
unemployed person of this 33 cents, which over time adds up to
millions and millions of dollars. What a great policy.
They then completely overlook the fact that this change
addresses realities in Quebec. Like other Canadians, Quebecers
must adapt their skills, attitudes and abilities to the new society.
They have completely forgotten this, and they want to set aside a
rather significant amount of money. We have injected over $4.2
billion into this program, but they have forgotten this and are
unwilling to tell their constituents. I find this very interesting. You
do not want to tell-
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask the hon. secretary of state to
please always address her comments to the Chair.
(1230)
Mrs. Finestone: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to ask
my hon. colleague the following question: does he not want to
spread the news that the Government of Canada is pumping $4.2
billion into the system instead of $4 billion, including more than
$500,000 in measures for the unemployed?
Also, of the $800 million $240 million would go to Quebec, for a
total of $747 million in extra money, and he wants to take what
away. Does he really want to deprive his constituents of that? My
constituents want jobs, they want retraining, they want training,
they want decent working conditions, they want wage subsidies and
remuneration supplements.
Regarding women, does my hon. colleague want benefits for
women or does he want to take away benefits that help ensure the
financial independence of women? We are talking about individual
insurable earnings and basic employment insurance benefits
calculated on these earnings that go to the women and not to
government, for governance, but to each working woman.
In addition, women who are currently holding more than one job
or working part time at different places will immediately qualify,
but the hon. member does not approve of this change. He does not
want them to be recognized as part of this change or those in need
of assistance, like low income families with children, many of
which are headed by women, to be afforded protection by the
reform. There will be family income supplements, but he does not
want to recognize the fact that this may mean an increase of up to
about 80 per cent in the basic amount for low income families. He
does not want to recognize that fact.
Neither do Bloc members, in spite of the fact that they are taking
steps for reasons of efficiency relating to their culture, want UI
recipients to be able to supplement their income by earning $50 a
week without seeing their benefits adversely affected. They do not
want to recognize that maternity leave and parental leave
allowances as well as sick benefits and temporary disability
benefits are maintained and provide basic support to Canadian
workers and
17217
their families. They refuse to recognize the fact that the reform is
actually helping women overcome barriers to employment as a
result of reinvesting in targeted employment measures, daycare and
income support.
I for one would like to know why the Bloc members, who were
elected to this place to represent their constituents at the federal
level, cannot and will not recognize that the proposals will have the
effect of better protecting families, and women in particular, and
why they are so intent on not giving the plain and simple facts to
their constituents. Why do they not at least have the openness to
say that, from now on, anyone who has received UI benefits or a
maternity leave allowance in the last three years will have access to
job search services? Why do they refuse to spread this good news?
Could the hon. member give me an answer on that?
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment before
replying to the secretary of state for the status of women. For
reasons of time, I cannot answer all of her questions. However, I
want to make an observation. Most of the hon. member's
comments had to do with the UI project, while today's debate is on
a motion dealing with manpower training.
(1235)
Through the Chair-since we must always comply with
parliamentary rules-I want to provide some information to the
secretary of state for the status of women, who asked specific
questions.
Why is it that we, Quebecers and Bloc Quebecois members, will
not fulfil her wish to see Quebecers accept that the federal
government bypass their provincial government in order to go
directly to individuals? That is what she said, they want to reach
individual Canadians. The hon. member said that we are really
turning this into a power struggle. This is what she is suggesting:
``You are turning this issue into a power struggle and, because of
that, we, the federal government, have a problem adequately
reaching individuals''. Such a view truly reflects an attitude which
still prevails and which has to do with reaching Quebecers,
individually, in fields that come under Quebec's jurisdiction.
The hon. member sees this as a power struggle. Earlier, in my
comments, I tried to show the adverse effects of maintaining such
duplication on these same individuals who want to get proper
training.
At one time, there were 25,000 people in Quebec seeking to get
vocational training, but unable to get it, because sometimes one
level of government would not have the required funds, while at
other times it would be the other one. The funds allocated to a
particular program had run out. There were some 30 federal
programs, and approximately the same number of Quebec
programs. Confused by all this overlap, the unfortunate individual
was sometimes discouraged. Because they kept on trying others
obtained the information they required, but it was often too late
because the funds had run out.
For example, people registering in employability enhancement
centres could be asked if they were UI recipients. If they said: ``No,
I am on welfare'', they would be told they did not qualify and
should turn to the Quebec government or to Quebec funded
agencies. The reverse was also possible for welfare recipients. It is
always like that.
I am quite familiar with current federal programs, because I have
been studying the issue thoroughly for the past two years, and I can
say that only 15 per cent of welfare recipients can benefit from
federally developed or supervised activities. The same thing can be
said about the province, and one must understand the reasons for
that situation.
As Quebec must pay welfare benefits, even if 50 per cent of the
funds come from the federal government, the province was well
advised to create programs that helped people qualify for UI
benefits, which is what they did. When they qualified for UI
benefits the federal government decided to develop a program to
retrain them.
I have been in the House two years now and I know that some of
my constituents have registered in one program after another but
are still unemployed because the system has not met their needs.
We are exposing that problem and we want it solved. According
to the consensus reached in Quebec since the employment forum,
only one government, the Quebec government, should have full
responsibility for manpower training. That is what Quebec wants.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Before debate is resumed, I see the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast in her place.
(1240 )
The Chair has been asked to rule on the validity of the
amendment made earlier today by the hon. member for Calgary
Southeast. Her amendment reads:
That all the words be deleted after the word ``prevents'' and be replaced with
the words ``the governments of all the provinces of Canada from adopting a true
labour market training policy of their own''.
The motion of the official opposition reads:
[Translation]
That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform
unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the
manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a
true manpower development policy of its own.
17218
[English]
Under the circumstances the Chair must rule the proposed
amendment is not valid within our rules. Briefly, the reasons are
that the amendment would change the nature of the debate
significantly in two respects. First, the official opposition's motion
focuses on Quebec only, as it is entitled to do, whereas the
amendment enlarges the debate to all of the provinces.
Second, the official opposition's motion refers to manpower
development policy whereas the amendment proposed by the
member for Calgary Southeast refers to labour market training
policy.
On page 257 of Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 929 reads:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an
amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that
proposed in the original motion. Journals, March 16, 1971, p. 416.
Accordingly, and with thanks to the member for Calgary
Southeast for her submission, the Chair must rule the amendment is
not receivable and not valid under our rules.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
When we debate in the House we often think about what the real
people with real problems and real challenges are thinking as they
see us exchange points of view. I wonder today what the
unemployed Quebecer in Chicoutimi, Laval or Trois-Rivières
would think about the motion brought forward by the hon. member
for Mercier and the Bloc Quebecois.
What would the single mother think as she struggles to hold
down two part time jobs, scared to death that her family will end up
on the street? What would the older worker think who sees his job
disappearing while all the new jobs required better skills? What
would the small business owner think who wants to create jobs and
hire new workers but cannot afford to compete with the UI
economy? What would the young student think as she prepares to
leave school and sees her older friends already collecting
unemployment insurance for the third, fourth or fifth time at a very
young age?
These people are looking for a decent chance at a good job with a
good income. Instead the Bloc Quebecois has unfortunately
resorted to this motion, a motion I believe has nothing to do with
reality. It has nothing to do with the real challenges real people face
in Quebec and outside of Quebec or with the real thrust of the
employment insurance bill.
Instead, unfortunately the Bloc Quebecois wants to pick a fight.
It wants to pick a fight where there is really nothing to fight about.
Is the Bloc truly concerned about provincial jurisdiction over
training? Perhaps it should listen to the Prime Minister, to the
minister who wrote this bill. Bloc members must read the bill
itself.
(1245 )
The federal government is saying loudly and clearly that we will
do nothing in this area without the express consent of the
provinces. We will get out of any activities that might be seen as
interfering with provincial responsibilities.
Is the Bloc truly concerned about overlap and duplication? Then
listen to what we are saying. We are saying loudly and clearly to the
provinces: If you want to deliver the employment benefits under
this new system, we can live with that. If you have your own
programs that do the same thing, let us use your programs. If you
want to find better ways to co-ordinate programs and get rid of
overlap and duplication, then let us do it.
The minister has extended an open hand to Quebec, to all
provinces by saying let us build a new and better partnership.
Quebec was the very first province to respond and the response was
yes, let us talk. The Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to
enter into talks with the federal government on the very same day
the legislation was tabled.
It is time that members of the Bloc Quebecois realized that time
and reality have passed them by. Quite simply, the motion they
have brought forward is out of date. It was made obsolete by the
very bill they are trying to condemn. Let us stop. Canadians,
whether they live in Quebec or outside Quebec, are tired of what
really are imaginary battles.
What Canadians want us to do as responsible members of this
Chamber is to get down and do the job that needs to be done. They
want us to create a climate where people feel secure, a climate
where jobs are created, where people are given opportunities and
are empowered to make the best decisions possible for them, for
their community and indeed for their nation.
As a federal member of Parliament, as a member of the Canadian
government, I know we have made every effort possible to reach
out to the provinces in the spirit of co-operation and goodwill. We
have extended our hand to anyone who wants to sit down, to get
together in a very meaningful partnership and implement the
changes people are asking for.
I respect the hon. member for Lévis as a very hard working
member of the human resources development committee. Of
course, I do not share his point of view in reference to the issue of
separation and many others. Now is not the time to throw up our
arms; it is a time to roll up our sleeves.
17219
There are people out there who depend on legislators to bring
about positive change to their lives. It is for this reason that I get
up in this House convinced that the employment insurance bill the
government tabled is a very good bill. It is worth supporting and
takes into consideration the very sensitivities that the Bloc
Quebecois, the Reform Party and Canadians in general have
brought forward during the debate on social security review.
What are we trying to achieve with the employment insurance
bill? The employment insurance bill recognizes two fundamental
things. One is that people during time of unemployment require
income security. It is provided in the bill. It also recognizes the fact
that there is a different economy out there. Long term
unemployment since 1976 has tripled which speaks to the
structural changes of unemployment.
People are staying unemployed for a longer period of time. Why
is that? Because they do not have the skills required to get the new
jobs. We need to have an active measure introduced which is
referred to as a human resources investment fund.
(1250)
The $800 million human resources investment fund has five
tools which include a target income supplement, wage top-ups,
skills and loans grants. There are job partnerships and
self-employment assistance which has been working extremely
well. There have been 68,000 jobs already created. We have
lowered premiums to generate job creation which benefits not only
small business but also individual Canadians. We have reduced the
maximum insurable earnings which again reduces the premiums.
We have taken all those steps because we believe that the system
needs changing. We are doing this also with a great deal of fairness.
Low income families will be able to get up to 80 per cent of their
average earnings. The 500,000 people who were excluded from
unemployment insurance are brought into the system. UI
exhaustees who were shut out of the past system are now brought in
if they have had an attachment to unemployment insurance in the
past three years. Anyone who was receiving parental benefits over
the past five years will be able to access one of the re-employment
tools which means they will be given opportunities for
re-employment.
Above all, we are not only modernizing the employment
insurance system, but the net result of these measures through the
various measures including a $300 million transition job fund will
be the creation of over 100,000 new jobs for Canadians. We are
doing this for the people of Canada who throughout the hearings
told us that they wanted a system that would help Canadians get
jobs, keep their jobs, a system that would help the most vulnerable
and do it in a sustainable fashion. They too understood that the
program as it is today could not be sustained when in 10 years it has
gone from $8 billion to $20 billion.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his remarks,
the parliamentary secretary talked about ``real Canadians'', and
then about ``real problems''.
We on this side also feel we are talking about ``real problems'',
and we also happen to feel there exists such a thing as ``real
Quebecers'', but they include not only Bloc members who are
intent on paralysing the government. The parliamentary secretary
himself read the resolution passed by the Quebec National
Assembly. This resolution was supported and passed by all
members. It was supported by the Parti Quebecois members on the
government side, but also by members of the Liberal Party of
Quebec.
Needless to say, the official opposition does not feel isolated on
this side of the debate as he would have us believe by saying we are
the only ones who do not want to co-operate and discuss solutions.
Let me put a few questions to the parliamentary secretary.
Concerning the partnership he was talking about, what does the
federal government intend to do about employability development
organizations? I should point out that all of them have been advised
that their mandate will be over on March 30th. What will happen to
them after that? After all, they are funded by the federal
government. Could he outline the alternatives for me?
Time permitting, could he also tell me what will happen with the
program for independent students? Funds for this program ran out a
long time ago in many ridings. It is all very fine to have programs,
but what good are they when there are no funds? What does the
government intend to do between now and March 30th for those
people who want to go on training? This is an existing program.
What is it that prevents the federal government from keeping those
programs alive until an agreement is reached?
(1255)
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis
for his question which deals with an interesting point. He is
concerned about what is going to happen with training institutions
and the independent studies.
The $800 million human resources investment fund that we have
announced will target five areas. There will be agencies that will
have to deliver this program. I also want to bring to the hon.
member's attention, and I am sure it is good news he already knows
about, the fact that it is not only $800 million. This will be added to
a fund of $1.9 billion which means that we as the federal
17220
government are investing approximately $2.7 billion on those five
tools.
We are empowering individuals and local communities and
provincial governments, if that may be the case. These programs
will be delivered by organizations. Some of those organizations
may be the organizations the hon. member correctly brought to the
attention of the House.
We have to put this debate into its proper context. The federal
government felt that the system which presently exists was not
working, and the hon. member knows this because Canadians told
us from coast to coast to coast. There were far too many jobs and
skills mismatched, which thereby also increased unemployment.
What is positive about our program is that it is better targeted. It
collapses 39 programs into five. They are five tools that we know
actually work because over the past two years we have done
experiments and pilot projects with these five programs.
If we look at the self-employment assistance, 34,000 people
participated and 68,000 jobs were created. If we look at the wage
top-ups and earning supplements, these have also increased the
duration that people stay on the jobs plus their income, which is
something we need to address as a federal government. We need to
provide people with job opportunities and also good jobs that
increase income levels.
Fundamentally I want to conclude my response by turning 360
degrees to the hon. member's question on my earlier comments. By
that I mean, as we debate this in the House of Commons, Canadians
are faced with the challenges of an ever changing economy. I spoke
about the young people, the older workers, the multiple job holder
and the part time employees who under the present unemployment
insurance program are being marginalized and excluded. We will
find that Canadians will respond well to this employment insurance
bill. It brings people into the fold. It provides greater income
security and opportunities. It recognizes that in an ever changing
economy we need to do things better. We need to target things
better.
From a fairness point of view there is the fact that low income
Canadians with dependents will get a top up which will make them
reach approximately 80 per cent of their average earnings. There is
the fact that people who were excluded or were UI exhaustees in
the past three years will have access to the programs. The only
thing they have now is to go on social assistance.
People who were on parental benefits in the past five years will
also receive the opportunity to access one of the five pools of the
human resources investment fund. That may be a very important
bridge to the workplace, to get them back to work.
Overall the reactions I have heard today have been balanced. The
small business sector is applauding this move because it basically
reduces its tax burden. Small businesses really believe they are
benefiting because through the employment insurance active
measures they are actually going to have better human resources
available.
(1300 )
At the federal level we want to co-operate fully with our
provincial counterparts to ensure we are doing this together, in
partnership. In the final analysis, the employment insurance bill
tabled last Friday is really about bringing positive change to
people's lives and improving their quality of life.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and
congratulate again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development.
As you know, we are getting into a rather important debate which
concerns a very large majority of my constituents in
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I feel very emotional
because, as a member of Parliament, every day I am made aware of
requests which are sent to me, to my office or to various offices
providing services to our constituents. We try to find ways to create
appropriate and durable jobs in my riding.
As for the motion the hon. member for Mercier put forward, we
have the feeling that it was written before the minister introduced
his bill here in the House.
I sense in this motion that they are not willing to really work
with the Government of Canada, that to a certain extent they
question the sincerity of the members on this side of the House,
that they question how seriously the Canadian government wants to
get Canadians and Quebecers back to work, especially people
living in remote areas.
I want to tell you, mainly for the benefit of the population but
also for the benefit of the hon. member for Mercier, who is the
official opposition's critic for this department, that this piece of
legislation is intended to limit and ultimately eliminate the
well-known overlapping and duplication in the system.
Again, for the benefit of the members opposite and of the
population, I want to say that the program has been designed in
such a way as to harmonize the programs we have to develop and
create jobs across Canada.
Besides, what are we trying to do? We are inviting the provinces,
especially my province, Quebec, and its employment minister,
Mrs. Harel, whom we have to call by her name today, to sit down
with us in order to explore the opportunities provided to all
Quebecers, businesses and the unemployed in particular, to create
permanent and durable jobs, and to stimulate as well, of course, the
economic recovery of our area.
17221
Still, the minister spoke of five new conditions, that is five new
programs, if you will, that from now on are provided for in the
bill. We know very well that these five different kinds of benefits
will surely help those truly in need.
I still go back to my region and I know full well that the people
who work in the natural resources area, especially those who work
part-time and in seasonal industries, are often penalized by the
current system. The system we are proposing will right this wrong
which has been going on for much too long.
(1305)
I can give you some first-hand examples. In the Magdalen
Islands, there are fisherman's helpers-this is just one example
among many others-who people used to work and still work 10
weeks a year to qualify for 42 weeks of UI benefits. When the
program was changed, they had to work 12 weeks to qualify for
only 30 weeks of UI benefits. That meant 10 weeks without income
for these fisherman's helpers who worked, might I add, not 35
hours a week, not 50 hours a week, but rather 70 hours a week on
average. Such is the life of a fisherman's helper in the Magdalen
Islands, in the Gaspé Peninsula and, of course, on the lower North
Shore.
I can also give you similar examples of men and women who
work long hours in the forest industry, throughout eastern Quebec
and rural Quebec. Unfortunately, these people were penalized. The
number of hours they worked was not taken into consideration.
With the new system, we now know that 12 weeks of work equal
420 hours of work. But I can assure the House that these people,
these fisherman's helpers in the Magdalen Islands, for example,
work an average of 700 hours in 10 weeks.
These people will be able to qualify. The people will not go
without benefits for 10 weeks, as we have seen these last two years.
This is what the reform is all about. I think it is encouraging to see
in this debate that both sides of the House recognize that seasonal
workers do work hard and do put in countless hours of work.
Thus, companies will be better able to evaluate the efforts made
by these workers in various areas. I can tell you of all kinds of
examples, such as people who work in fish factories. I met with
some of them in Pasbébiac, Gascons and other ridings surrounding
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who work close to 90 hours a
week. That is substantial. Unfortunately, as we know, these people
were not eligible because, depending on the species harvested in
the summer, the fishing season is often restricted to 10 or 12 weeks.
So I believe we have corrected an iniquity that harmed the
regions. Of course, the opposition is claiming that these cuts are
unfair and wrong; they mostly benefit people who earn no more
than $40,000. Very few of my constituents earn $40,000 or more in
seasonal jobs. Most of them are low-wage workers who did not
have a chance to become educated or to find long-term jobs. Life is
not always easy and the first thing that we have to acknowledge
here today is that we want to help those who really need it.
I remarked to the hon. member for Mercier, the other day, that in
her own constituency, there are female or male single parents with
two or three children and an income of less than $26,000. They did
not have certain opportunities. That is why we want to establish a
program for the underprivileged who really need it.
There is no shame in saying to those who earn $55,000, $60,000
ou $70,000 in a few weeks, in the worst cases, or in a few months
that they have to reimburse, in part or in full, the unemployment
insurance benefits they received. That is fairness. That is justice.
That is the principal purpose of federalism as we know it.
I heard some positive criticisms, but when I hear members of the
Bloc Quebecois say: ``We are not happy with the situation. We only
want the federal government to transfer the whole amount directly
to the province of Quebec and let it run the program altogether''.
(1310)
But no one on that side spoke about the difficulties encountered
by the people, the problems they have in finding a job, in getting
training. No one ever mentioned the 40 per cent dropout rate in
Quebec.
As members of the Canadian government, we believe in this
decentralization, and I want to tell you, especially my good friend,
the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, that the Canadian
government, with the offices it already has, will now be able to
work in co-operation with stakeholders, social and community
leaders in all of the regions of Quebec and, of course, of Canada.
We are ready to design programs that accurately reflect the needs
of our regions, of our employers, of our workers. That is what we
want to do. We do not want, like the SQDM and its 12 service
points, to establish programs in Quebec City, which will then be
imposed upon my constituents. For our part, with our 90 service
points and the others which will be developed very shortly in the
province of Quebec, we will at last fill a real and urgent need, that
is designing programs that will help create stable, durable and
lucrative jobs. That is the main purpose of this bill, as set out by the
federal government.
Unfortunately, my time has expired. There are surely a lot of
questions. But I invite the opposition, and the people to review the
information and to take advantage of the new programs, which are
there to serve the people and not civil servants.
17222
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I was much interested in what the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said about the relevance of
changing the system based on a number of weeks to one based
on a number of hours.
He gave us the example of people who will probably benefit
from this. However, the problem with this reform does not
necessarily lie in the fact that the number of hours is changed.
Saying that someone will have to work 910 hours to become
entitled to UI benefits for the first time means that young people,
those who return to the labour market, women who left it several
years ago or who worked at home will now have to work for 26
weeks, 35 hours a week, to get UI benefits. The eligibility period
has almost doubled.
There are aspects of the reform which are unacceptable and I
hope the government will correct them. I will give another example
which concerns the ridings of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I am talking about the fact
that, under the new system, seasonal workers will lose part of their
benefits. After three years, people who receive unemployment
insurance every year, such as workers in the tourist or fishing
industry, will see their benefits reduced from 55 per cent to 50 per
cent of their weekly insurable earnings. They are going to be
penalized because they work in seasonal industries.
Now that the reform has been tabled, could it not be possible for
the government to bring forward amendments to correct these
things which will have a devastating effect on regions such as
eastern Quebec?
My question to the member is this: What does he think about the
possibility of our young people leaving our regions because of the
increase in the number of hours it takes to be eligible for
unemployment insurance?
Will the requirement to work 910 hours, which is the equivalent
of 26 weeks at 35 hours a week, result in our young people leaving
the regions in greater numbers?
I have another question that I want to ask of the member,
reminding him that, yesterday, the National Assembly of Quebec
also endorsed the current position of the government of that
province by a 96 to 0 vote. It was a unanimous decision.
(1315)
I would like to ask him if he would be willing to table in the
House a motion which would read as follows: ``Quebec must have
sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment
and occupational training within its borders and patriate
accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to
these programs in Quebec''. Would he be willing to table such a
motion, which was adopted unanimously by the only parliament
that represents Quebecers only, in order to settle the issue of
manpower once and for all? Would he be prepared to ask the
federal parliament to adopt such an attitude?
Mr. Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, there are many questions I would
like to answer.
First of all, we clearly show our confidence in Quebecers and in
all other Canadians. I think that by giving each unemployed worker
a certain amount of money, we give him or her the tools needed to
create his or her own job by letting him or her decide which course
answers his or her own needs. They can choose the courses that are
adapted to the new economy that is emerging in each region.
Decentralization is going directly to these people, to Quebecers.
That is decentralization, and that is what the unemployed want.
That is what we mean by change: giving people the appropriate
programs, according to their own personal needs.
I also want to answer my colleague's second question, about
young people finishing high school, professional training, college
or university, therefore for all young people. When I finished my
studies-and that was not too long ago-my first priority was to
find a job. I would rather use examples from my own region. When
a young person graduates from school, he or she seeks a job to get
experience, to show what he or she can do. This is why with the
new programs like services Canada but particularly youth
internship, we will tell the young person this: ``Listen, you have
this much money, go to your employer and tell him that, thanks to
the support of the Canadian government, you can subsidize part of
your salary, on the condition that he promises to keep you on staff
for a certain period of time''.
I think we are investing in Quebecers. For too long, we invested
in the public service, in obsolete programs or in programs that were
not adapted to the real needs of the population. We listen to the
population and to the unemployed but, unfortunately, this is not the
case of the opposition.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a very brief question.
The hon. member has spent a lot of time defending the
government's unemployment scheme. I would submit there would
not be any need for this debate if he would answer one simple
question: Why does the government not return this program to its
original mandate of being an insurance program, as it was in 1940
when it was started?
Liberal members defend this by saying that history says they are
supposed to do all this and be involved in this area. That is not true.
The original intent of this was to be a true insurance program. The
government has strayed from this, which is why the Bloc is asking
these questions. That is why the Bloc has these concerns. That is
why many provinces have these concerns.
17223
The member used the phrase ``we are going to serve the needs of
the people'', and the hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development in defending it said ``we are going to reduce the
risk''.
The auditor general says this unemployment insurance program
the way it is presently structured is increasing the risk. Why do the
Liberals not do the proper thing and put it back to a true insurance
program? They admit that by decreasing the premiums five cents
they will create something like 20,000 jobs. I do not know how
they know this, but that is what they say. If that is the case, why do
they not put it back to a true insurance program and reduce the
unemployment rate by 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent? That is hundreds
of thousands of jobs.
(1320)
It is totally inexcusable for the government to go off on all kinds
of tangents and create more aspects for the program rather than do
the right thing. I do not know how the hon. member could ever
defend the fact that it is not becoming again a true insurance
program.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, this government does not have any intention of going back
to 1941. The basis of this reform is to ensure we answer the needs,
the requests, and the demands of the new economy, which is
completely different from the economy of 1941. In 1941 we were
in the middle of a war. It was a completely different context. We
did not have the new economic realities. We did not have
computers and fax machines and the rise of a new economic class.
We did not have the fundamental changes that have taken place in
the last five years.
We are trying to invest not in the government programs per se, or
the fonctionnaires, but in younger Canadians, in middle aged
Canadians, and in older Canadians. We are trying to define what
they need. Often what they need is also what the new economy
demands. This is why we have to adapt our programs. This is why
we should invest in the individual. It is up to the individual.
If I am not mistaken, the Reform Party has always upheld
individual rights more than anything else. We are now investing in
individuals. We have faith in Canadians to make the correct choice
in order to find the course that is tailored to their needs and to that
of the new economy. That is why I would ask the hon. member
opposite to support the government in this courageous initiative.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this opposition motion which
demands:
That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform
unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the
manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a
true manpower development policy of its own.
This opposition day follows on an historical event yesterday in
the Quebec National Assembly, when all members present voted
unanimously in favour of the following motion-96 in favour and
no one against, a fairly rare occurrence in any parliament:
That the National Assembly reaffirm the consensus expressed in this House
on December 13, 1990, on the occasion of the ministerial statement on
manpower adjustment and occupational training, to the effect that:
Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower
adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate
accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these
programs in Quebec;
Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services
to customers-
All Quebec MLAs, whether Parti Quebecois, Quebec Liberals,
Action démocratique du Québec, everyone in the Quebec House
unanimously adopted this motion, which continues:
-Quebec must take over the control and management of various services
pertaining to employment and manpower development and all programs that
may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund within Quebec's
borders and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to such
responsibilities;
What they told the Quebec Legislative Assembly was not ``Let
the federal government give money to the unemployed in voucher
form so they can take Quebec courses under an agreement between
the federal and the provincial governments''. No, what they said
was ``Turn all of the responsibility over to Quebec, and it will
handle things''. This statement was supported by both the
sovereignist government party and the federalist opposition in
Quebec.
(1325)
They also stated:
The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the
co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government
that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives.
To find an example of this one need look no further than clauses
61 and 59 of the bill which show that, where no agreement is in
place between the federal and provincial governments, the
province will be penalized because the unemployed will not
receive vouchers to purchase courses in Quebec. If this is not
invasion of our prerogatives, what is it? Is this not the kind of
behaviour the federal government has been accused of for years?
17224
The reform as presented is not what Quebec wants. The
consensus against it, which we have voiced here on numerous
occasions, took on a particular historical value with the National
Assembly's motion of yesterday.
Continuing to quote the motion:
Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to
immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order
to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the
Quebec people.
What the MLAs who reached agreement on this, whether
federalist or not, was not ``We must accept the planned reform as
presented by the federal government''. They said it was necessary
to ``immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal
government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the
promotion of the interests of the Quebec people''.
This initiative by Quebec is therefore entirely legitimate. And if
the present federal government is not listening, if it fails to change
its reforms accordingly, it will be up against a wall. And as a result,
it will again fail to deal with the problem.
Why is Quebec so keen on controlling this jurisdiction? Because
as much as $500 million will be invested in five new employment
measures. And by 2001 and 2002, it may be $750 million. These
employment measures affect all of the areas over which Quebec
has jurisdiction.
Canadian federalism is a very good example of inefficiency.
Although Quebec is responsible for the Labour Code, occupational
health and safety legislation and labour standards, the federal
government will set up programs relating to wage subsidies and
income supplements, a job creation fund, assistance for
unemployed entrepreneurs, and a system of loans and bursaries.
We will take a closer look at some of these to show the potential for
conflict.
For instance, the job creation fund. If Quebec wants an active
employment policy, it must be according to the federal
government's development model. If the Quebec government feels
that the federal model is not the one it wants, and if current reforms
are supposed to promote manpower mobility and get people out of
the resource regions when we in Quebec prefer to promote growth
in our regions, we will be stuck with this model forever.
Another example is assistance for unemployed entrepreneurs,
the program referred to as self-employment assistance. In Quebec
the so-called Paillé plan was implemented. If Quebec wants to
develop these measures, it will not be able to control them all, and
we get a situation where people who receive self-employment
assistance do not get the Paillé plan. If they are on the Paillé plan,
they do not get self-employment assistance. This creates situations
in which young business people wanting to start up have to knock
on the doors of two governments. This reform will not resolve the
situation.
My final example involves the loans and grants program. You
may be sure that, in the medium term, the program, which is
intended to provide grants to the unemployed looking for work will
conflict with Quebec's loans and grants program for irregular
students. We will start making comparisons, we will look at
workers' behaviour to see whether they would not do better in a
regular educational program than under the federal program. This
will raise the level of the cacophony between the two governments.
This is why, I think, the wish of Quebecers expressed in the
National Assembly may be readily understood.
(1330)
Furthermore, after the consensus was reaffirmed, following the
affirmation that Quebec must be solely responsible for manpower
adjustment policy, the minister of employment was told to discuss
matters with the federal minister. She did so right away yesterday.
She wrote the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell
him she was ready to discuss matters within the context of the
mandate given her by the National Assembly. The mandate is to
promote the interests of the people of Quebec and ensure respect of
the consensus that Quebec must take control in this area.
Why are we having such a hard time getting the federal
government moving on this? When we toured Canada, last year,
with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development,
we found in several circles that there was a willingness to take over,
through decentralization, certain aspects such as manpower
training. Why is it that the federal government has not yet moved in
that direction?
The answer can be found in certain elements of the
unemployment insurance reform. This reform adds to an already
complex decision making process, thus assuring the bureaucrats
running the national network that their empire will endure. The
best way to perpetuate a bureaucracy is to make it more complex,
thus justifying the existence of more assistants, more advisers,
more this and more that, in the end making the product less
accessible to the client they are supposed to serve.
If there is one thing the government can be blamed for, it is its
inability to cut through this bureaucracy and do what the people
really want. I think that the federal government was being called to
order by the motion passed by the Quebec National Assembly. The
National Assembly has put the federal government squarely in
front of its responsibilities.
It must listen to the consensus conveyed by the Quebec National
Assembly. I will stress that 96 voted for the motion, none voted
against and none abstained. All the members present in the
National Assembly supported this motion. I would ask the Quebec
members on the government side this: Are you willing to move a
similar motion giving Quebec sole responsibility for policies
17225
pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training
within its borders, and supporting the other proposals put forward?
Are you listening to Quebecers as National Assembly members
were?
Are you willing to take action in your caucus, in committee, so
that this reform can provide any province with a real opportunity to
opt out and set up its own program, to have a real employment
development policy, and to opt out of existing manpower
development programs. The array of federal and provincial labour
development programs is the laughing stock of all public services,
with their confusing names and objectives. These things have never
been properly clarified.
The federal government claims it is making an effort, that we
could agree on a set of rules. It is wondering why we on this side
are not yet satisfied. It is because the federal government wants
control over the guidelines. This means that, every time we want to
change the way these programs are run, we must first negotiate a
federal-provincial agreement, a kind of administrative agreement.
This is unacceptable, in my opinion. Before any administrative
aspect is negotiated, there must be agreements on the substance of
the issue, and the Quebec consensus on the need to transfer all
federal budgets allocated to this sector and to repatriate control
over and management of the various employment services must be
recognized.
Quebec now faces a rather special situation. Because the federal
government decided to maintain its network of employment
centres, it is significantly reducing the number of points of service.
This will result in fewer services being provided to unemployed
individuals. These centres will serve a larger area than before. At
the same time, another network set up by the Centre Travail
Québec and the Société Québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre is also
active in the field.
(1335)
In the days before the referendum, this government told us:
``Yes, we will take into account the fact that you are a distinct
society. We will take into account the aspects that make Quebec
different''. However, after the referendum, we came back here and
it was business as usual. It is always the same thing. The federal
government claims to be able to do better than Quebec in the
manpower sector. That view is not shared by anyone in Quebec,
particularly in light of the results.
The auditor general once said that the federal government did
not have adequate control over its employability support programs.
These programs are not effective, as evidenced by the fact that one
million Canadians are out of work. Yet, the government remains
insensitive to this fact and cannot bring itself to giving Quebec
exclusive jurisdiction over the manpower sector.
I am prepared to bet that, if the manpower sector was delegated
to Quebec tomorrow, within about ten years there would be a
significant change in attitude. Since the stakeholders would be
closer to the field, Quebecers would benefit from a program better
integrated with the education network. Ultimately, the existing gap
between the number of available jobs and the number of available
workers would be filled.
This is where our record is the worst; Canada has an
international reputation with the OECD for performing very badly
in this area, because we administer things at a distance, with no
attention to local needs.
In closing, I would like to invite the federal government,
particularly those members representing regions of Canada with
economic and social objectives, and realities that are different from
those of the ridings close to Ottawa, to make their points of view
heard in caucus. This will ensure that regions so desiring may be
given the necessary tools for development, and the attitude that
there is one mandatory national standard can be scrapped.
It would be heaven on earth, if all we needed for automatic
bottom-line results was to set standards. If that were the case, with
all the standards we have in Canada all of our problems would be
solved by now.
Essentially, the solution for Quebec lies in this consensus in the
National Assembly, in which all of the parties agreed to the same
thing: that Quebec be given control of the tools relating to
manpower, even under the present federal arrangement. When we
have this we will be able to get things done properly together. And
we are asking our minister of employment-because she is
answerable not only to her government but to all of the Parliament
of Quebec in the National Assembly-to carry out formal
discussions with the federal government aimed at ensuring that this
consensus is respected and the interests of the people of Quebec
promoted.
The government will be judged on whether it agrees to integrate
this consensus into its reform. If it does so, it will have Quebecers'
gratitude. If it does not, this will be proof once more that more than
50 per cent of Quebecers ought to have voted yes on October 30, so
that we might finally escape from this unwieldy system which
benefits neither Quebec nor Canada.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I sit back and listen to the debate in the House. I listen to
what Bloc is telling us and what it is saying about the government's
unemployment insurance program. I have a much more
fundamental question that needs to be asked. Why is the Bloc not
asking the government why it is not creating more jobs? We go on
nattering
17226
about why one province does not have more of this jurisdiction and
we lose sight of the big picture.
It is totally unacceptable that we continue to debate these five
points and we forget why the people in Canada in the last election
tried to put in place a government they thought would create jobs.
(1340)
For two years it has been going on and on and has not done a
thing. Why is the Bloc not asking the government about some kind
of job creation strategy. How many jobs are being created by this?
How many jobs are being destroyed by the unemployment
insurance program?
The auditor general has said the unemployment rate is one and a
half per cent to three per cent higher than it should be because of
what the government is doing. It does not make the changes. Why
is the Bloc not targeting that problem?
Instead we go on about other things. We have some simple
cosmetic changes that have been made like how many jobs does
changing the name from unemployment to employment insurance
create? Not one. In fact it destroys jobs because we now have to
raise taxes. We have to do all these name changes on all the
buildings, on all the letterhead and all this kind of thing. That extra
tax will destroy more jobs.
We are not addressing the fundamental problem of why we have
such a high unemployment rate. We are being taxed to death and
the government is using the unemployment insurance system as
simply another tax to run some of its favourite programs.
Those are the fundamental questions that should be asked. The
Bloc should be asking those questions if it wants to claim to be
official opposition in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with some aspects of
what the previous speaker said. Canadians have every right to
criticize the present Liberal government because it was elected on a
platform of jobs, jobs, jobs, but in the end it is just coasting. It
creates jobs piecemeal, while just as many are being lost, so that
net job creation is zero.
This government plays a lot with words, and I think that is
significant. Instead of unemployment insurance it now says
employment insurance, but for heaven's sake, the contents should
be what it says on the label. There should be something to help
evaluate the impact in terms of job creation and helping us to get
out of this mess.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are concerned about job creation. We
see in these reforms a lot of measures that will have a negative
impact on job creation, including the fact that young people who
come on the labour market and fail to accumulate 910 hours will
remain dependent, will go back on welfare and well become part of
the welfare cycle. This is wrong and lends further credence to the
fact that this is a lost generation, and that we cannot accept.
We in the Bloc Quebecois have a different perception of
employment. We agree with the Reform Party in some respects.
There is also a structural and organizational problem in Canada.
We have developed a system in which one government has the
power to collect taxes and spend money in jurisdictions it does not
know and does not control, and has developed a fantastic
bureaucracy to be able to function. This has created a lot of public
service jobs but today, at the operational level, we realize this no
longer works. Yes, we have a problem with the plumbing. We will
have to deal with a number of things, but we also have a problem
with the architecture: I am referring to the fact that governments do
not have clearcut jurisdictions.
From the federalist point of view, which I do not share, one could
say it is entirely normal that in Canada international relations come
under the jurisdiction of a federal Parliament. However, manpower
is a not an area in which the federal government can be effective,
and this is borne out by unemployment rates that are unacceptable,
that are much too high and that show a significant spread. There are
marked differences between the regions in central Canada and
around the federal government, and more distant regions.
The maritimes, Quebec and other regions outside larger urban
centres always seem to have higher unemployment rates than the
metropolitan areas. The system puts the regions at a disadvantage,
which means that young people must look for employment
elsewhere. If we keep the 910-hour standard, you will see a large
number of young people between the ages of 18 and 23 who may
have managed to get summer jobs in their own regions but will
have to leave to get jobs in the city, and we are just going to
aggravate this exodus.
(1345)
Yes, the Bloc is concerned about employment, but as far as the
solutions are concerned, we think it is also a matter of the structure
and management of manpower training and also the fact that it
should be more closely related to the needs of the people concerned
and integrated with our educational resources.
When we have a government like the one in Quebec that is
responsible for the Labour Code, for occupational health and safety
legislation and for labour standards, and we have another
government that is going to introduce five measures dealing with
issues such as wage subsidies and income supplements, this will
further complicate the system. Someone somewhere in the
Department of Human Resources Development will then be able to
say he is an expert on something no one else understands.
This means he can justify his job, but this is not efficient, and in
North America we can no longer afford to operate this way. If we
want to be competitive on international markets, decision making
must be brought as close as possible to the people. That should be
17227
the government's objective. If the federal government does not
adjust and act accordingly, it will be swept away.
[English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, things are becoming more and more curious as I listen to
my colleagues from the Bloc and the Reform Party.
I listened to Bloc members saying they agree with Reform. Then
I listened to Reform members asking why government is not
creating more jobs. That sounds a lot like the NDP. Then when we
have the Reform and the NDP voting together against the
government on issues like gun control, voting against the veto
power, perhaps there is a reason for the hon. member's confusion.
Speaking of confusion, I would like to touch again on a point of
confusion my friend from the Bloc seems to have. He seems to be
suffering from the same affliction as the member for
Yorkton-Melville in that he thinks the government was elected on
jobs, jobs, jobs. Again, there is probably confusion there given the
close relationship between the former government, which did
promise that, and the Bloc Quebecois whose members tend to be a
lot of recycled Tories.
I am wondering about the comment the member from the Bloc
made with regard to what should have happened. This is not a
world of should have but a world of what has happened. The people
of Quebec rejected what was put to them by the members of the
Bloc Quebecois.
The member has made a strong statement that there is not going
to be any agreement. I regret that because it seems the package put
forward by the Minister of Human Resources Development goes a
long way in allowing the federal government and the provincial
government to work together to achieve exactly what we have been
hearing from the member from the Bloc all year long. I encourage
him and his party to co-operate with the government rather than
destroy the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, when the government member is
surprised that the opposition parties have similar views on certain
things, this is perhaps the time to twig to the fact that, when you
make campaign commitments, the decent thing to do is to honour
them.
When you say you are going to create jobs, you are supposed to
have corresponding policies. When you defeat a government like
the former Conservative one by saying that its policies were
unacceptable, you have to meet the commitments you made
subsequently. The idea is not to win elections, but to carry out
mandates you have been given. This is the goal and what must be
achieved.
There is a lesson for the government in this. For two years the
Liberal government said there was no problem in Quebec. It told
Canadians that there was no problem in Quebec, that, if it did its
job right, there would be no more Quebec problem. But then they
found themselves with 49.4 per cent of the people of Quebec saying
yes to sovereignty. The Prime Minister is the intermediary between
Canadians and Quebecers. Canadians realized that he had lost
touch with reality and should perhaps be removed so people could
talk directly.
I think it important that the message be understood. Our
objective should be effective government. On this point a number
of parties could agree, why not have the same idea? Federalists
should basically promote very broad decentralization if they really
want this country to continue to function.
In any case, throughout the world today, the solution lies in small
groups, which have the tools to develop and do so successfully,
controlling the course they want to take and making their own
choices.
(1350)
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. A Liberal member misrepresented the position and
the statement I was making. I made it absolutely clear that I was
not expecting-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is not making a point of
order, he is getting into argument. He will have an opportunity in
debate to deal with what has been said.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand Liberal members have been splitting their time and I
have been asked not to split my time. I will be using the full 20
minutes, plus the 10 minutes allotted for questions and comments.
I rise today with some reluctance to speak on this motion. I hope
to have an opportunity to speak on the bill and on the many good
points in the legislation. However, today we are debating the Bloc
opposition motion condemning the government's employment
insurance legislation for maintaining overlap and duplication in
labour market training. I will try to confine my comments to that
motion and to the aspects of the bill which relate to that motion.
However, I would like to speak about the many good things the bill
will do and I hope to have the opportunity to do so in the future.
If the hon. member and her colleagues in the Bloc had taken the
time to give thorough consideration to the new employment
insurance legislation they would see it does not maintain overlap
and duplication in labour market training. After all, the Minister of
Human Resources Development tabled the legislation only last
Friday. It is a comprehensive document which deserves serious
consideration by all members of the House.
17228
[Translation]
The people of Quebec would be better served if the Bloc spent
more time trying to understand this bill.
[English]
Instead they are conjuring up fallacies about its implementation.
To address the hon. member's motion directly, I suggest she
refer to page 19 of the just published employment insurance guide.
I know the hon. member has not seen this document. If she had she
would not be wasting the valuable time of the House with this
motion.
On page 19 of the guide, under employment benefits, the last
paragraph of the first column states: ``The legislation also proposes
a new partnership with the provinces in order to eliminate
duplication and encourage governments to work together to foster
employment''. It says the federal government will work in
partnership with the provinces to eliminate duplication. That also
means eliminating overlap; they are, after all, the same thing.
I do not know how much clearer the government can make it. It
has been spelled out in the EI guide. I hope that by elaborating I can
assist hon. members opposite, who still seem confused, to
understand exactly what this means.
The labour market training initiatives under EI are not the one
size fits all programming approach taken by previous governments.
The federal government will work with each province individually,
including the province of Quebec, because Quebecers are
Canadians and are entitled to the same considerations under this
legislation as are all citizens of the country.
We will work with each provincial government to help it deliver
a federal program if it desires to do so or, and this is a key point,
where a province is operating a program which will equally serve
EI clients we will support that program. I do not know how much
clearer I can make it for the members of the Bloc.
If the provincial government of Quebec agrees or if it has an
employment initiative which meets the employment benefits
criteria of this legislation, we are fully prepared to work with the
Government of Quebec to use that initiative to help unemployed
Quebecers get back to work as quickly as possible. The same thing
applies in every province and territory of the country.
(1355)
My colleague has already mentioned, but it bears repeating, that
the good news is the Government of Quebec has passed a resolution
that says it is willing to discuss labour market training with the
federal government. Like my hon. colleague, I can assure
members opposite the federal government welcomes this
opportunity to work in partnership with the Quebec government for
the benefit of Quebecers. The same philosophy will apply when the
government is dealing with other provinces.
Atlantic Canadians are very concerned about the impact EI will
have on their lives. We understand we cannot deal with Nova
Scotia the same way we deal with Saskatchewan. I should know
since my grandfather and my mother are from Saskatchewan. My
grandfather was an MP from Saskatchewan and spoke often of its
concerns. They are not the same problems, they are not the same
situations as they are in Atlantic Canada.
We are all Canadians but there are different circumstances in the
labour market and they call for different approaches in different
parts of the country. That is the beauty of the employment benefit
measures under EI. They provide for local decision making and
ensure appropriate accountability in local areas. Also, they
emphasize individual responsibility and self-reliance. All of these
things are much needed in this area.
Media reports on this topic keep talking about cuts to UI as if
that is all there is to this legislation. There is so much more. I look
at this legislation as a Robin Hood response to a program badly in
need of change and modernization. We are doing everything we can
to maintain the benefits for those who need them most. We are
helping out. We are providing a low income supplement for low
income families with dependants so they will be better off in the
future than they have been in the past. They will get more
employment insurance than they would under the old UI system.
They will get more now under this system.
We are aiming at those. It is true we are cutting from people who
make $70,000 or $80,000 a year and collect UI on top of that.
People in my riding have been telling us to do that for a long time.
They have been saying people who make $60,000 a year cannot
keep taking out $10,000 or $20,000 on top of that in UI year after
year, and after only paying in a few hundred dollars. They cannot
keep drawing out when they already have high incomes. They will
have to learn to spread those high incomes over the full 12 months
of the year. That is only fair.
People have been complaining in Atlantic Canada about that, in
my riding certainly for a long time. We are hitting those people
who really should not be taking UI every year, those with really
high incomes. We are preserving it for those who need it most. That
is a very important point. That is why I call this a kind of Robin
Hood response to this problem.
The Speaker: Colleague, I think I caught you before your next
sentence. That is what I wanted to do so I could take you back there
right after question period. It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
>
17229
17229
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
mentioned yesterday by my colleague, the hon. member for
London East, this is National Safe Driving Week.
As chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Transport, I am mindful that last year over 40 per cent of
automobile fatalities involved a drunk driver. That startling
statistic underlies the theme of this year's National Safe Driving
Week, the hidden face of impaired driving.
In addition to supporting public awareness campaigns, several
provinces and territories are either currently implementing
mandatory rehabilitation programs and administrative licence
suspensions or plan to do so in the very near future. These
measures will prohibit those charged with impaired driving from
operating a motor vehicle while awaiting criminal court
proceedings.
Through ongoing initiatives such as National Safe Driving Week
and the strategy to reduce impaired driving I am confident we will
reduce the level of drunkenness, death and injury on our roads.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on October 30, the second largest Canadian carrier
stopped flying from Montreal to overseas destinations. Canadian
International has decided to concentrate its international operations
in Toronto, thus depriving Montreal of a direct link to Rome.
It is inconceivable that a major carrier such as Canadian
International could stop providing international flights from a city
as big as Montreal. This situation shows how flawed the transport
minister's international route allocation policy is. In fact, Air
Canada offered to provide regular flights between Rome and
Montreal. The minister's policy, however, prohibits designating a
second carrier for this market.
Through his policy, the minister undermines Montreal's
development and helps erode its traditional role as a Canadian
transportation hub. The minister must stop putting Montreal at a
disadvantage by changing his international route allocation policy
and reviewing all routes already allocated.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians from sea to sea do not like the distinct society motion. A
recent poll shows that only 37 per cent of Canadians outside
Quebec support it.
Albertans rejected this notion in the Charlottetown accord. They
reject any concept that promotes the inequality of citizens or
provinces or gives special status to any province.
The arrogance shown by the Liberal Party during the referendum
turned to panic and confusion when status quo federalism was
rejected by nearly 50 per cent of Quebecers. The result is this
ill-conceived motion. Surely the members opposite can see that
this motion is ill-advised and it will further embitter and fracture
this nation.
Why are the Liberal members from Alberta mute on this issue?
Why do they not speak out on behalf of Albertans? Can they not
persuade their colleagues and their leader of the miscalculation of
this motion? Too much is at stake to be silent. Canadians should
debate this issue fully and not get closed off in the House of
Commons. No, nervous nellies in the government invoked closure
and are ramming it through. They seem proud of it.
The people will speak. If they do not get a chance to speak now,
they will speak later in Edmonton East at the ballot box in 1997.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, after watching
a report on Radio-Canada's program
Enjeux last week, I was
outraged by the extent of tax fraud in the trade of paintings and
works of art.
I have a duty to urge the government to deal a major blow to tax
evasion and to the tax shelters depriving federal coffers of millions
of dollars in revenue.
We must axe bogus donations to museums by the wealthy and
other tax shelters the average citizen cannot benefit from. What is the government waiting to make companies availing themselves of too many tax shelters pay their taxes? And why not end GST refunds to foreign tourists who make purchases in Canada?
Those are serious ways to eliminate the deficit without hurting
social programs too much.
17230
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank the Leader of the Opposition, who recently recognized the
importance of the symbols of Canadian nationalism by supplying
my office with Canadian flags. I dutifully handed these out to
hundreds of our citizens in Christmas parades across Durham. I can
assure the member that the deep expression of love for our country
and each other was reflected on the faces and in the hearts of all of
these communities.
There are other symbols we should change in order to reflect the
reality of all the people of Canada as we approach the 21st century.
Our currency should reflect the true Canadian traditions rather than
foreign monarchs. The head of our state should be truly elected by
Canadians for Canadians. Finally, here and across the land, when
people take the oath of office or oath of citizenship they should
swear allegiance to our great nation, Canada.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, late
Friday 29 Romanians and one Greek man were plucked from the
stormy seas of the North Atlantic by Master Corporal Rob Fisher
from Greenwood, Nova Scotia.
HMCS Calgary and a Sea King helicopter were on their way
back to British Columbia from the Persian Gulf when they
responded to the sinking of the Mount Olympus, racing 900
kilometres in 18 hours to reach the sinking carrier. Amid frightful
conditions, Master Corporal Fisher spent four hours pulling the
crew members from the sinking ship to safety.
I know all hon. members will join me in thanking the crew of the
HMCS Calgary, particularly Master Corporal Fisher, for their
heroic efforts, the kinds of efforts we have come to expect from the
men and women who serve Canada with dedication and distinction.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to praise the late Phil Givens, who passed away last Thursday
in Toronto at the age of 73.
Mr. Givens personified public service. He served the people of
Toronto first as councillor and then as mayor from 1963 to 1966.
He served the people of Canada as an MP from 1968 to 1972 and
the people of Ontario as an MPP from 1972 to 1977. Appointed to
the Metro Toronto Police Commission in 1977, he became its
chairman, serving until 1985. Most recently, he served as a
provincial court judge. His was truly a life devoted to serving the
community.
Phil was also a man of culture. He will always be remembered as
the driving force behind bringing Henry Moore's sculpture ``The
Archer'' to Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square. That bold initiative
contributed to Henry Moore's later extraordinary gift of sculpture
to the Art Gallery of Ontario.
Phil touched many people's lives and will be sorely missed. He
is an example to all Canadians. I am sure members of the House
will join with me in sending our condolences to his wife Min and
his family.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
the December 2 issue of the newspaper
La voix de l'Est, the
member of Parliament for Brome-Missisquoi helped a group,
which includes one of his good friends, obtained a CIDA grant of
close to half a million dollars for an eight-month business trip to
Hungary.
We also learned that this good friend, Daniel Barbeau, was
selected as one of the eight lawyers who will participate in the
project by one of the minister's associates in his Bedford law firm,
who sat on the selection committee.
Assuming this information is true, how, given the current budget
situation, could the member for Brome-Missisquoi manage to help
his friends benefit from such a sweet grant?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, when making statements,
members must avoid impugning motives, as is also the rule when
asking questions in the House. I recognize the member for Calgary
North.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
so-called Trans-Labrador Highway is a 500-kilometre stretch of
gravel road running from Labrador City to Churchill Falls to Goose
Bay. For half that distance the road is only good enough to allow
travel at 70 to 80 kilometres an hour. The rest of it is almost
impassable.
For years the people of Labrador have fought with one
government after another, demanding what most Canadians take
for granted: a decent, passable road between major centres.
17231
Imagine the earful I got from Labradorians as Reform's Atlantic
issues critic when they picked up Saturday's newspaper and saw
the Prime Minister opening a stretch of road in West Africa built
with Canadian money.
Labradorians deserve to know how this Liberal government can
spend millions of dollars in Africa when our own citizens go
begging for one decent road between Goose Bay and Labrador City.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today I was glad to join with the Moderator of the United Church,
Dr. Marion Best, and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in
supporting the drive by CAW retirees and the Congress of Union
retirees to save medicare.
We played a take-off on the TV game of Jeopardy, answering
questions about health care in Canada. At the end we were
presented a T-shirt with a caricature of the Prime Minister on it
dubbed ``Medicare Nightmare''.
The Liberals are slowly starving medicare and with it the ability
to maintain or enforce national standards. They have reneged on
the commitment to repeal Bill C-91 and do something about the
spiralling cost of drugs and what those costs are doing to our health
care system.
The NDP congratulates the Canadian Health Coalition and the
CAW retirees and the Congress of Union retirees for the creative
way in which they have sought to educate the public and the
Liberals about the threat federal cutbacks are posing to medicare.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
approximately one woman is killed by a weapon in Canada every
six days. She is often killed in a private home. She is often killed by
someone she knows. If she is killed by her partner, chances are she
has been killed with a gun.
The victims of violence are often those who suffer in silence.
They are our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, and our partners.
The national day of remembrance and action on violence against
women is very important. It is a day for us to remember the victims
of violence, those who suffer from abuse or from the loss of a loved
one who has been taken from them. It is also a day of action. It is a
day to promote the rights of victims, victim impact statements, the
family violence initiative, more effective peace bonds, harsher
sentences for offenders. These are initiatives to empower the
victims of violence.
We must also continue to work locally in our neighbourhoods
and communities to promote awareness and openness in helping
the victims of violence. Working together, we can make our
communities a safer place.
* * *
(1410 )
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of the Montreal massacre.
At the Women's World Conference in Beijing, it was agreed that
violence against women is not a private issue and that states must
exercise due diligence to make sure violence does not occur in the
home or elsewhere. At the same conference, Canada introduced
and passed a motion that reaffirms rape as a war crime, a crime
against humanity. It introduces rape as an act of genocide.
Advances are being made, but there is still much to do, still
many barriers to cross, still more awareness to raise, and
unfortunately more shelters to keep open.
It is with the memory of the 14 women killed in Montreal on
December 6 that we continue to pursue a just society and a better
tomorrow.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in spite of
the strong opposition of all Quebec stakeholders in the labour
market, the Minister of Human Resources Development is going
ahead with his bill, which, in his own words, seeks to decentralize
manpower training to individuals, rather than to the provinces.
It is obvious to all Quebec stakeholders that this so-called
decentralization is only a farce and does not in any way follow up
on the Quebec consensus regarding this issue. On the contrary, it is
clear that the minister's project is aimed at allowing Ottawa to keep
control over its programs, while trying to make us believe that a
decentralization is taking place. Once again, this government is
acting in bad faith and is showing contempt for the provinces.
Moreover, it shows that is still has not understood the meaning of
the results of the October 30 referendum.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs
minister is so hard-working and dedicated to his job it is scary.
17232
Do members remember yesterday when the government
promised it would carefully listen to everything the opposition had
to say before it made a final decision on the Bosnia mission? Well,
the debate went on until nine last night, which is three in the
morning in Brussels, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs is. The
fact that he was able to stay up watching the debate that late is
great. Then he worked the rest of the night away to fully
incorporate the opposition's ideas into the final Canadian plan he
agreed to this morning.
It is simply amazing. After staying up all night, this
hard-working minister was able to put the final stamp of approval
on the Bosnia mission first thing this morning, and all this with the
comforting knowledge that he had taken fully into account all the
views expressed here yesterday. I never would have believed it
could be done. But since the government always tells the truth, it
must have been what happened. Right, Mr. Speaker?
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I draw the attention of the
House of Commons to the recent improvements to the Canadian
Coat of Arms. These improvements highlight the motto of the
Order of Canada, our country's highest honour. Interestingly, they
were proposed by a member of the press gallery, Bruce Hicks, over
a decade ago. The motto, ``To build a better country'', is something
every member of the House should be trying to do.
In 1987 the Queen approved this change for limited use in
Canada. In fact everyone who has been to Rideau Hall will have
seen this new coat of arms in the stained glass window near the
entrance. Last year the Queen authorized its general use and slowly
it is being introduced so as to not cost the taxpayers any money.
Last year I sent a copy of these arms in electronic format to
every MP and encouraged them to start using them on their
letterhead and publications when they reorder. The Minister of
Canadian Heritage drew attention to it last month when he unveiled
the latest edition of symbols of Canada.
As Canadians, we do not wave our flag. But I for one am proud
of my country and its symbols. I applaud the Governor General for
this change.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the daily
La Presse mentions that the Quebec government
is prepared to launch formal discussions with Ottawa on the
transfer of federal funds earmarked for manpower training. This is
good news, particularly since the Quebec employment minister
herself, Louise Harel, asked that a meeting be held as quickly as
possible to discuss the issue.
This development seems very encouraging. I do hope that it
reflects the will of the PQ government to finally recognize the
choice made by Quebecers in the referendum, as well as its
willingness to turn the page and co-operate with the federal
government to promote Quebec's well-being and prosperity.
(1415)
Provided these discussion are conducted in good faith and in
good will, I am convinced that good things will result, both for the
workers and the unemployed.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Quebec
daily newspapers were reporting this morning that the next leader
of the Bloc Quebecois will be an acting leader and that only the
party's general council members will be voting in the election.
How do you like that, a leader who will be there only on a
temporary basis, a leader selected by members of the party's
establishment, who were themselves appointed by the retiring
leader before he accedes to the throne in Quebec? As a result, party
members who militated in good faith find themselves excluded
from a process as fundamental as the selection of a new leader, with
a leader who is leaving but at the same time wants to keep on
controlling what happens in his Ottawa branch.
The Bloc Quebecois has not stood the test of time, and this
prearranged exercise in democracy does not bode well for Quebec
when the new king finally accedes to the throne.
_____________________________________________
17232
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Quebec National Assembly unanimously reaffirmed the
consensus to the effect that Quebec must have sole responsibility
for policies pertaining to manpower and occupational training. To
do so, the Government of Quebec must regain control over the
management of employment and manpower services, with fair
financial compensation and no strings attached.
Given that the National Assembly has instructed the Quebec
government to undertake formal discussions with Ottawa to ensure
the respect of this consensus, does the Minister of Human
Resources Development intend to fall into step and discuss with his
Quebec counterpart the unconditional transfer of responsibilities
17233
for providing services and setting standards in the area of manpower, along with the related funds and fiscal resources?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the
Quebec government accepted the amendment proposed by the
opposition Liberals recommending that the Quebec government sit
down and undertake a serious negotiation. That is a very good step
which I think demonstrates there can be some openness in terms of
pursuing these very important matters of how we can redefine the
roles and responsibilities. I certainly will be approaching those
discussions with a very open mind about the kinds of interests and
the ways in which we can deal with the problem.
We have been in contact with Madam Harel's office. We hope to
be able to organize the meetings as soon as possible and as soon as
we can fully look at all the respective programs that are being
considered in light of the statement and conditions set forward last
week by the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
National Assembly's resolution clearly reaffirmed the consensus
reached in Quebec that manpower issues should unconditionally
come under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government, as
prescribed by the Constitution.
Are we to understand from the minister's answer that he is
prepared to conduct discussions with the Quebec government about
Ottawa's withdrawing, unconditionally and without federal
standards, from the area of manpower and transferring related
resources to Quebec, as requested in the resolution passed
unanimously by the Quebec government and the Liberal
opposition? Everyone agrees in Quebec. Does the minister really
intend to do so?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was already made very clear
in the Prime Minister's statement of well over a week ago that the
federal government will withdraw from the area of manpower and
training. We have made that very explicit. We have also followed
that up with the legislation which was tabled on Friday. It will
oblige the federal government to work in concert with the
provinces in detailing those kinds of relationships. We made it very
clear that there would be no training voucher of any kind without
the consent of the provinces. We will be sitting down with the
provinces to work out a clear harmonization of programs where it
is required. It can develop beyond that.
(1420)
What is important-and this is what the hon. member should
applaud-is that for the first time since the Quebec government
was elected well over a year ago there has been a major change in
its position. It is now willing to sit down under the present
Constitution to talk about how we can establish a partnership to
help people get back to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
convinced that not only the minister, but all those watching these
proceedings and all members of this House understand our
concern. The Government of Quebec was taken for a ride so often
by the people opposite that we have become extra careful. We want
to know if this is going to take place under optimal conditions.
I would like the minister to be unequivocal. Will he agree, as
suggested by the Quebec government at the request of the Quebec
National Assembly, Liberals included, to discuss with the Quebec
employment minister the possibility of repatriating to Quebec
responsibilities pertaining to manpower without letting the threat
of national standards hang over our heads as he has in the past? Is
he prepared to make a commitment to achieve results along the
lines of the consensus expressed by the Quebec National
Assembly? I think that the question is clear enough to deserve a
clear answer.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I gave a very clear answer to
the previous question. We have already stated clearly in the House
and we have entrenched it in the proposed legislation, which I hope
the hon. member will vote for as he is so interested, that we
recognize and accept the full jurisdictional competence of the
provinces in the area of training. There is nothing ambiguous about
that. It is perfectly clear.
Now we have to sit down to work out the basic rules so that we
can apply all the programs. We have to ensure that the clients of our
insurance program who paid premiums to get benefits will be
assured of receiving those benefits. It is as simple as that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since Friday,
the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of
Labour have been repeating the refrain that the federal government
will not use the unemployment insurance fund surplus to reduce its
deficit, but will instead put it into a separate reserve fund. Need I
remind the Minister of Finance that, in his 1995 budget, pages 89
17234
and 94, he took those surpluses into account in calculating the
revenues and expenditures of the federal government?
Are we to conclude from the statements by the Minister of
Human Resources Development and the Minister of Labour that
the Minister of Finance has decided to set up an unemployment
insurance reserve fund and to give up on his plan to apply UI
surpluses to the federal government's revenues and expenditures?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will answer the hon. member
by simply repeating what we said yesterday.
During the course of our extensive public discussions we
received a number of recommendations, including
recommendations from the trade union movement in Quebec, that
we establish a reserve fund to stabilize premiums. In that way we
could prevent the kind of drastic economic downturn which
occurred in the early nineties when, because there had been no
reserves set aside, the recession was worsened by the previous
government's necessity to substantially jack up premiums.
That was recommended by the trade unions in Quebec. It was
recommended by business groups and by the general public. It is
good, prudent economics to set aside a reserve fund so we will not
have the additional costs faced in 1992 which would make a
downturn worse than it would be otherwise.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this was an important question concerning the Minister of
Finance's budget, yet it is the Minister of Human Resources
Development answering-everything is topsy-turvy. I shall repeat
the question.
It is clearly set out in his budget, as in the federal government's
financial report, that the annual activities of the unemployment
insurance program have a direct impact on the deficit and the net
indebtedness of the federal government.
(1425)
Under these circumstances, is it or is it not true that the federal
government intends to set up a reserve fund. If so, will the Minister
of Finance admit that his deficit forecasts based on using the UI
surplus will be struck a fatal blow by the creation of this reserve
fund?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just let me answer the
member directly as to how it does affect the deficit not just of the
government but of the people of Canada.
Because of the failure of the previous government to set up a
reserve fund in order to stabilize premiums, the interest charged
against the UI account between 1992 and 1993 amounted to $1
billion which had to be paid by workers against the premiums. That
is what members of the Bloc Quebecois are now recommending,
that we put additional burdens on workers because they will not
support the establishment of a reserve fund.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to some provinces, the government's
attitude is now we see them and now we don't.
The federal government has been utterly indifferent to B.C.'s
concerns on aboriginal issues and the mismanagement of the
salmon fishery, and the Prime Minister's constitutional veto
scheme ignores British Columbia completely. About the only time
the government recognizes B.C. or Alberta is when it comes time
to extract money. These western provinces are becoming
increasingly alienated from Ottawa. That alienation will deepen
when the human resources minister withholds $47 million from
B.C. for introducing residency requirements for welfare.
What does the human resources minister really expect to
accomplish by fining British Columbia for attempting to manage
its welfare rolls more effectively?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very surprising
question coming from the leader of the third party whose members
stand up every day and demand that we ensure that individuals live
up to the law.
The British Columbia government has broken the law. If I
understand the leader of the third party, he is saying that it is okay
for the provinces to break the law but it is not okay for individuals.
We believe the law applies to everybody whether they are a
provincial government or an individual.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the law is not the issue. If the provinces could fine the
federal government for every commitment it has broken, they
could pay off their deficits.
The real issue here is the government's Neanderthal approach to
federal-provincial relations. The government talks about ushering
in a new era of flexible federalism. The reality is that a bankrupt
federal government is attempting to use fines and threats to control
provincial areas of jurisdiction.
17235
The human resources minister attaches strings to manpower
training funding and imposes fines on British Columbia. The
Minister of Health does exactly the same things to Alberta.
Is this really the government's vision of federalism, federalism
with strings attached, red tape federalism, federalism by threats,
federalism by fines?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon.
leader of the third party is looking in a mirror. That is his version of
federalism. I will tell you what we see. We see a federalism which
allows and enables Canadians to move freely throughout this
country to search for work and to exercise the right of mobility.
It is very interesting that in its proposal the Reform Party says
there should be a free movement of goods and a free movement of
services, but apparently in the lexicon of the Reform Party there
can be no free movement of people. The real problem is to defend
the right of Canadians to move freely about this country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government imposes fines on British Columbia and
Alberta to impose its outmoded view of federalism. It dismisses
fundamental objections to its ill-conceived Quebec package from
western provinces out of hand.
All of this undermines rather than strengthens national unity. In
its misguided attempt to appease Quebec separatists, in its
ham-fisted approach to retaining federal control in areas of
provincial jurisdiction, the government runs the risk of pushing
provinces like British Columbia and Alberta out the back door.
(1430)
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize
that his steadfast resistance to real decentralization is as great a
threat to the national unity of the country as the efforts of Quebec
separatists?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the real threats to
Canada is the balkanized, fragmented, mean-minded attitude
expressed by the leader of the Reform Party. That is the real danger
to the federalism of the country.
If he knew his facts, which he does not, he would recognize that
we put in place last year a new transfer payment that would give the
provinces brand new flexibility in making choices and the
provincial premiers could set up a process to begin discussing it.
The ministers of British Columbia were a full part of it but
refused to bring their concerns in front of the provincial body
where those decisions could be made. They acted unilaterally
without any discussion with ourselves or the other provinces. They
took an action which broke the law.
We went out there three weeks ago to say let us find a solution,
let us negotiate, let us find a partnership. There was absolutely no
support from this gentleman or his party for the kind of federalism
which must be based upon partnership and co-operation, not the
kind of fragmentation this gentleman represents.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In his reform, the minister takes advantage of the conversion of
weeks worked into hours worked to reduce still further eligibility
for benefits as well as their duration. Whereas someone now needs
between 180 and 300 hours of work to qualify for benefits, in future
this figure will be between 420 and 700 hours.
Does the minister admit that, by doubling the number of hours
required to qualify for benefits-or worse-in both high
unemployment regions and others, he will exclude thousands of
unemployed people from the plan, women and young people in
particular, who will then have to turn to welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one reason for moving to an
hours based system, which is quite a fundamental reform, was to
ensure that we would give full credit to all the work that was done.
For example, in many high unemployment areas where there is a
lot of seasonal work, many workers put in long hours, 40 or 50 hour
weeks, for which they get no credit. They get exactly the same
credit as somebody who works 20 or 25 hours.
As a result of this major changeover, many of those who are in
seasonal work and work very long hours for very short periods can
establish their eligibility sooner and receive benefits longer. A
quarter of a million Canadian workers who presently pay into the
system would be able to have a longer term of benefits than they do
now because of the hours based system.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bulk
of part time and term employees are young people, women, or new
workers. These are the ones who will be affected by the minister's
reform.
17236
(1435)
Does the Minister acknowledge that, by requiring 35 hours of
work instead of 15 for eligibility for a week of benefits, he is
reducing the duration of benefits considerably for part time
workers, most of whom are young people or women? Seventy per
cent of part time workers are women and 40 per cent are young
people.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I ask the hon. member
to look at the package in its entirety.
One of the most important changes we have made is to break
what has been commonly known as the glass ceiling. That was a
very strong recommendation made during the public hearings. That
is the rule whereby 15 hours is the dividing line on which eligibility
is established.
Many employers across the country establish an artificial barrier,
giving work only up to the 15-hour level so they would not have to
pay premiums and give people eligibility. As a result a lot of people
were denied work and, more important, were denied the
opportunity to have the security of the program, to have access to
maternity benefits and to have access to the re-employment
measures.
We have broken that glass barrier and we will now allow the
work to take its natural course. Therefore people will get more
hours than they can under the present artificial barrier.
At the same time for part time workers we are establishing a
major premium rebate. Close to 1.3 million of the present 2.2
million part time workers who now pay into the system, something
the Reform Party has not quite understood yet, will be eligible for a
refund of all the premiums to ensure basic balance and equity in the
system.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada has
pronounced in a press release:
Canada has a new coat of arms which will be distributed this week to MPs and
schools across the country-The new coat of arms will appear on all money,
passports, government buildings and rank badges in the Canadian Armed
Forces. As a French Canadian, I always thought the coat of arms we had been
using was too closely associated with the British. These new arms are an
important change in our evolution as a country.
You bet they are, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Canadian
Heritage if this is for real. If so, why did the Canadian public not
even have a say on it?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the coat of arms was approved by the Queen in 1987. I
am always prepared to have great parties to celebrate events but
this one would be a little late.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
press release says that the Canadian coat of arms proposed by
Bruce Hicks of the press gallery was approved by Queen Elizabeth
on July 12, 1994, not 1987.
The point is that this issue has not even come before Parliament;
it has not even come before the people of Canada.
My question is about symbols. These symbols do not belong to
the Liberal government; they belong to the people of the country. If
this is real, why has Parliament not even discussed it?
We have seen closure on the distinct society motion. We have
seen closure on constitutional vetoes. Why are we now seeing
closure on this issue?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could make a brief correction on dates. The
date I gave is correct. That was when the coat of arms was
approved. What happened more recently was that the Queen
decided it could be distributed all over Canada. That is the
difference in dates.
As to the authority, we should remember that the coat of arms is
under the authority of the Governor General of Canada. If the
opposition or the second party in the opposition wants to have a
great debate, it can always use opposition days.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
With his reforms, the minister has taken the first step towards
establishing an employment insurance system that discriminates
against seasonal workers, whose benefits will be reduced
depending on the number of weeks they were on unemployment
insurance in the past.
Will the minister acknowledge that this is a complete
contradiction of the recommendations of his task force on seasonal
employment and of his own commitments, in that he is creating a
two-tier system in which seasonal workers will be treated like
second class unemployed workers?
(1440)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first we should put this matter
in context. Just
17237
over a decade ago about 15 per cent of UI claimants were those
who used the system on a regular basis. Today that number is well
over 40 per cent. There has been an incredible expansion or
explosion. That was one of the reasons the cost of the system had
gone from $8 billion to $17 billion when we inherited it in 1993.
As the hon. member should know, the system was no longer
being used to assist people who are unemployed or to enable people
to get back to work. It was being used increasingly as a form of
supplement to wage packages by a wide variety of industries.
A very strong recommendation came out of the public hearings
that were held. The seasonal workers report established that it did
not agree with the notion of a two-tier system. It talked about a
graduated response that would apply the principles of experience
rating. As with any insurance policy, a different premium level is
applied the more we use it. That is the kind of principle we have
applied here.
It is a very modest one. It is there to provide a certain deterrent to
increased use. It is not discriminatory. It is simply to recognize and
evaluate the very serious cost of the program as a result of the
incredible expansion in use over the past 10 years.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, seasonal workers are honest users of the system and are
only guilty of supporting the seasonal economy in the regions.
Will the minister acknowledge that regions whose economy is
largely based on forestry, the fisheries and tourism, as is the case in
eastern Quebec and eastern Canada, will be among the principal
victims of his reforms and that they will become second-class
regions with second-class unemployed workers?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon.
member did not listen to the previous answer.
However, a quarter of a million workers in seasonal industries
will be able to receive benefits for a longer period of time. If we
add up the actual dollars, it will be more dollars because of the
hours based system. The shift to the hours based system means that
for the first time full credit or full value is given for the full work
they do. That is what workers want. They want to be given full
credit for the amount of time put in and not have a bunch of
artificial formulas applied to them.
That is what we have done. Every dollar and every hour now
count toward credit in the new employment insurance system.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada issued a
press release today detailing proposed changes to the coat of arms.
We spent the morning trying to figure out what exactly he was
talking about. I must say that it reads like something out of a
LeCarré novel.
The Prime Minister's office does not know anything about the
change. The Liberal whip's office said it must be a mistake. The
Privy Council office seems to be completely in the dark.
We would like to know what all the secrecy is about. Why is this
change being introduced now? Why does not anyone on that side of
the House seem to know anything about it?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, changes in the coat of arms are not unusual. They
have taken place over the years. We witness now, somewhat
belatedly, another change.
If the member wants to make a great show of it, I would suggest
he go outside and ride on the back of the unicorn.
(1445 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a pleasure to follow such a class act as this low life minister.
Some hon. members: Oh. Oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as much as possible we should refrain
from personal attacks. I ask all hon. members to be very judicious
in their choice of words.
I return to the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and ask him to
put his question.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the government's arrogance typified in
that answer seems to know no bounds. First it uses the old
Mulroney tactics of ramming through constitutional vetoes and
distinct society status when the Canadian people have not been
consulted. Now it wants to change the Canadian Coat of Arms,
waiting for a convenient moment when it thinks it can sneak it
through Parliament past our eyes.
Why is the government now sneaking through these changes to
the Canadian Coat of Arms and why is it changing the fundamental
symbols of the country at a time when we are trying to keep it tied
together?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I explained these changes were made in 1987. We are
not currently doing anything. We are printing booklets giving the
symbols of Canada all across Canada.
17238
One reason, as I understand it, the coat of arms was changed
in 1987 was to add ``to build a better country''. If this is irrelevant
today, I profoundly disagree. Our colleagues should work for a
better country, but they do not.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As we know now, the minister's reforms will triple the number
of hours required to be eligible for unemployment insurance for the
first time, from 300 to 910 hours. In so doing, the minister
penalizes thousands of young people who are trying very hard to
get into the labour market as well as thousands of women who want
to go back to work, because they will need more than six months of
full time work to qualify.
Will the minister admit that all workers who lose their jobs and
apply for unemployment insurance for the first time after having
worked less than 18 hours a week for one year, will not be eligible
for benefits, even if they paid premiums during that time?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the
question cited as reference the report of seasonal workers. That
same report recommended strongly that there be stronger
eligibility requirements for young people because it was noticed
that many young people were simply using a minimum amount of
work to get into the system and therefore becoming dependent on
cycles year after year.
Our response has been very clearly twofold. First, we have
shifted, as the hon. member should know, to a much stronger series
of measures to help people, including young people, get back in the
job market quickly and effectively.
Second, we have increased our budget for youth employment by
15 per cent this year. In the first year of operation of a youth
internship we already have 25,000 young people working in
business to make that transition. Our belief is to use positive, active
measures to help our young people get into the workforce.
Furthermore, there is one important thing the hon member
should know but does not. We are extending those active measures
to people who have paid into the new employment insurance
system for a period of three years. All those employment measures
are available even to those who have exhausted their claims. They
will now have the benefit of our employment measures.
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad
that the Minister of Human Resources Development considers
unemployment insurance as a drug.
I would like to ask a question from a different perspective. Does
the minister agree that individuals who work less than 490 hours
annually will never be eligible for unemployment insurance
although they have to pay premiums, which has not been the case
so far?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has totally
and completely misunderstood the major fundamental thrust.
This has been debated for many years. We have finally said the
old system which purely provided benefits was not sufficient to
help people get back to work. We have shifted those resources into
effective measures of employment, things like the
self-employment measure, things like the development of a wage
supplement to provide for small business.
We are using those measures to help people get back to work, to
make up those hours because we happen to believe that everyone
would rather work than simply stay on benefits. We are now giving
them the means to achieve that goal.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Training and Youth.
At an aboriginal youth forum I recently held in Edmonton East
one of the concerns expressed was the high rate of unemployment
among aboriginal youth. Participants felt it was crucial to nurture
and develop the talent of our aboriginal youth.
What initiatives has the Department of Human Resources
Development taken to assist urban aboriginal youth successfully
enter the workplace?
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to
helping aboriginal youth join the workforce successfully. We are
actively assisting them to help gain valuable work experience.
On October 16 Human Resources Development Canada
announced the latest project, a series of 16 First Nations youth
service projects. The Assembly of First Nations will work in
partnership
17239
with Youth Service Canada HRD to develop youth service projects
which meet the needs of these aboriginal youth.
This initiative will have a total of 240 participants and will cost
approximately $2 million.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a rather curious turn of events here today.
Earlier last week the government in introducing this distinct
society motion said it attached great importance to symbolism,
even symbolic statements.
Now we have a proposed change in the Canadian coat of arms, a
Canadian symbol, and the heritage minister who is supposed to be
the guardian of these things dismisses it as inconsequential.
To whom does he believe this Canadian symbol belongs, to the
sovereign, to the government, to some Liberal backbencher or to
the people of Canada?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it certainly belongs to the people of Canada, all of us,
but particular to those who believe in what is written on the coat of
arms: ``To build a better country''.
I hope the Reform Party believes in it and will support the new
coat of arms.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if it is true what the minister says, that the coat of arms
belongs to the people of Canada and he is committed to building a
better country, why are the people of Canada not consulted and
involved in changes to the Canadian coat of arms?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the people responsible for the coat of arms are the
people of heraldic authority of Canada under the jurisdiction of the
governor general.
That is the way the coat of arms is changed. It has been approved
by the Queen. If, as I said earlier, my colleague wants to trigger a
nationwide debate on the subject of the change, he would be
welcome to it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Justice stated that the so-called veto his
government is proposing to Quebec in response to the referendum
commitments made by the Prime Minister belongs to Quebecers
and not to the National Assembly.
(1455)
My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Considering
what he said yesterday, will the minister confirm that the so-called
veto in Bill C-110 does not in any way belong to the government of
Quebec or the National Assembly?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-110 clearly says that before
the Canadian government authorizes an amendment to the
Constitution, it will need the consent of a majority of the provinces
that includes Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces and the
Western provinces. We said clearly in this bill that what we need is
the consent of the provinces.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Minister of Justice agree that the wording of Bill C-110 is such
that the federal government is free to circumvent the Quebec
National Assembly and, for instance, call a federal referendum in
Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the important thing to bear in mind
is nothing in Bill C-110 changes the formula for amending the
Constitution, as set out in part V of the Constitution Act of 1982.
What is required under section 38, as the hon. member well knows,
is the agreement of seven of the ten provinces expressed by
resolutions passed by their legislative assemblies. That is what is
required before a constitutional amendment can take place.
All Bill C-110 provides is that before the Canadian government
will participate in such a change, and after seven legislative
assemblies have expressed their agreement, it will determine the
consent of the provinces to the extent of the majority as described
in the bill.
What constitutes consent could very well be the legislative
assemblies' statement. It could be an expression of support by the
government of the province or it could be expressed directly by the
people. That flexibility is one of the real advantages of the
legislation.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
debate surrounding the change to our flag was one of the most
emotional, controversial and moving in Canadian history. It gave
all Canadians an opportunity to participate in the development of
the symbols of the country.
We are now told our new coat of arms is ready for distribution
late this week. How did this happen in such a state of secrecy? I
remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage the press release carried
an embargo until 10 a.m., December 4, 1995.
17240
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member has asked a serious question. Although
it is on short notice I will try to present her and the House with
some information I just received.
I have in my hand a booklet entitled ``Symbols of Canada'',
published by the Department of Canadian Heritage. On page 5,
under the heading ``Armorial Bearings'', which I understand is
another term for coat of arms, it states:
Adopted: By proclamation of King George V on November 21, 1921. On the
advice of the Prime Minister of Canada, Her Majesty the Queen approved, on
July 12, 1994, that the Royal Arms of Canada be augmented of a ribbon with the
motto of the Order of Canada, desiderantes meliorem patriam-
-they desire a better country.
I hope my hon. friend also desires a better country.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, of
course I absolutely do want to see all of us build a better Canada, a
better future. However, the issue here concerns the embargo until
yesterday, December 4, 1995, and that part of my question was not
addressed.
(1500 )
Further to that, if indeed the House of Commons represents a
place for all Canadians to come and debate through our
membership, I would like to know why we did not have a broad
debate in the House of Commons to discuss this very basic simple
issue.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I understand it-I will be corrected if I am wrong-this booklet I
have was distributed to all members of Parliament and to the
public. It was distributed some time ago. It is hardly a secret.
I want to add that as far as I am aware, while there has been a
debate and vote in the House on the Canadian flag and a debate and
vote in the House on our national anthem, the matter of the
armorial bearings of Canada has been something for decision of
Her Majesty the Queen of Canada and not for the House of
Commons. So I see nothing to criticize this government over the
actions of Her Majesty the Queen.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Seniors have come into my office complaining about the long
line-ups at customs as they return home for the holidays. By the
time they reach customs they are quite tired from their flights. Can
the minister tell the House what he is doing to ensure that seniors
and other travellers can move through customs without having to
stand in long line-ups?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that Canada Customs is fully
prepared to provide extra services at the border during this holiday
season. There is an increase in traffic at this time. A large
proportion of the 110 million people who come into Canada come
at that time.
Our job is to provide, through extra shifts, part-time workers,
and some student customs officers, the best possible service at this
time. In addition, this year we will also have at our busiest airports
special client service representatives to assist those who may be in
trouble.
I think we should recognize that the customs service of Canada is
probably the best in the world. They work very hard and long hours
during the holiday season protecting this country against illegal
weapons, drugs, and other such things. I hope the House will
recognize the important work they do, particularly at this time of
year.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The last government walked away from the unemployment
insurance fund and this government has done nothing to bring itself
closer. Would the minister tell us why he thinks he has the moral
authority to take another $1 billion out of the pockets of
unemployed Canadians on top of the $7 billion he took out last year
to use to pay down the deficit, which those people made no
contribution in creating?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been through this
territory several times, but I would be quite happy to try to repeat it
for the understanding of the hon. member.
First, the proposed changes are designed specifically to help
create jobs in this country. A large part of that amount goes to
re-employment measures, which will enable people to get back to
work. The remaining portion goes to help establish a fund to
stabilize the premiums.
The hon. member was in this House during the 1990s. He knew
what happened when the previous government had to raise the
premiums by 95 cents over a period of two years. It threw the
market into total havoc. It drove down the economy. It put an extra
burden on workers. It destroyed jobs.
17241
One thing about us compared to New Democrats is that we learn
from history and we are not going to repeat that mistake again.
The Speaker: Colleagues, this would bring to a close the
question period.
_____________________________________________
17241
THE ROYAL ASSENT
(1505 )
[English]
The Speaker: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that
a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa
December 5, 1995
Mr. Speaker
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Charles Major,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 5th day of
December 1995, at 4.55 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain
bills.
Your sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary, Policy, Program and Protocol
_____________________________________________
17241
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Speaker: My colleague, I am informed that you have two
minutes remaining in your speech. This will be followed by a
five-minute question and comment period. I understand you are
sharing your time with another hon. member. Is that correct?
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
My wife is often astonished at how quickly and how frequently
the schedule changes for a parliamentarian. This is an example of
that. When I rose to speak an hour ago I said I would speaking for
the full 20 minutes and now it is 10 minutes. I happy to comply and
adjust my schedule again.
Before question period I was saying that the bill was a Robin
Hood response to the problem we have with the UI system. In 1983
the UI system cost $9 billion to employers and employees across
Canada. Today it costs $17 billion. The growth in the cost of this
program has represented a tax on jobs in Canada and we have to
deal with it.
People in my riding tell me that it has been misused in many
ways and it is time to deal with it. But how do we deal with it? And
why am I calling it a Robin Hood response? Because we are dealing
with this problem of reducing the cost of the program by reducing
benefits for the well off who have been breaking the system for a
while and increasing benefits to the poor. The low-income people
who have dependants will get up to 80 per cent, rather than 55 per
cent of their previous income under this system. So it is an
important step forward and we are maintaining the program as
much as possible in a very solid way for those in the middle. That is
a very important point.
Finally, I want to mention the issue of involuntary part-time
workers. I have been involved in the food bank movement in the
Halifax area, as people in my riding would know. One thing we
always complained about for low-income people is the growing
number of people who have to work part time because they could
not find full-time work. One reason for that has been the incentive
provided in part by the UI system to employers to only hire
part-time workers, who would work less than 15 hours a week so
they would not have to pay these UI benefits, for example.
(1510 )
By moving to an hourly based system where every hour counts
and every hour has premiums paid on it, it means that people who
are working part time will qualify for UI and the incentive for
employers to hire only part time will no longer be there. These are
important and positive points about this employment insurance
program.
I urge all members of the House to vote against this Bloc motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the speech by the member for Halifax West. I was
surprised, because he is from one of the Atlantic provinces, that he
had no criticism of the unemployment insurance reform. His is one
of the regions that will be affected most in Canada following the
unemployment insurance reform. The member sees only positive
effects, but his region will surely suffer negative and disastrous
consequences.
I come from Latin America, and sometimes representatives of
the International Monetary Fund, who travel throughout Latin
America, tell governments that they must make cuts, reduce
salaries or terminate unemployment insurance or social security
programs. From what we see here in Canada, it looks like policy is
being dictated by the International Monetary Fund or the OECD.
I would like to know the member's opinion. What does he think
of the negative consequences of the system set up by the Minister
17242
of Human Resources Development for the Atlantic region, which
will be hit just as hard as Quebec and other regions in Canada?
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, they are incredible. The Bloc members
are unable to see the benefits of these changes to the system. They
fail to see the problems with the old unemployment insurance
system.
Yes, I come from one of the Atlantic provinces. But, in these
provinces, in my region, many people recognize that the old
unemployment insurance program needed to be changed, renewed.
[English]
The hon. member speaks about my region being hard hit by these
changes. As a matter of fact I think the member should examine the
proposals a little more carefully and see exactly what is happening.
The fact of the matter is that 45,000 more seasonal workers in
Atlantic Canada will have access to employment insurance because
of these changes.
Yes, there will be a reduction in the overall amount being spent,
but we are focusing it much better toward the creation of
employment, toward employment assistance programs, toward
training programs, toward important things that are required to
move this system away from unemployment insurance to insurance
of employment, which is what it is all about.
In the year 1997-98 there will be a total net decrease of about six
per cent. By the year 2001 the total decrease in the whole impact of
the program will be about seven per cent. Considering that the cost
of the program has gone from $9 billion 12 years ago to $17 billion
today, it should not be surprising that we need to have some
changes to this program. The fact that the total impact over the next
five or six years will only be seven per cent total for this region
should tell the hon. member something. We have done this by
making sure that those who need it the most still have it. This
means it will work well in Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, studies have shown that the utilization of unemployment
insurance benefits is very hard to forecast. The reason is that
institutions tend to exploit the opportunities. For example, we
know institutions developed in Atlantic Canada that allowed
workers to work for exactly 12 weeks in order to qualify for
benefits and then the next batch came in to work for 12 weeks. This
is how the cost increased.
I wonder whether the Department of Human Resources
Development has looked at the possibility of similar institutional
developments coming forward in the context of now making
part-time workers eligible.
(1515 )
Mr. Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the department has
examined many aspects of the bill. There will also be an ongoing
monitoring process by the Employment Insurance Commission.
The Reform Party has been saying that we should make it much
more like an ordinary insurance system, maybe even make it a
totally privatized system. This shows me that Reform Party
members are not responsive to the concerns of Atlantic Canada,
that they do not care one iota, not one ounce, not even a smidgen
about the people in Atlantic Canada. Otherwise they would not
hold that position.
[Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what counts for Canadians is jobs, and that is what counts
for the government as well. This is also the fundamental objective
of the bill on employment insurance, which the opposition motion
is so wrongly criticizing.
The bill does more than protect the incomes of the unemployed.
It is based on the principle that we must more actively help people
find work. And it is based on the requirements of a modern
economy. Another question, however, is central to the debate. The
employment insurance bill announces a completely new way to
view the role of the provinces in the labour market. This is one
indication of this government's flexibility in past matters and its
continued flexibility in federal-provincial matters.
The issues on creating and maintaining jobs had to be gone at in
greater depth. A serious look had to be taken at ways of combining
our efforts with those of the provinces. This means understanding
jurisdictional problems and finding solutions.
We take into account the fact that the provinces are responsible
for education and job training. We accept the point of view held by
many in Quebec and elsewhere that the federal government should
not get involved in job training. We acknowledge that the federal
government should not get involved in activities that risk changing
provincial priorities in the area of job training.
[English]
Last Friday the Minister of Human Resources Development
restated that commitment. He went further. He outlined how the
new employment benefits under employment insurance would
assist in getting Canadians back to work. Needless to say, they will
be much more respectful of provincial responsibilities in this area.
17243
[Translation]
Quebec provides an excellent example of this sort of active
approach: collective organizations and partnerships such as the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre.
[English]
The employment insurance bill provides for a new balance to
federalism. This is what we see in employment benefits. It is based
on an answer to a very important question: Would a new set of roles
and arrangements between the federal and provincial governments
do a better job of getting Canadians back to work and would it do
that more efficiently?
[Translation]
The answer to this question is yes. And now is the time to say
yes. Quebec is the very place this answer has to be given. We will
no longer be buying training courses from public or private
institutions. We will withdraw from apprenticeship, work-study
and training programs at the workplace. These measures are in
keeping with the consensus in Quebec.
However, while the federal government no longer intends to play
a role in manpower training, it does intend to continue its role in
helping the unemployed return to work. The new employment
benefits will represent an investment in people. We want to spend
this money so effectively that our clients will never need us again.
We want to spend this money on, devote it to activities that will
ensure the best results.
Wage subsidies, for example, will help employment insurance
clients find work, and we are talking here primarily about people
such as those with a disability, who have a harder time of it.
(1520)
Income supplements will help employment insurance clients
find work; most of these people may need short term financial
assistance.
Job creation partnerships will help create new jobs for
employment insurance clients.
The five measures we have just mentioned are not programs;
rather, they outline the types of needs on which we have decided to
focus our efforts.
We are reaching out to Quebec and we are ready to work with its
employment development programs and tools.
Through the strategic initiatives program, the federal
government already supports two Quebec programs that should
allow all of Canada to learn important lessons on the labour
market. Federal support for PWA will help over 25,000 families
throughout Quebec benefit from this important program every year.
As my hon. colleagues may know, PWA provides wage
assistance to low income families. Parents benefit, of course, but so
do tens of thousands of children, who can then grow up in families
who are proud of their work.
[English]
The results will be clients who are better off with a simple
process. That is a basic reason why we are insisting our programs
be harmonized with provincial ones.
[Translation]
By reinvesting insurance savings, we will spend more on helping
these Canadians. Expenditures will rise from $1.9 billion to $2.7
billion. This money will be spent on concrete measures that will
make it possible for Quebecers and Canadians to find work.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to sum up these various arguments. Our
government has said that it would withdraw from job training, and
it is. We are going to focus our efforts on effective measures that
have a tangible impact. We have made a commitment to harmonize
efforts and to strike partnerships so that we can provide real
benefits for our clients and for the future of employment insurance.
As part of this employment insurance proposal, we invite the
provincial governments to collaborate with us in designing and
distributing employment benefits.
I was therefore delighted to see that the Quebec government has
taken an important step toward an agreement. When the Quebec
National Assembly voted in favour of the Liberal amendment
urging it to discuss with the federal government, it made a decision
that gives us some hope. It took a step that should eventually
improve the choices offered the unemployed throughout Quebec.
We are confident that our commitment to fully respect provincial
jurisdiction over education and training is a step in this process. We
feel that our commitment to harmonize our activities with those of
the provinces is another.
[English]
The government has always been committed to flexible
federalism and to flexible approaches on federal-provincial issues
such as working together to help the unemployed.
[Translation]
Everyone will benefit from this type of collaboration.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
minister said in his opening remarks his government's main
concern was with jobs, I can tell you that this government's biggest
failure is precisely in that area, in spite of the fact that it got elected
on a platform of ``Jobs, jobs, jobs''.
17244
These jobs are nowhere to be seen in Canada, let alone in
Quebec. Unemployment is running as high as 10 per cent in
Canada. What the minister is suggesting today does not reflect
reality.
He also said that the federal government plans to withdraw from
occupational training, but at the same time, it is putting forward
unemployment action measures to try to interfere, once again, in
areas of provincial jurisdiction, because education and
occupational training come under provincial jurisdiction.
(1525)
I must say that I agree with the resolution passed by the Quebec
National Assembly saying that the Government of Quebec is
prepared to undertake negotiations with the federal government,
provided that the federal government completely withdraw from
occupational training.
Does the minister agree with the federal government's complete
withdrawal from the area of occupational training?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, the first question or comment made by
the hon. member, to the effect that there has been no job creation, is
just not factual.
The fact of the matter is that, since we took office, 509,000 new
jobs were created in Canada. I am quoting Statistics Canada
figures. More than 119,000 new jobs were created in Quebec. That
is my answer to the first question.
When we look at the facts, we can seen that jobs, in fact more
than half a million new jobs, have been created in the economy.
Our economic and job creation policies work.
Second, regarding occupational training, we must make a
distinction between two things. Quebec claims jurisdiction in the
matter because education is a provincial jurisdiction. This means
that we must withdraw from all training courses coming under their
jurisdiction. But there is another jurisdiction involved which is a
federal jurisdiction and, in fact, an exclusive federal jurisdiction.
And that is unemployment insurance.
When we draw money from the UI fund to reduce
unemployment, we are acting like any responsible person would in
spending adequately the funds allocated to them; that is our
jurisdiction. We are trying to limit future UI expenditures and to
stimulate employment.
A measure designed, for example, to supplement a person's
income to allow this person to find a job or to subsidize his
company so that he can have a job clearly does not pertain to
training. It is an employment measure coming fully under federal
jurisdiction and involving the UI fund, over which the federal
government has exclusive responsibility.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the member who spoke about the great
amount of jobs that had been created since the Liberal government
took over. I beg to differ with him. If jobs have been created, it
certainly has not been as a result of the federal government. Any
jobs that have been created have been done through the private
sector.
When will the government realize that governments do not
create jobs? The best thing that governments have been able to
create over the last many years is debt. If job creation programs
instigated by parliaments were successful, everybody in Canada
would have at least two jobs.
The other day I asked the Minister of Human Resources
Development about changes in the delivery of the training
programs. He said that we really should be transferring resources to
the people, to the private sector and to communities. I would
certainly like to see that. I applaud the minister for even thinking
about transferring training to the private sector. That is a great leap
in attitude for the Liberal government. I would like to see that come
about.
In the private sector at least the training would be job specific. It
would be specific to the marketplace. The marketplace would have
some say in what sort of training should take place rather than
having training programs that are supported for example under
section 25 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, whereby moneys
are allocated to very questionable job training prospects. When I
ask about those specific projects that take place in our area,
because I would like to have some feedback as to what kinds of
permanent jobs have been created and how many people have
become employed as a result of those projects, I get very little
response. As a matter of fact, I am waiting to get some information
as to how successful or unsuccessful those programs are.
(1530)
I believe the Bloc has come up with a good motion. However, I
do not believe it is specific to Quebec. We are talking about
Canada. Of course the Bloc oftentimes only speaks about the
province of Quebec. This is certainly relevant in my province of
Alberta, as it is in la belle province. The Bloc would have had our
support if the motion had not been strictly specific to Quebec.
The auditor general questioned the effectiveness of this program.
This is not simply an idea the Reform Party has come up with or the
Bloc has come up with. The auditor general stated in his report: ``In
studying programs that pumped about $4 billion into regional
development over eight years, administrators often just added up
the number of jobs the projects they funded were supposed to
create and concluded that the programs had created those jobs''.
That is hardly the way to assess the effectiveness of the program.
17245
There should be more accountability with respect to these
programs.
It is noteworthy that there will be a rebate to people who are
part-time employees. If they do not earn more than $2,000 their
contributions will be refunded. However, the employee's
contribution will not be refunded to the employee. That will have
the reverse effect of what the Liberal government says will be a job
incentive program. Anything that taxes the people who employ
people will have a negative effect on the number of people who are
employed. We should be doing more to remove payroll taxes. We
should not be putting more roadblocks in the way of business,
industry, and private enterprise. We should give them more of a
break to ensure they become successful.
My dad used to say that when you work for somebody you have
to make sure you make them a dollar or they could not possibly
afford to pay you. That is something that may have escaped hon.
members opposite.
Having looked at this motion, I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville,
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after ``sector''.
(1535 )
The Speaker: I have looked at the amendment. Because it is the
deletion of words I am going to accept it.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard.
[Translation]
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard
has the floor. I understand you will be sharing your time with
another member.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think that Bill C-111, introduced in the House last Friday
by the Minister of Human Resources Development, is one of the
most modern pieces of legislation introduced by this government.
As Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said, the proposed reform aims
to help jobless Canadians to rejoin the workforce as quickly as
possible, and to regain the dignity associated with working.
Employment insurance is designed to promote the development
of the Canadian workforce, as well as economic growth.
To that end, the new employment insurance program proposes
new measures geared to the needs of individuals and communities.
It also seeks to promote partnership and co-operation with the
provinces, with the sole purpose of improving the well-being of
Canadian workers.
In co-operation with the provinces, and in the context of a new
vision and a new approach, we want to provide Canadian workers
with the tools and the opportunities that will help them find their
niche in the workforce. Along with the provinces, the private sector
and community organizations, we want these workers to have jobs
that will make our country competitive on the international
markets.
Governments must get together to meet the challenges of the
new economy and provide workers with the necessary skills and
knowledge.
Employment insurance proposes a system that is better suited to
the needs of those who want to find work in the modern labour
market. For example, I can think of the workers who want to get
training, so that they can meet the new labour market requirements,
including in the professional and industrial sectors, to ensure their
well-being and also contribute to the country's economic growth.
Once fully implemented, the proposed reform will create between
100,000 and 150,000 jobs every year, including 40,000 in Quebec.
Employment insurance is a much more efficient program,
because it recognizes the work effort, while also helping the
unemployed. The proposed changes are fair to all Canadian
workers, including those who hold part-time jobs.
This program is indeed more efficient. Once fully implemented,
it will result in savings of two billion dollars, without depriving any
Canadian of his or her rights. Out of that amount, $800 million will
be reinvested in the employment benefit program. Adding to that
amount the current budget of $1.9 billion for employment benefits,
we get a total of $2.7 billion to be allocated to employment
assistance each year. This is a unique and golden opportunity for
those provinces interested in reaching agreements with the federal
government to look after their workforce in a proactive fashion.
(1540)
It was also our intention to ensure that Canadians living in high
unemployment areas could take advantage of employment
incentive measures in order to work more hours in a year. We have
therefore established a $300 million transition job fund over three
years, to fund independent growth-related employment in areas of
higher unemployment.
In conjunction with our partners, we wish to encourage
employers to create new jobs and to help the unemployed to return
to the work force as quickly as possible.
Employment benefits are practical and efficient tools which
assist those attempting to return to the work force with practical,
and in some cases personalized, measures.
Since training is a provincial responsibility, and it is the federal
government's intention to withdraw from that sector under the new
17246
legislation, skill development loans and grants will be given only
after formal consent by the province concerned.
Employment benefits were designed to encourage personal
initiative, to encourage people to make appropriate job search
choices. There are management systems to help recipients plan
their return to the work force in a methodical way. They will need
to commit to following that plan, and there will be follow-up
mechanisms.
We have sought to make wage benefits and all employment and
re-employment measures as flexible as possible. All levels of
government acknowledge the necessity of bringing their labour
market-related roles in line with each other; duplication of effort,
services and expenditures must be avoided, and initiatives must be
co-ordinated. A province wishing to administer a service itself, or
to substitute another program which would yield the same results,
will be able to do so. The federal government is determined to act
in as open a manner as possible, within the confines of its mandate
under the national Constitution.
What will Quebec get out of this new legislative package?
Respect of our jurisdictions, greater flexibility in human resource
management, new opportunities for agreements, and the
continuation of some of the many agreements already in place
between us relating to employment insurance and human resources
development.
To prevent overlapping initiatives and programs, we want to sit
down with Quebec and see how we can focus our efforts in the area
of manpower training. Parochial squabbles do Canadians a
disservice and are counterproductive. We are here to serve all
Canadians and that should be the only rationale for what we do.
If the province of Quebec already has a program, we are quite
willing to let Quebec manage and determine the basic orientation
of this program. We want to avoid duplication at all costs. It is too
expensive, creates bureaucratic problems and prevents us from
understanding the needs of workers and employers.
We will try to set up formal and specific agreements with the
provinces. In each case, we will ask what instruments, programs
and employment services should be designed and managed locally.
This will be done keeping efficiency in mind. We must give each
individual the tools he needs to get back on the labour market.
This means that on the basis of such agreements, Quebec will be
able to assume responsibility for delivering an even larger number
of projects, programs and services to its workers.
As Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced a few days ago, the
federal government will withdraw from manpower training
activities. We will no longer purchase training courses from
provincial institutions. We will withdraw from apprenticeship
training, co-operative education programs and on-the-job training.
These measures must be implemented as soon as possible. We
have provided for a transition period of up to three years to give the
provinces and institutions time to adjust.
Since 1966, we have concluded agreements with Quebec as we
have with other provinces in this country, and this proves that we
are able to work in harmony to promote the well being of our
human resources, with due consideration for the priorities of the
province.
The employment insurance bill is a starting point for discussions
with the provinces. These discussions may lead to various
agreements depending on the particular needs of the provinces,
their economic situation and the needs and circumstances of local
labour markets. It is up to us to sit down together at the negotiating
table and proceed with our discussions while considering our
workers, the jobs they need and the economic development of all
regions in our country.
(1545)
In some cases, for example, a provincial government could
manage federal employment measures or could use its own
programs, rather than implement the proposed federal measures.
Similarly, we could combine federal and provincial programs along
with other programs from the private sector and the community.
These programs could be administered by the private sector, a
local or provincial organization or a consortium. The employment
benefits and services proposed in Bill C-111 are based on proven
job creation practices.
Experience tells us that helping claimants set up a business is an
effective way to return people to work. Since April 1994, 34,000
Canadians have set up businesses using this method. Seventy per
cent of them were still active 18 months later. They create an
average of 1.1 jobs.
A quick example, before I conclude. In February 1995,
Dominique Grenier of Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts started a
specialized business in software for people with a disability.
After four years of temporary jobs, he saw self-employment
assistance as a way of getting a job. After only ten months, his
business is expanding. Interest in his products, which help people
cope with their environment, continues to grow. Next year, he
intends to hire at least one person, and perhaps two. Here is what he
says: ``I would not have been able to carry this project out had it not
been for the help I received from the Department of Human
Resources Development. This sort of program is vital for anyone
wanting to start a business''.
17247
In the interest of our fellow citizens, this bill deserves our
support. It is centred on a single and vital objective: jobs that give
Canadians, communities and regions real hope for the future.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the member's speech. I know he is very
interested in his riding and I have heard him many times express
his concern about the issue of employment in the province of
Quebec. I recently had the opportunity to read a report by the
Quebec Manufacturers' Association, who said that employment
conditions and problems of labour and employability within
Quebec were very serious. I would like to get the views of the
member.
I understand unemployment insurance benefits in Canada are
some of the highest in the western world. Many people feel that
because these benefits are inordinately high compared to countries
we compete with in international trade, it has created a lower
productivity. In view of that, a number of people feel that
productivity in Canada has been declining over the last ten years
and no less so in Quebec.
A very positive aspect of this legislation would be to increase
labour productivity, increase the attractiveness of Canada and of
Quebec as a competitive place in which to do business. What we
are really looking at is a long-term commitment to create a great
number of jobs within that province.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my Liberal colleague
for his question. This new employment insurance reform as
proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development will
help us increase productivity in Quebec and across Canada.
There are several very interesting points in this reform; there are
the responsibilities we will give to all job seekers. There will be
wage subsidies and earnings supplements. I already mentioned
self-employment assistance. There will also be partnerships with
the provinces, municipalities, and the companies themselves to put
people back to work.
(1550)
I think that this is the most important. There will also be social
incentives. Basing the reform on the number of hours of work and
on earnings will greatly benefit the Canadian economy. There are
inequities in the existing Unemployment Insurance Act in that
some people can qualify for UI after working 15 hours a week for
12 weeks, while others who work 14 hours a week in part time jobs,
perhaps for several years, have no chance of receiving UI benefits.
This bill will eliminate some inequities. In the case of lower
income people, namely those working part time, some 500,000 of
them will now be eligible for UI benefits should they need
them-although I hope they will keep their jobs for as long as
possible.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask my hon. colleague opposite a question.
Given that the opposition motion before us today deals with the
perpetuation of duplication and overlap in the area of manpower,
how does he react, as a Quebec member representing the interests
of Quebec in this House, to the resolution unanimously carried
yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly requesting that the
federal government withdraw totally and completely from the
whole area of occupational training and everything that pertains to
it?
First, what is his reaction and, second, how can he reconcile not
acceding to the unanimous request or wish expressed yesterday by
the National Assembly with regard to this government's so-called
good intentions in recognizing Quebec as a distinct society? If the
federal government were not to comply with the resolution passed
yesterday, how could he reconcile all that, as an elected
representative supposedly here to represent the interests of the
Quebec people?
Mr. Patry: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from
the Bloc Quebecois for his question.
I think it is relatively easy to reconcile the federal government's
position and the interests of the people of Quebec, because our
focus is on job creation. I believe that the Quebec government is
looking into the matter and that future legislation passed in the
National Assembly will also focus on job creation now that the
referendum was defeated in Quebec.
As far as our reform proposal is concerned-and you referred to
occupational training in particular-we feel that the bill now
before the House of Commons makes it quite clear that the
government intends to withdraw from occupational training
completely.
I think that what must be understood with this bill is that the
federal government would like all provincial and territorial
governments of Canada to get together and look at how duplication
can be eliminated. As I indicated in my remarks, as far as we are
concerned, there is no question of us buying any occupational
training courses whatsoever as we know them, because we must
withdraw from occupational training with the consent of the
province of Quebec.
I reach out to my hon. colleague and suggest that he ask his
leader, who is very likely to become the next Quebec premier, to be
not so kind but rather so wise as to come and sit down with the
federal government to negotiate federal-provincial agreements on
manpower training.
17248
[English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a western Canadian, I welcome the opportunity to take
part in this debate on the motion of the opposition party concerning
our government's plans to reform the old system of unemployment
insurance in Canada.
So far most of the discussion that has taken place since the
Minister of Human Resources Development introduced the new act
on Friday last has focused on the impact in the eastern parts of the
country, in Quebec and Atlantic Canada in particular. It is
important to keep in mind, however, that these reforms will impact
in all parts of Canada. Canadians in every province will be
potentially better off because of them.
A number of respected and knowledgeable Canadians, including
several from western Canada, have already spoken publicly in
support of the new legislation. There is indeed broad support for
the new program all across the country.
(1555)
It is important that members of the House should assess the new
employment insurance act in terms of what it will do for
unemployed Canadians, not on how it fits with one political
ideology or the other. It is also essential that we use this
opportunity to help Canadians to better understand the new act, and
especially to clarify some of the misconceptions that have arisen in
some of the public discussion in the past few days.
The first thing that needs to be clarified is the question of the
reserve, how in fact the reserve that is expected to accumulate in
the insurance fund will be used. I raise this because there has been
concern expressed that any surpluses that may accumulate will be
used to pay down the government's debt or reduce the operating
deficit.
Let me be perfectly clear on this. Surpluses in the insurance fund
will not be used to reduce the government's debt or deficit. The
unemployment insurance fund has operated under a separate set of
accounts in the past, and that will not change with the new law. The
federal government acts as a lender of last resort for the account
when it is in deficit, which by the way must be repaid with interest.
Alternatively, when the account accumulates a surplus it will earn
interest.
Since 1986, following the recommendation of the auditor
general of the day, the unemployment insurance account has been
part of the government's consolidated account. This is simply to
provide an integrated report of the government's financial
operations.
As with the unemployment insurance account, the employment
insurance account will be separate from the government's
consolidated revenue fund. It cannot be used for purposes other
than those designated in the legislation. Thus, should there be any
surpluses in the employment insurance fund, which is
self-financed out of employer and employee contributions, it will
stay in the EI account. To make it abundantly clear, EI premiums
will not be used to pay down the debt.
It is true that the unemployment insurance fund is currently in a
small surplus position. It is true that the minister has said it is the
government's intention to increase the reserve in the account. The
reason for this is quite apart from issues of deficit and debt
reduction. The reason for this is to ensure the stability and
long-term sustainability of the EI program itself.
Members of the House may remember that during the last
recession the unemployment insurance program was in serious
financial difficulty. Benefit claims were climbing sharply,
contributions were not covering the increased payouts, and the
unemployment fund operating deficit was growing at an alarming
rate. As everyone knows, for an insurance program a growing
deficit between claims and premiums spells disaster.
The government of the day, in reaction to this impending
disaster, was forced to raise premiums and then to raise them again.
In a two-year period premiums increased by about 25 per cent. In
fact over a five-year period premiums rose by 36 per cent, from
$2.25 to $3.07.
The bad news is that these hefty increases in premiums, which I
would remind hon. members are paid by the employers and the
employees, were not enough to balance the account. At the end of
the day, the fund eventually ran up a cumulative deficit of $6
billion.
People are tired of these big numbers. They are getting very used
to them. I would like to put this in perspective. The impact of a $6
billion deficit on a fund like this means hardship for the employers
and the employees. In the first place, employers were faced with
higher payroll taxes at a time in the economic cycle when they
could least afford it. In effect, this served as a drag on job creation.
Some estimates suggested that the premium increases killed as
many as 40,000 jobs.
As for the workers, they too were faced with paying higher
premiums, which meant they had less money in their pockets after
deductions. The increased premiums in fact reduced their after-tax
income at a time when the economy needed stimulation in the form
of more consumer spending.
Fortunately, the system is now back in equilibrium. As I said
earlier, we have a small but positive surplus in the account. The
financial disaster in the UI fund was averted. No one wants that
kind of situation to happen again. That is why it is extremely
important that we build a surplus in the EI fund.
Should we get into a position where the reserve is judged to be
sufficient, it will allow us to consider whether further premium
17249
reductions may be possible. The review of the adjustment to the
reforms, which the legislation itself requires must take place by
December 1998, will provide us with an opportunity to reassess the
financial stability of the fund and contemplate any such changes.
(1600 )
Where did the suggestions for these changes come from? As it
turns out, the proposal to accumulate a reserve in the UI account
came from the House of Commons committee which studied this
issue and whose members recognized the necessity of maintaining
a stable account through the economic cycle. They recognized the
need to have money set aside in case of a downturn in the business
cycle and the consequent need for higher UI payouts should this
occur. For this reason they made a recommendation to keep a
reserve against that possibility. This is what the term insurance
reserve is all about. It is a matter of prudent fiscal management and
has nothing whatsoever to do with deficit reduction.
This is not to say that our government has lost any of its firm
resolve to deal with the deficit and debt situation we inherited. We
remain firmly committed to the objective set out by the Minister of
Finance. We are meeting our deficit reduction targets through
operating efficiencies and other spending cuts. In fact, we expect to
make significant savings with the new employment insurance act.
How can this be? There are some very practical ways this could
occur.
The first is that we are reducing the cost of premiums for both
employers and workers. We are restructuring the system of benefits
as we come to grips with a program whose costs have doubled from
around $8 billion in 1982 to over $16 billion this year. We are
introducing a number of new administrative efficiencies which will
reduce the overhead costs of operating the unemployment program
and will result in a more decentralized program delivery system.
These are important measures for western Canadians and in fact
for all Canadians. Reducing premiums means that western
Canadians will pay less for the benefit program and will receive
more back for every dollar they contribute. This will reduce the
amount of cross-subsidization of the program by western
Canadians.
These are big changes. Of course sometimes big changes need a
time of transition. For this reason, government is committed to
ensuring that in special needs areas, for example, where
unemployment rates are higher than 12 per cent, those areas will
receive transitional assistance during adjustment to the reforms.
In addition, the family income supplement will mean that low
income parents on unemployment insurance could collect up to 80
per cent of their previous earnings. An important aspect of this new
measure is that it treats the family as a unit for unemployment
insurance purposes and not as a set of individuals.
We know that the best way to reduce costs in the unemployment
program is to get people working again. It is not for nothing that the
new program is called employment insurance. The new
employment insurance program introduced last Friday contains a
set of employment benefits that have been described as pro work.
Some $800 million of the savings from unemployment reforms
will be reinvested in these measures which are designed to help
unemployed workers re-enter the workforce.
Western Canadian provinces will also have full access to the
employment benefit measures. The objective of these employment
benefits is to improve incentives to work and to reduce dependency
on the EI system.
The new employment benefits include well targeted, results
oriented measures such as wage subsidies, earning supplements,
self-employment assistance, job creation partnerships and loans
and grants to help workers improve their skills. Use of these
employment measures will be tailored to meet specific labour
market needs and priorities as determined within a decentralized
context. The emphasis will be on flexibility, common sense and
practical experience.
In addition, the future service delivery and decision making will
take place as close to the local level as possible. Local skills and
expertise will be used working in partnership with other levels of
government, community groups, educators and others from the
business community and labour organizations.
This new approach to unemployment assistance is based on the
idea that effective programs can be designed and delivered in the
region that will use them. Ottawa does not have to make all the
decisions. It is based on our belief that people want to work. They
do not want to draw UI time after time. With the new employment
insurance program, we are giving them the tools to get back to
work.
Other sceptics may ask: Will this innovative approach work in
western Canada? The answer is, it already is. The human resources
development department has undertaken a number of pilot projects
in western Canada which are based on this model.
There is a job creation partnership project in the area of tourism
in Medicine Hat. Twenty-six seasonal or displaced workers became
involved in a project jointly funded by the federal department and
the city of Medicine Hat to help the city plan for an expansion of its
tourism industry.
(1605 )
In the area of business start ups, in my home city of Saskatoon
there is a self-employment assistance project which has helped 17
entrepreneurs start new businesses. A number of these people have
in turn hired new workers.
17250
Another example is in that very important area of making the
transition from welfare to work. There is a self-sufficiency project
in the lower mainland of British Columbia, a co-operative venture
which provides earnings supplements to help single parents get
off welfare and get back to work.
These are all practical working examples, not just airy-fairy
hopes and dreams. This is why we know it will work in western
Canada just as its works in all parts of the country. The door is open
for the development of co-operative ventures with each and every
province.
With the new employment insurance act this government has
opened the way for individual provinces to work with the federal
government to develop unique labour market programs which meet
the needs of individual governments, regions and people. Because
of this, I must disagree with the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Mercier. It is my belief that contrary to that motion this
government is doing everything-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, the hon.
member's time has expired.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find
unanimous consent for a couple of motions.
[Translation]
I move:
That members of the Standing Committee on Health be authorized to travel to
hold a briefing session on Preventative Strategies for Healthy Children in North
Gower, Ontario, on February 8 and 9, 1996, and that the necessary staff do
accompany the Committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move:
That the House, pursuant to Standing Order 119.1(1), authorize the
Subcommittee on HIV/AIDS of the Standing Committee on Health to televise
its meetings scheduled for Wednesday, December 6, Wednesday, December 13
and Thursday, December 14, 1995 in accordance with the guidelines pertaining
to televising committee proceedings.
(Motion agreed to.)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration
of Motion No. 26 under Government Orders, Government
Business, at the next sitting I shall move pursuant to Standing
Order 57 that debate be not further adjourned.
* * *
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, in her
speech, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt claimed that,
generally speaking, Canadians were enthusiastic and appreciative
as regards the reform proposed in the bill.
I can say that I heard of lot of opinions to the contrary. Many
people have opposed several aspects of this legislation.
The hon. member also says, and I agree with her on that issue,
that some decisions had to be made to try to reduce, if not
eliminate, the UI fund deficit. It is true that something had to be
done sooner or later about that.
However, based on what principle of social equity does Bill C-96
lower the contribution of high income earners, while increasing
that of those who hold precarious jobs, particularly part-time
workers?
In the end, the deficit will be reduced at the expense of the poor,
not the rich. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could
comment on that principle, because I cannot figure it out.
[English]
Mrs. Sheridan: Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the hon.
member opposite that there are some discordant notes and most of
them are being played from that region of this House of Parliament.
As with any bill there is going to be debate across the country but
I would only say that the provisions of the bill responded to a need
that committee members heard when they travelled across the
country just over a year ago. They heard a need for reforms to the
unemployment insurance fund and the act, not only to the
underlying principles but to the way the service is delivered. This
piece of legislation goes a long way to providing that service
delivery.
17251
(1610)
The second question concerned what principles of social equity
this was based on. The provisions of the bill will go a long way to
ensure there is greater equity among all Canadians. I would quote
again as an example the changes from a minimum number of weeks
to hours to take in part time workers.
I am not sure if I misunderstood what the hon. member said or if
he misunderstood what I said. In terms of using the employment
fund to reduce the deficit, I went to great lengths to say that is not
in fact what the reserve will be used for. If that was his suggestion,
I will say once more that the reserve in the employment insurance
fund will not be used to reduce the debt and deficit. The surplus
which is there will exist as a contingency. If it ever becomes large
enough it will be used to reduce premiums. That would benefit both
the employers and the employees which is quite an equitable
solution.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Champlain.
I am very pleased to participate in the debate on the motion
tabled by the hon. member for Mercier, which reads:
That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform
unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the
manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a
true manpower development policy of its own.
You will understand the relevance of that motion, following an
almost historical event yesterday, in that a resolution was
unanimously approved. Indeed, it is rare that western parliaments
unanimously approve such resolutions. Yet, that was the case
yesterday in Quebec City, where the three parties at the National
Assembly, namely the Parti Quebecois, the Liberal Party and the
Action démocratique, unanimously agreed on a resolution which
provides, in part, that:
Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower
adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate
accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government for these programs
in Quebec;
Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services
to customers, Quebec must take over the control and management of various
services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all
programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund
within Quebec's borders, and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to
such responsibilities;
The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the
co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government
that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives.
This is a resolution that was unanimously approved, by a vote of
96 to nil, by the three parties sitting in Quebec's National
Assembly. The timing of this resolution is all the more appropriate,
given a particular aspect of that reform mentioned on page 3 of the
release. I am referring to the national employment service. It is said
that ``a modernized employment service will help out of work
Canadians organize and conduct job searches. The computerized
information network on the labour market will be more powerful
and will tell people where they can find work in every region of the
country. To that end, the implementation of an improved and
universalized version of the service delivery system in Canada's
human resource centres was announced in August 1995''.
People in Trois-Rivières know all about the implications of that
announcement. This is the other reason why I am pleased to speak
today and to discuss, for the third time in the last two or three
weeks, issues that plague Trois-Rivières.
(1615)
These are linked to one of the aspects of the minister's reform
and relate to the creation of a new national placement system. It
will be centred on the Department of Human Resources
Development employment centres, and in our area it has been
decided that the regional administrative centre, the focal point of
departmental activities in our region, will be located, not where it
would normally and naturally be at Trois-Rivières, the regional
capital which I have the honour to represent, but at Shawinigan
instead.
This is, of course, a worthy city as well, one which knew glory in
the days of natural resource development by the Shawinigan Water
and Power, and is now represented as best he can by the hon.
member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister of Canada. The
decision was made at the Department of Human Resources
Development to have Shawinigan be the one to benefit from the
regional administrative centre, rather than Trois-Rivières.
The question remains-since we are totally in the dark as to the
reasons for this decision-was this a technocratic decision or a
political one? If technocratic, it is confirmation of all of the
public's prejudices against the judgment of technocrats in their
ivory towers, away from life's realities, away from the grassroots,
making decisions among themselves in comfort and behind closed
doors. They hold meeting after meeting at which they convince
each other of how justified their decisions are, without ever really
worrying about whether those decisions are in the least bit rational.
If this is a technocratic decision, then we must condemn it out of
hand, because it is based on absolutely nothing rational. I will offer
you proof very shortly that it even contradicts the parameters set by
the department itself.
17252
The other explanation, perhaps a more plausible one, is that
all-mighty, all-rational, all-giving politics were involved. That the
Prime Minister might have let it be known that common sense and
interest ought to prevail, including the self-interest of the member
for Saint-Maurice, to ensure that the residents of his riding, with
all logic, all rationality thrown to the winds, would reap the benefit
of the creation of this new centre, rather than the region of
Trois-Rivières, the city of Trois-Rivières, where workers are
merely shuffled around, and never a job created. In fact, if
memory serves, there was more than shuffling, there were cuts,
with 58 positions lost due to office closures.
Whether technocracy or politics were involved, the decision is
indisputably illogical and arbitrary. As I have said, it contradicts
the parameters the department has set for itself with respect to
creating these regional centres. The parliamentary secretary will
agree there was some kind of rationale. It is never easy to make
these decisions, and that is why you need certain criteria.
The main criteria when making these decisions include the
population affected, the number of unemployment insurance
recipients affected, the number of welfare recipients and the
number of businesses and employers likely to hire people on
unemployment insurance and welfare.
In each case, Trois-Rivières represents more or less twice the
activity, population, number of employers and number of
unemployment and welfare recipients. That is why Trois-Rivières
is the regional capital. It is the largest urban area and the most
important one in terms of economic activity and population in the
whole region. That is why it made good sense to have and keep this
kind of service in Trois-Rivières.
The department, for reasons that remain obscure, decided to
locate the service in Shawinigan. The decision was not only
arbitrary and illogical but also very unpopular. Since September, a
petition has been circulating, signed by more than 25,000 people,
condemning this decision by the federal government. Seventy
agencies took the trouble to draft resolutions condemning this
decision, including 40 municipalities as well as community
agencies.
(1620)
This case has attracted the support of the Fédération des caisses
populaires and the Fédération de l'âge d'or, because the elderly
become anxious when they see changes coming, while the regional
federation got involved as well.
We are seeing a chorus of protests in the riding of Trois-Rivières
and in the region, including Cap-de-la-Madeleine, a riding
represented by my colleague from Champlain,
Trois-Rivières-Ouest, in my riding, and even on the other side of
the river in Bécancour, which historically has always done
business with Trois-Rivières because of its location.
So this illogical and unpopular decision will have certain
practical consequences. This is not about protest for its own sake.
The fact is that the paperwork, under the new system, will be done
by the regional management centre in Shawinigan. People will
register in Trois-Rivières where the facts will be noted, without
further processing. And any intervention subsequent to registration
with the manpower centre, which happens in three out of four
cases, according to our statistics, which always require additional
processing, will be originated from Shawinigan instead of being
processed in Trois-Rivières as is now the case.
The minister claims it will make no difference and will not in
any way change the quality of the services now enjoyed by the
people of Trois-Rivières and surrounding area. Nevertheless, we
should realize that departmental investigations following
registration and all appeals to the UI board of referees, for instance,
will from now on, according to our information, be done in
Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières.
Do not tell us there will be no drop in the quality of service for
the Trois-Rivières area. That is just not true.
This decision is arbitrary, illogical, technocratic and political,
and above all, it was made without any consultation with regional
partners.
As I said before, the government has three alternatives, one
being the status quo, leaving Trois-Rivières as is and setting up a
centre in Shawinigan for the northern Saint-Maurice area, but the
government should not locate a regional management centre in
Shawinigan for the whole region, as it is about to do.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I
listened to the member's comments about this bill I became very
confused. He started off criticizing the federal government's
spending power, presumably under the whole aspect of manpower
training. Basically what has been asked for is the federal
government not use that power in such a way that it would create
duplication and overlap within provincial jurisdictions.
I hear the federal government has consented to that and has
basically said it will not use its spending powers. However, they
want the government to do both. They want the government to give
them the money in addition to curbing its powers. The reality is
they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Worse than that, the hon. member went on to give us a
dissertation from the national assembly in Quebec City which
would, as I understand it, basically say we should have no presence
there whatsoever. The member continued to argue why we should
have a placement centre in his riding of Trois-Rivières. It would be
more consistent if he argued there should be no placement
facilities either in Shawinigan or his own riding.
17253
It seems terribly inconsistent to me. The argument seems to have
developed into ``we want to have the spending, we do not want you
around, but we kind of want you around too''. We had a very
looped discussion.
What really concerns me is the discussion about labour mobility.
Basically what has been stated is that the federal government has
no presence in the whole aspect of placement throughout the whole
country as a nation. I do not know what the member is saying. If he
has unemployed workers in Trois-Rivières and there are jobs
available in New Brunswick or possibly Ontario or another
jurisdiction, would he rather have those people in Trois-Rivières
continue to be unemployed? Is that basically the philosophy behind
these comments? Possibly the member could clarify that for me.
(1625)
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. It gives me the opportunity to pursue my line of thought
and show the arbitrariness and illogic of the decision or proposal,
because we hope it is still a proposal, to locate the centre in
Shawinigan rather than in Trois-Rivières. It is a matter of good
common sense. It is clear. Trois-Rivières is the regional capital of
the Mauricie region; this is a fact.
Certainly, if we undermine its character like this, take the
stuffing out of the regional capital, maybe we will no longer have
one. Shawinigan may not be a desirable choice, because it is not as
well situated.
We have to bear in mind that this decision is not only arbitrary, it
is political. It has all the earmarks, at least according to our
information. We can see that the Prime Minister is looking after his
own political interest to show he is working for his constituents,
while leaving far behind the collective interest of the Mauricie
region.
There are two types of people. The people of Shawinigan, and
they have a lot of good common sense, are very aware of the
outlandishness of the situation. They are also increasingly
uncomfortable, like the federalists in Trois-Rivières, who are well
aware that, in logical terms, the decision is untenable, because,
historically, economic activity has been focussed in Trois-Rivières
primarily. They know a major centre has to be maintained.
Everyone knows that the decision, with its obvious political
overtones, is untenable.
I reiterate the three options open to the government. It could
maintain the status quo, keeping Trois-Rivières as the main centre
of activity for the entire region; it could set up a centre in
Shawinigan to satisfy the Prime Minister's fancy while retaining
Trois-Rivière's regional nature, incorporating Bécancour; or it
could implement its plan, which should not be done, especially as
regards Shawinigan becoming the regional capital. Shawinigan
lacks the attributes of a regional capital-although the people there
are very nice-but it lacks a pool of employers and of people and
claimants, who do benefit arbitrarily although highly politically, at
the expense of individuals, employers, seniors and community
organizations. We will never agree with a decision that means we
have to go all the way to Shawinigan.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt: national defence;
the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra: Vietnam.
[Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Madam Speaker, first
of all, I would like to remind the members of this House that job
training has historically been an area of provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government sneaked in through its jurisdiction over
unemployment insurance and put in place a multitude of
employability development programs. Over time, and given the
costs involved, the federal government has decided to restructure
its authority, reduce its financial involvement, and increase its
visibility. This is probably the basis of the reform proposed by
Minister Axworthy.
However, for several years now, there has been in Quebec a
consensus to repatriate manpower training powers. The
government, labour unions, and the Conseil du patronat du Québec
are hoping the federal government will take a concrete step in this
direction in the interest of users, both employees and employers, as
outlined in a 1991 letter made public by Quebec employment
minister Louise Harel and signed by her Liberal predecessor, André
Bourbeau, which condemns any attempt by the federal government
to fund labour training through groups and organizations.
(1630)
The Prime Minister of Canada is using the principle of
decentralization to play politics by sending directly to Quebecers
cheques allowing them to adapt their training to the new realities in
the labour force. He has just missed a good opportunity to establish
constructive relations between the Canadian federation and its
provinces.
The federal government's position in this area denotes a lack of
respect for Canada's provinces and supports its efforts to centralize
powers. By acting this way, the federal government is trading
effectiveness for visibility while contributing to anarchy.
17254
The minister's bill specifies that he will try to conclude with the
provinces official agreements on the implementation of four
manpower programs designed to put people back to work.
However, should he be unable to come to an agreement with the
provinces, he reserves the right to implement his programs with or
without their consent. The federal government gives itself the right
to bypass the provinces, in case no agreement can be worked out.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree with us
that the provinces will negotiate with a knife at their throats?
The fifth program announced by the minister provides for the
establishment of a job creation fund amounting to $300 million
over three years, which is not distributed among the provinces. To
obtain federal funds, the provinces and perhaps even the
municipalities will have to inject an equivalent amount. This type
of funding favours the richest provinces. This goes against the
objective of the fund, which is to create jobs in high unemployment
regions.
On the one hand, the minister is promoting overlap between the
various levels of government and supporting the costs, and on the
other hand, he is tightening UI qualifying conditions and reducing
UI benefits.
For the second year in a row and in spite of the UI account
surplus, the Minister of Finance announced in his February budget
speech that the funds allocated by the Treasury Board to the
Canadian job strategy administered under the unemployment
insurance program would be cut by an additional $1.1 billion for
fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
At the same time, the Minister of Human Resources
Development is announcing that $800 million will be allocated to
training programs to promote job readiness. This new resource
envelope being funded through the UI fund, the government is able
to save $300 million on the backs of employers and employees just
by shifting the load.
By introducing in his reform the notion of weekly hours of work
and by increasing the number of weeks of work required to qualify
for benefits, the minister is going after part time workers, most of
whom are women, and seasonal workers, the most vulnerable
segment of our society. By acting this way, the minister is giving a
one-way ticket for social assistance to a larger number of
Quebecers, as more than 40 per cent of new welfare recipients were
previously on UI.
Once all of minister Axworthy's proposals will have been
implemented, they will represent a $640 million shortfall for the
people of Quebec. In my riding, the economy is heavily dependent
on the expansion of the tourist, forestry, farm and business
industries, all of which provide mostly part time and seasonal
employment.
On the whole, UI reform represents a shortfall of approximately
$7 million just in my riding.
The federal government is drawing its inspiration from the cuts
Alberta and Ontario made on the backs of workers and the
disadvantaged. The Chrétien government could show some
initiative and daring in cutting tax benefits for large companies and
the best paid members of our society, but apparently he would
rather disguise his deficit reduction effort as a social program
reform.
According to a document released by the HRD department, the
reform making the unemployment insurance into an employment
insurance is designed, among other things, to help unemployed
workers meet the challenges of new job requirements and career
renewal.
(1635)
Could the minister tell us how, concretely, his reform proposal
will resolve the persistent disparity between the ever increasing
number of unemployed and the 300,000 jobs that remain vacant
every year in Canada, because the unemployed lack adequate
training?
This reform will certainly perpetuate overlap between levels of
government and the associated costs, but it will also force all those
who are looking for a job or for further training to go back and forth
between their Canada employment centre, the regional office of the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre,
educational institutions and aid agencies. The people of Quebec
and Canada will not only have to bear the brunt of this reform, but
they will also have to put up with the drawbacks of overlap. That is
the real impact of the Axworthy reform.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened to the comments of the hon. member. I must admit it
seemed there was more discussion about governments and partisan
issues than about people. I was concerned that the member had not
really addressed the basic issues and the needs of the workers of
Canada, regardless of what province they live in. We only have one
taxpayer. The important issue is that we really make sure the
services provided to Canadians are focused and efficient.
The member talked a little about the fact that in his opinion job
training is the sole jurisdiction of Quebec. He said there was
federal encroachment by this legislation that has come forward
before the House and basically reduced it to a simple matter of
petty politics. He then concluded that Quebecers needed full
control over manpower training but then concluded we need a
constructive partnership. In itself, that is a total contradiction. You
cannot have full control and a constructive partnership at the same
time.
My real question has to do with the whole UI issue. The member
seems to talk about the UI distribution as some sort of instrument
of equalization of benefits. Quite frankly, every region of Canada
should have one objective, and that is to eliminate all benefits for
all Canadians because we will not need them. We need people to
17255
get jobs. UI is not a matter of equalization. Our objective should be
to reduce the amount of benefits paid through job creation.
Would the member try to deal with the essence of the subject
really being not equalization but rather the best interests of
Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, earlier I listened to the speeches
made by several members opposite. I listened carefully. One of
them mentioned that, under the new program, a worker
unemployed for 52 weeks would-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member must
addresss his comments to the member who just spoke, namely the
member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, I will remember that. One of his
colleagues said that a person working 14 to 15 hours a week for 52
weeks would benefit-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Again, I remind the hon.
member for Champlain that his observations must relate to
comments made by the member who asked the question, not to
those of another speaker.
Mr. Lefebvre: I understand, Madam Speaker. It is because I do
not have the name of the hon. member's riding.
An hon. member: Mississauga.
Mr. Lefebvre: Mississauga. Fine. I will now continue. The
member opposite told us that the new UI program is beneficial to
those who never collected UI benefits. He referred to people
working 14 to 15 hours. However, if we multiply those 14 or 15
hours by 52 weeks, we realize that it is impossible for these people
to be eligible for UI benefits. The numbers do not add up.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Madam Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to address the Bloc motion on the subject of
unemployment insurance reform. I can only begin by saying how
astounded I am that such a motion could have been drafted, let
alone introduced at this time.
What is the source of the motion? What unemployment
insurance reforms are the hon. members of the opposition thinking
about? I presume it is not the same reform that was introduced by
the Minister of Human Resources Development last Friday.
I heard the Prime Minister's announcement a little over a week
ago. I read the documents. What I and millions of Canadians heard
was a statement from the Prime Minister that the federal
government respects and recognizes the jurisdiction of the
provinces in education and training. Millions of us heard him say
that the federal government is therefore withdrawing from the
direct purchase of training, from apprenticeship training,
co-operative education programs, and workplace-based training.
We heard him announce that agreements with the provinces will be
sought on the design and delivery of proposed employment
benefits in order to harmonize them with provincial programs. We
heard him explain that in some cases the provincial government or
a provincial agency could be responsible for delivering these
federal measures. Indeed, he was at pains to point out that in other
cases provincial programs could be used instead of the proposed
federal measures.
He made it perfectly clear to millions of us that funding for
training will only be provided by the federal government with the
consent of the province concerned. Depending on the agreement
reached, it could be provided to individuals, to the provincial
government, or to a third party. He stated clearly and ultimately
that this arrangement can allow a province, if it wishes, to assume
full responsibility for these employment measures, subject only to
the proviso that the federal government's responsibilities to ensure
the needs of the unemployed are addressed and that the measures
that allow them to return quickly to the workforce are met.
The employment insurance reforms specifically and deliberately
seek to eliminate overlap and duplication. The reforms will mean
that even more than ever a province will be able to develop a
comprehensive labour market strategy and policy. It is surely a
distortion to maintain otherwise.
It is always difficult to bring about true reform. In the case of a
program as well ingrained in the economic and social fabric of
Canada as the unemployment insurance program, it is doubly
difficult. I am concerned that factual distortion of the sort
presented by this motion will damage public understanding of the
reform package, especially in Atlantic Canada, where a sound
understanding of the new system is of paramount importance.
I believe it is important for Atlantic Canadians to know the facts
so they can be aware that the reforms provide much needed
structural adjustments, which are absolutely necessary and which
over the long term will be good for Canada and for Atlantic
Canada.
The opposition members should also take note of the fact that
these reforms will help high unemployment regions like Atlantic
Canada. In fact this reform package will create 100,000 to 150,000
new jobs, and 45,000 part-time workers in Atlantic Canada who are
now not eligible for benefits will qualify under these reforms.
Unemployment insurance was never a solution to the Atlantic
regional unemployment, nor was it meant to be. We are now facing
the fact that it has actually become a cause of unemployment. In
other words, it is part of the problem and not the solution. Many
17256
people are better off collecting UI than accepting the work that is
available. In a recent survey of small businesses in Atlantic
Canada, 45 per cent of respondents said they want to hire but
cannot compete for workers with the social programs, particularly
UI.
The new employment insurance legislation is a balanced
package that improves work incentives, reduces dependency, and
increases fairness while helping Canadians get back to work.
(1645 )
Specifically what does this mean for the Atlantic provinces? It is
true that we are cutting overall spending. There will be impacts on
Atlantic Canada. We should remember that when reinvestment is
taken into account the overall reduction in the region will be no
more than 7 per cent. On the whole each of the four Atlantic
provinces currently receives more in benefits than it pays in
premiums. Although the ratio will be lower they will still be net
recipients after reform.
Another important impact for Atlantic Canada is that during the
transitional period regions with high unemployment will receive
more in terms of job support programs. About $800 million in
savings from the new system would be reinvested in proven job
support programs to create opportunities and to help more people
get into the job market.
By fiscal year 2000-01, $214 million or 27 per cent of that
amount will go to Atlantic Canada. Further, to stimulate the
economy in high unemployment areas transitional job funds will
provide $300 million for job creation over a three-year period. This
is in addition to the $800 million being invested in job support
programs.
On the benefit side, people in high unemployment areas will
need fewer hours of work to qualify for benefits and will be able to
receive benefits for a longer period.
There are other provisions affecting seasonal workers and as we
all know Atlantic Canada has more than its share. Under the new
system, although some seasonal workers in industries like fishing,
forestry and agriculture will receive lower benefits, they will
nonetheless get more out of the program than they pay in
premiums. They will have more incentive to work outside the peak
season because additional work will now not only increase earned
income but provide increased benefits as well.
Workers, employers and communities have to be able to cope
with the substantial change the employment insurance scheme will
bring to the Atlantic region, so the new system will be introduced
gradually over several years.
The new employment insurance system will bring essential
change to the Atlantic region. We believe the employment
insurance active employment measures will lead to stronger labour
markets and a more skilled workforce, which in turn will attract
investment and jobs.
In the Atlantic region the federal government already works in
partnership with the provinces, municipalities, community
organizations and the private sector to design and deliver
re-employment programs. There are education and training
initiatives, personal and business counselling, wage subsidies,
self-employment assistance and special programs for women,
youth, aboriginal people, individuals with disabilities and members
of racial minorities.
Whenever possible both individuals and local communities are
encouraged to take responsibility for their own development.
The old UI system trapped people in a cycle of dependence. The
new system is designed to help people help themselves. I want
Atlantic Canadians to understand that fact and not be distracted by
the naysayers. This is why I say the motion before us should be
viewed in Atlantic Canada and across the country as the distortion
it truly represents.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for South Shore for providing the House
with an insight into the situation in Atlantic Canada. There has
been much said in the media and among members of Parliament
who perhaps do not know the situation very well in Atlantic
Canada.
One of the impressions given in some media reports is that it is
somehow the norm in Atlantic Canada that people would work for
only a few months and make a substantial amount of money, that it
was simply a way of life to go on UI. The member has dispelled
that very well. The constituents of South Shore should know how
very hard and how very ably their member has represented the
interests of Atlantic Canada.
(1650 )
With regard to the media impression that has been given, could
the member elaborate a bit more on the kinds of things that have
been happening, from his experience in South Shore and Atlantic
Canada, in reaction to the proposals and on his expectations with
regard to the potential benefits of the new program?
Mr. Wells: Madam Speaker, I did an interview in my riding last
week. Some people who discussed the issue were in favour of some
parts of the program and against other parts. To suggest that we can
bring in this substantial change without there being some negative
comment is not possible. Certainly when people will be affected
there will be some negative comment.
However, on balance it is clear to me from discussions with the
business community and others in my riding that the change from
weeks to hours is very positive. Every hour of work will now count
in the seasonal industries. In many of the industries in Atlantic
Canada people do not work a 35-hour week during peak periods.
They work 40, 50 and 60 hour weeks. Now they will get credit for
17257
all the extra time, whereas in the past they would only get credit for
the week regardless of the number of hours. That is a very positive
aspect that has been accepted and endorsed by Atlantic Canadians.
As I stated earlier, there will be at least 45,000 additional people
in Atlantic Canada who will now qualify for benefits. They are not
getting benefits now because in most cases they are working less
than the 15 hours presently needed to qualify.
In addition there is the new family support benefit, a family
income supplement for low income families with children. This
provision will allow claimants to earn up to 80 per cent of their
insured income.
Those are just three points but there are others. I could perhaps
cite six or seven other provisions that are very beneficial to
Atlantic Canadians which will offset some areas where without
question some adjustment will be needed. We all recognize that we
need to make structural changes to make the system an
employment program as opposed to an unemployment program.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
must say that I was very disappointed and even shocked to hear the
comments of the member who just spoke.
Throughout his speech, we had the impression that he feels the
unemployed are lazy people and that making them hungry will
somehow help create jobs.
A supermarket recently opened in my riding. It needed to hire 60
people, mostly for part-time jobs. Yet, 2,000 people showed up. It
is not true that the unemployed are lazy. What is true, though, is
that there are no jobs for people willing to work. Jobs will not be
created by making these people hungry.
[English]
Mr. Wells: Madam Speaker, that comment is very much like the
motion, a distortion of the true facts. That is certainly not what I
said or implied. To even suggest it to me is an insult. I did not say
that. I will not suggest it. The member should not even think it.
We all recognize that people who are out of work are not out of
work by choice. At the same time the present system is not helping
them. We are trying to bring in employment measures that will
assist these people to get the tools and that will help industry and
business create the jobs these people badly want.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, in support of my colleague for South Shore, I
simply advise the member from the Bloc that we from the
maritimes need not be told that unemployed people are not lazy.
(1655 )
I will speak to a number of benefits included in the minister's
recent announcement. Probably the most important benefit
concerns the fact that employment insurance will now be much
more inclusive. There are estimates that up to half a million people
who were not eligible to be included in the benefits of the
unemployment insurance will be included for benefits under
employment insurance.
I cannot overestimate how important that provision is because it
will allow many Canadians inside the system who currently are on
income assistance in the province of New Brunswick to qualify. In
many cases they could not find sufficient numbers of weeks to
work but could certainly find the number of hours necessary under
this provision. There will be people in my province who will be
able to qualify with nine or ten weeks of work who might have
needed to find fourteen or fifteen weeks of work in the past. They
will have access to the program by virtue of the fact that the
industries in Atlantic Canada are very seasonal. During peak
periods they can work long hours but they cannot extend the long
hours over a large number of weeks. It is very important that it has
a very progressive outcome by virtue of that.
_____________________________________________
17257
THE ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black
Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
(1710 )
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have the honour to
inform the House that when the House did attend Her Honour the
Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate
chamber, Her Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name
the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-93, an act to amend the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the
Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act-Chapter No. 38.
Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons-Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-61, an act to establish a system of administrative monetary penalties
for the enforcement of the Canada Agricultural Products Act, the Feeds Act, the
Fertilizers Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Pest
Control Products Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Seeds Act-Chapter No.
40.
17258
Bill C-102, an act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff and to make
related and consequential amendments to other acts-Chapter No. 41.
_____________________________________________
17258
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, one of the benefits of the recently announced
employment insurance amendments has to do with the fact that
coverage is going to be broadened quite considerably. Many people
will have access to employment insurance who have not had access
to it in the past.
Another significant advantage is the low income protection
contained in the amendments. This will allow up to 80 per cent of
insurable earnings to be covered for low income families with
children.
There are also the advantages in terms of the long term political
viability of the program in that high income earners will have a
greater percentage of their benefits clawed back. As an Atlantic
Canadian, I am somewhat tired of all of those who point to us and
talk about all those wealthy people who are drawing unemployment
insurance benefits after making large amounts of money. It does
not happen very often. By introducing this clawback we will be
able to establish that more quickly in the minds of Canadians.
I would also point out the importance of the employment benefit
programs that are part of the package. There were 39 in the past
which have been reduced to five. Those five programs will now be
managed essentially by local officials which means if one element
of the package is more suitable to my constituency then all of the
attention could be placed in that area. That is a huge improvement.
The job partnership program meets a very real need in my part of
Canada. Many people do not acquire enough coverage for the full
52-week period. For example, people are eligible for 26 weeks of
insurance benefits yet their summer job or their seasonal job does
not start until 10 weeks beyond that.
One of the elements of the new employment benefit package is a
job partnership program which will allow job creation
opportunities in the communities. This will allow people to fill in
that gap when they otherwise would not have benefits or income.
I pay tribute to the minister for last year's consultation. As an
Atlantic Canadian, I have been particularly concerned about the
bill and the UI changes. I can only say good things about the
amount of consultation the minister has allowed and I understand
he is going to continue to receive when we look at the bill in
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m., it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing
Order 81(16).
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(1740)
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 389)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Penson
Ringma
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-33
17259
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Daviault
de Jong
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
Maclaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-190
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Barnes
Bodnar
Bouchard
Canuel
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Fewchuk
Gallaway
Hickey
Knutson
Langlois
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Ménard
Phinney
Pomerleau
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the amendment
lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, the House
would probably give its unanimous consent that those members
who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on
the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting
nay.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Madam Speaker, Reform members, except if they
wish to do otherwise, will oppose the motion.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party vote no on this motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I vote against the motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 390)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Daviault
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
17260
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont) -42
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Benoit
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blaikie
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Scott (Skeena)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Wood
Young
Zed-181
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bachand
Barnes
Bodnar
Bouchard
Canuel
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Fewchuk
Gallaway
Hickey
Knutson
Langlois
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Ménard
Phinney
Pomerleau
(Motion negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 6.47 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
17260
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act to eliminate the payment of personal income tax on interest from
personal savings accounts when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the
opportunity to introduce this motion today. I believe taking this
action could benefit a great number of people, particularly our
senior citizens.
Amending the Income Tax Act to eliminate the payment of
personal income tax on interest from personal savings accounts
when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less is not a completely
new idea.
In 1974 an exemption on the first $1,000 of interest income was
introduced as a way of counteracting the impact of inflation on the
taxation of interest.
17261
(1750 )
It was also believed the exemption would reduce tax evasion, as
those with small amounts of bank interest would no longer have an
incentive to ignore the interest they received when filing their
income tax returns.
Another argument was that the exemption would increase
savings by increasing the post-tax return of investment that
produced interest. All of these were valid arguments in 1974 and
remain valid today.
In 1988 as a result of a decision by the Tory government the
exemption was removed. According to statements given by the
witnesses to the Standing Committee on Finance in 1987 the people
who had the most to lose if the exemption was removed were senior
citizens.
It therefore stands to reason that senior citizens are the people
with the most to gain if the exemption is reinstated. According to
testimony before the committee more than 80 per cent of taxpayers
over 65 claimed the $1,000 deduction in 1983.
Despite the fact that the deduction was removed in 1988,
2,026,620 or about 70 per cent of all seniors who filed income tax
returns in 1992 still included bank interest as a source of income.
Bank interest was even more significant among the seniors 75
years of age and older, with 878,370 people or about 75 per cent
naming bank interest as a source of income. It is obvious that for
senior citizens keeping their money in a bank savings account is a
way of life, the result of a lifetime of habit.
Think for a moment of the life of a person who is 75 years old.
Think of the time they were born, the significant events of their
lives and the lives of their parents. Think of the Great Depression.
Think of the second world war. These people have known the
hardship of trying to make ends meet when the ends just seem to
get farther and farther apart.
The Great Depression hit Canada and Canadians hard. It was a
terrible, grim time when all manner of personal indignities and
deprivations became the norm. People lost their jobs, their homes,
their dreams. Soup kitchens were a booming business. Men
tramped the city streets trying to pick up 50 cents doing odd jobs or
in desperation travelled the country in boxcars looking for work or
a handout and the advice of those who still had handouts to give. It
was always the same as that of John D. Rockefeller, always to save
their money, not squander it. It was a lesson they took to heart.
Then the war came and blew the depression away. Suddenly
there was a desperate need for everyone to work, but there was an
equally desperate need for everything to go to the war effort.
Rationing was introduced and people learned to barter and to save
their butter and eggs for the important events in their lives.
People saved string from parcels. They saved paper. They saved
buttons and zippers from discarded clothing, anything they thought
could be used again.
Our senior citizens and many of their children still save
everything useful. They are the original recyclers and they know
how to clip a coupon. When they were finally able to work again
they saved every cent they could squeeze from their carefully
worked budgets as a down payment on their future.
Credit was a dirty word to our senior citizens. It meant you could
not afford to pay your bills. It meant a loss of dignity.
(1755)
Instead they saved to buy their homes. They saved to pay cash
for their furniture, their appliances and their cars. They saved to
pay for the education of their children. They saved for their old age
so they would not have to do without in their sunset years, so they
would not be beholden.
Now with interest rates so low their carefully hoarded nest eggs
are yielding less and less. Seniors have been hard hit in recent years
by falling interest rates. Unlike younger people who may have been
able to accumulate savings, our senior citizens are usually unable
to work. Their interest from their savings is their income. A $1,000
exemption on interest will really make a difference to them.
Younger taxpayers still working may enjoy a tax advantage or an
investment in an RRSP, but such investments and tax breaks are
often unavailable to seniors. Many older people are not at ease
putting their money into more adventurous avenues.
Often they do not feel comfortable turning their life savings over
to a stranger to invest. They are afraid of losing what they worked
so hard to save. They feel it is safe and secure in a bank savings
account and they want to be able to withdraw their money at will.
Surely the people who built this country deserve a break. It was
their money, carefully saved and invested, the banks had at their
disposal when others came to borrow. Their habit of putting money
aside for the future enabled the banks to invest in the dreams of
other younger people when they wanted to start a business or build
a new home.
I believe this would be a good habit to instil in the young people
of today as well. I believe giving them an income tax exemption on
the first $1,000 of interest would prove to be an incentive.
As parents we always want things to be better for our children
than they were for us. We try to teach them the importance of a
strong work ethic. We show them ours is a society that celebrates
17262
success. We tell them they must always strive for personal
excellence. We encourage them by stressing there is nothing they
cannot achieve if they just try.
We know young people must be given the opportunity to learn to
take responsibility for their own lives. Only then can they acquire
the self-confidence and pride in their own accomplishments that
everyone needs for self-esteem. Without self-esteem it is pretty
hard to gain entry into the mainstream of society and virtually
impossible to become the leaders we will need in the future.
Our youth are the future of our nation and our world. They will
decide our destiny. The choices made by the young people of today
will eventually define the world in which we all live.
There is little in this life more fulfilling than saving for a goal
and reaching that goal through conscious effort and sacrifice. I can
think of no better or more satisfying way to take control of one's
own life and destiny.
Our government should do whatever it can to encourage our
young people to be responsible citizens and consumers. Among
young people age 25 to 29, 406,660 or 55 per cent included bank
interest as a source of income in 1992. So it is already a significant
means of saving, ready to increase with some encouragement.
Young people who may be saving for a down payment on a house
or for a new couch or refrigerator are not making much interest on
their savings. They should not be penalized on what little they do
earn.
(1800)
An exemption would act as an incentive and would make more
money available for banks to loan out as well. Many of the big
ticket items like appliances have been purchased on credit cards in
the past few years. Instead of the dirty word it was to our seniors,
credit and the amount of credit available somehow became a status
symbol.
Credit is incredibly easy to get. Everyone has heard of reports of
children and even the family dog being offered credit cards. But
credit card purchases cost consumers much more than waiting until
one can pay cash. It is very easy to be sucked into the maelstrom of
spending more than one actually earns.
In the first seven months of this year 36,118 consumer
bankruptcies were filed across Canada. That is 16 per cent more
than in the same span last year and one per cent more than in the
first seven months of 1991, when the 12-month toll reached an
unprecedented 62,277. According to some analysts, much of the
cause of these consumer bankruptcies is credit card borrowing.
Saving is clearly a better way to go. For those with relatively
modest incomes, an investment in a savings account is one of the
few investment opportunities readily available.
In closing, I would like to say that there are plenty of tax breaks
for those with large amounts of money to invest. An exemption on
the payment of income tax on the first $1,000 of interest from
savings accounts would give a break to the little guy and help our
senior citizens as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I too
rise to speak to the motion by the member for
Bramalea-Gore-Malton concerning the tax exemption of
interest income from saving accounts generating interest of less
that $1,000.
I am convinced that this motion, under its present form, as the
member explained in his speech, is aimed at helping people with
low incomes, people who are not well off. However, it creates a
huge void, because, of course, a motion is not a bill, it is not very
precise. The motion provides:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act to eliminate the payment of income tax on interest from personal
savings accounts when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less.
Let us look at it in today's context. Someone with $10,000 in an
account earning 9 per cent would make $900. This means that this
$900 would be tax deductible. It might be a commendable goal.
However, if I had $50,000, I could make five $10,000 term deposits
in five different accounts and earn $4,500 in interest, $900 on each
account, and pay no income tax. But in truth, I would not belong to
the group the motion is aimed at. I am not convinced that he is not
trying to help people with a high income or large savings to evade
income tax.
For this reason, I find it difficult to support a motion whose
present wording would create such an unprecedented tax loophole.
Even if there is a precedent, it would still be a horrendous loophole.
(1805)
If you put this debate in a larger perspective, you can see that the
goal of the motion is to help lower income people. I am pleased that
we are showing concern for people with a low income and few
savings.
In politics we are very often influenced by the richest lobbies, we
also go to bat for the neediest, but in between there are all the
workers, all the wage earners, that we very often forget and that are
probably the least organized. They very often belong to
professional corporations or trade unions, but it is very seldom that
we show concern in our speeches or political actions for the lower
middle class. They maybe the least organized and this would
explain the fact that they are the target of all government measures:
they are not a political force.
If you look at this motion in the larger perspective, it shows a
desire for equity. In the area of taxation everything is a matter of
equity. However, I do not think that the solution is to increase the
17263
deductions we now have. With our deficit at around 32 billion
dollars, such a proposal does not seem like a good idea at the
present time. Just as we cannot afford to forego tax revenues,
because our tax system is extremely complex and some people can
even afford tax experts to bypass the system. I am not talking about
fraud or anything illegal here, just going over every comma and
every sentence in the Income Tax Act to get the most out of it.
I am just back from a series of consultations held by the finance
committee in western Canada, where even tax experts told us:
``Look, we cannot even make sense of this Act ourselves, and we
are not sure that the government can make sense of it either. One of
these days, we will have to consider a real reform, whose first
objective would be, even before the amount of tax revenues to be
generated, to simplify the whole system''. Of course, the second
objective would be to determine the optimal level of revenues to be
generated by a new tax system.
All of this brings me back to an issue which has yet to be settled.
The people have the feeling that the current tax system is not
working and they are not mistaken.
Take, for example, the GST which has been in effect for several
years now and which will not generate more revenues this year that
last year. There is a problem here. Even though the growth of
domestic demand is weak, we see that taxpayers have developed a
number of ways to avoid paying this tax, which is perceived as
being extremely unfair.
This has been fuelled by the Liberal members who decried this
tax, when they were in opposition, and promised to replace it,
something they never did. By the way, we should also be concerned
about that. People felt that their concerns were legitimate since
they even had the support of a political party saying that the tax was
unfair.
It is true that it is not perfect, that it is flawed, that it causes a lot
of problems, but the Liberal Party was accused of demagoguery
when it said that it was a new tax. The tax on services was new, but
the tax on goods simply replaced the federal sales tax. In that
context, it is not right to make the taxpayers angrier than they
already are about the current tax system for purely political
reasons.
I come back to the fact that we cannot afford today to add these
types of deductions, but if we want people with low incomes and
few savings to feel that there is some kind of justice, we have to
ensure that our tax rules do not allow higher income people to
avoid paying their fair share.
Sometimes people are right, sometimes they are wrong, but
when we refuse to have a thorough debate on an issue, the
perceptions that people have, whether good or bad, remain. An
example of that is the perception that banks do not pay their fair
share. I do not have a definite opinion on that, but I think that it is
something that is worth looking into. It is not by avoiding the issue
or by making a fine statement that will sound great on the news,
such as it is too generous, it is out of date, etc., that we will make
progress. We will have to look into all this.
Perhaps when the Minister of Finance and the Minister of
Revenue both consult Canadians on the budget next year they
ought, instead of listening to all of the organized groups whose
final word is always ``Do anything you want to anybody else but
me'', to set some guidelines for a real debate, true consultation on
various scenarios for tax policies and tax expenditures, in order to
get a proper evaluation.
(1810)
How much do the present measures cost? What are their
objectives? Based on that, let us go out to Canadians so that they
may make their own evaluation and come up with a final
conclusion that ``We can afford this, but not that. Here are what our
priorities are for taxation for economic and social development''.
Our taxation system pursues two objectives, obvious economic
ones, but a major social objective as well: the redistribution of
wealth. This ought never to be lost sight of. For that reason, if the
taxation system is simplified, that second objective must not be lost
sight of.
You do not deal with fiscal problems due to the fact that not
enough tax revenue is being collected from people who could pay
more, by increasing the number of deductions that already exist.
We simply cannot afford it. How much would the measure
suggested today cost? Good question. I repeat, those who are a
little better off may manage to avoid this altogether by having more
than one bank account, as I explained earlier, by having three or
four accounts, for instance. That often happens.
I have two or three accounts myself. The point is to put your
money into different accounts, keep your interest income below
$1,000 and thus avoid paying taxes on this income. I realize this
technicality could be improved upon while maintaining the purpose
of the motion which is that interest income of $1,000 and less
would not be taxable, but in the end, what have we achieved? How
are we going to finance all that? The question lies here as well.
Therefore, out of a sense of fairness, yes, we have to work on it,
but not necessarily in the way suggested. In the minute I have left, I
wanted to say, because I heard mention of RRSPs, where
accumulated interest is tax protected, that they are not really
affected by such a motion, because RRSPs are taxable only when
money is removed from them. This is when tax is taken, according
to our income at that point.
So this would not promote saving necessarily. It would not have
a particularly strong effect on saving, because the vehicle already
exists and is already attractive enough, I imagine, from all the
17264
funds successfully channelled and the financial institutions'
aggressive campaigns to solicit RRSPs.
So, to avoid creating an additional tax shelter, which will cost us
a lot and risks benefitting those who, in the end, perhaps have the
income and ability to avoid it, we cannot support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, Motion
497 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act to eliminate the payment
of personal income tax on interest from personal savings accounts
when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less.
The rationale used by the hon. member for
Bramalea-Gore-Malton is that the motion will do five things.
First, it will promote savings. Well, it is pretty hard to save these
days. As the hon. member from the Bloc mentioned, this creates
different avenues and ways to stuff your savings away where it will
be harder for Revenue Canada to find it.
Second, the motion is intended to help the elderly who rely on
savings and seldom enjoy the tax advantages of an RRSP later in
life. This is an honourable objective and one I would agree with as
a problem to solve. But solving it this way is unnecessary,
especially if we were to devise a proper system of taxation.
Third, it is intended to compensate for falling interest rates. Why
is this the responsibility of taxpayers, adjusting for the inflation
component and interest income? That is not necessary. When
institutions set their rates they base them on the performance of the
economy. They are set at a regular time and over a period of ten
years the average rate of return is adjusted for inflation.
Fourth, the rationale is to reduce administration costs because
banks will no longer have to issue T4s for interest income, reducing
the paperwork for Revenue Canada.
I believe the hon. member has it backwards. In April we all
become employees of Revenue Canada and we work for free. We
sweat for hours trying to get this income tax done and figure out
how much we have to pay, make sure it is correct and then send it
in. The information we use has to come from where we have earned
our money or placed or invested our money. So whether interest
income on savings is less than or higher than $1,000, the banks will
still have to issue the paperwork necessary to show you made less
than $1,000 or more than $1,000.
(1815)
We need to stop tinkering with the Income Tax Act and the
income tax system. We should stop using it for direct social and
economic engineering. This is another example of using it for
social engineering. We are using it to solve a problem. I do not
deny there is a problem with money, with savings, and with how we
look after ourselves, but the way to solve it is not through the
Income Tax Act. We are making it too cumbersome and too
difficult. It should be under a separate direct-spending program if
we want to help seniors and children.
In 1917 the original purpose of income tax was simply to raise
money. It was to pay for the first world war. Then the politicians
and bureaucrats saw how nice and neat it was. Yes, I agree, it is a
great way to deliver social and economic benefits. But problems
have been created.
In 1992 the net revenue that was collected by the government on
personal income alone was $60 billion. That included all the
exemptions, deductions, and tax incentives or loopholes. If there
were no deductions, exemptions, and tax incentives, the revenue
for 1992 would have been $120 billion. That is $60 billion we are
leaving in the hands of people. We give it back to the people. We
know it is unfair.
If we collected that revenue and put it into the spending
envelopes of the people who are responsible for immigration,
transportation, unemployment, and health care, then we would
know what that costs. We would know who is responsible: an
elected minister or a permanent deputy minister. Those people
would be more responsible and accountable. The pressure would be
on the government to rationalize and justify its spending. I believe
there would be a downward pressure. The problem with our current
income tax system is that it is unfair.
The GST is another example. It generates $30 billion to $36
billion, yet the net take of the government is $15 billion to $16
billion. There is the system of rebates, the high cost of compliance
and the high cost of collection. It is ridiculous.
If we used taxation for the one simple purpose of raising money
and then put the money into the areas where we want to spend it
and where Canadians want it to be spent, it would be a more
efficient and effective system of taxation than we presently have
and we would no longer need all these rates.
We know the system is complicated, confusing, and convoluted.
We need to make changes. Yet nobody addresses that. Everybody is
afraid to look at a simple system of taxation because in simplicity
the cost of transition from the current income tax system to a
simple tax system would be too expensive and the transition would
be unattainable. I heard that from the chairman of the Standing
Committee on Finance, who is an income tax lawyer and an expert
in his field.
In the name of deficit reduction and in the name of losing tax
dollars, is the government afraid to look at a system of taxation that
features a single rate and allows a generous tax-free portion so that
the people who need the money most, the seniors and low-income
17265
Canadians, do not have to pay any income tax? That line would be
somewhere between the poverty line and the low-income cut-off.
Would that not reduce the pressure on our social programs? Would
that not be a more efficient way of helping the people who need the
help, rather than tinkering with the Income Tax Act, adding five
more pages of definitions and rulings and three more reasons why
auditors have to check every bank account, as the hon. member said
earlier?
We have to look at tax reform. Tax lawyers are afraid to return
from holidays to read the latest communiqués from Revenue
Canada with the new rulings and definitions.
The current system is a disincentive to work. The more a person
makes the higher the percentage they have to remit. They call that
progressivity, but at a certain point they stop working for the
government. Why? Because they see that government wastes
money. If the government were spending the money on programs
Canadians want and not what bureaucrats and politicians want, and
if people could see their tax money being spent fairly and wisely, in
a way that was responsible and accountable, in a clear and visible
fashion, we would have more compliance. More people would pay.
With a single rate everybody would know they are paying the same
rate over a certain base that is tax-free.
(1820 )
It costs us $12 billion to send in our income tax. The personal
portion we pay other people to do this for us costs $3.7 billion.
Revenue Canada is $1.5 billion. The government cost for GST is
$0.6 billion. Corporate costs to do the T4s and their corporate tax is
$4.9 billion. The GST industry costs $1.7 billion.
It is clear: our current system is unfair, unclear, and
unacceptable. There is no reason we should keep up with it and
there is no reason we should continue to promote ways and means
of adding more to the confusion of the income tax. We should be
cleaning it up, simplifying it, rewriting it.
We have had three major tax reforms since 1971. We went from
18 different brackets and a high marginal rate of 80 per cent in 1971
to 10 brackets and 43 per cent in 1981, to today, from 1988 until
now, three brackets with a high marginal rate of 29 per cent. When
each of those transitions and reforms went from 80 per cent down
to 29 per cent it meant more revenue to the government.
Lower taxes mean more revenue. Simplicity means more
revenue. Therefore we need one more major tax reform in this
country, one more simplified tax featuring a single rate with a
generous tax-free portion that will look after the lower income and
retain progressivity. It will introduce fairness. Everybody will
know what they are paying. Reduce the rate to the area of 20 to 22
per cent, another 7 per cent reduction, and a single rate. I would
argue that would generate even more revenue for the government.
Some of the other principles we should keep in tax reform are
keeping it simple and understandable and defining the purpose as
raising money. Tax reform is not to add another element that the
first $1,000 you make in savings accounts is free because we are
helping this sector; not to help the farming sector by giving this
deduction over here; not to develop oil and gas by offering
flow-through shares over here; not to help this by doing that over
there; not to help charitable organizations by allowing generous
exemptions over here; not to aid and facilitate seniors by having
some moneys there.
In conclusion, the Liberals are neglecting their responsibility to
the public in giving lip service to tax reform. They are not prepared
to look at genuine comprehensive tax reform in this country. The
Reform Party is and will. We will continue to address this issue.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I wish to rise
today in the House to speak on Motion No. 497. I would like to
congratulate my hon. colleague from Bramalea-Gore-Malton
for his hard work in getting this motion to the floor of the House of
Commons.
Motion No. 497 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Income
Tax Act to eliminate the payment of personal income tax on interest from
personal savings accounts when the amount of interest is $1,000 or less.
Federal taxes on foreign and domestic income received by
Canadians and Canadian income received by non-residents are
imposed under one statute, the Income Tax Act. The net income or
profit received by Canadians is defined by that act.
Personal income taxes are imposed by both the federal and
provincial governments. The federal government has agreements
with all provinces except Quebec to collect personal income taxes
on their behalf.
The federal government defines taxable income in the Income
Tax Act and levies its personal income tax according to the rate
schedule in the act. The agreeing provinces then levy their personal
income taxes as a percentage of the basic federal tax.
In the last decade, the number of taxpayers has jumped from
10.4 million to 13.7 million. In 1988 there was a sharp drop in
taxpayers due to the first year of the tax reform. Under it, a
significant number of low-income taxpayers were granted tax
relief. Another decline in the number of taxpayers took place in
1991 and was caused by the recession of the early 1990s.
Between 1974 and 1988 the first $1,000 of interest income was
exempt. The exemption was introduced in 1974 as a way of
counteracting the impact of inflation on the taxation of interest. It
was also argued that the exemption reduced some tax evasion, as
17266
those with small amounts of bank interest no longer had incentive
to ignore the interest they received when filing their tax return.
(1825 )
Several arguments can be made in support of my hon.
colleague's motion. The exemption of the first $1,000 of interest
income would promote savings. This is very important for those
with relatively modest incomes. Often an investment in a savings
account is one of the few investment opportunities readily
available to a good number of people.
Under the existing system, by imposing tax on interest earned
some consumers are more apt to choose to spend their income in
the year it is earned because the interest earned on their already
taxed income will be taxed should they save. ``Spend it. We are
only going to be taxed on it'', they cry. This commonly held view
dictates against the merits of saving money.
With the proposed motion there would be little distortion
between present and future consumption. While there is some
controversy about the magnitude of the change on savings resulting
from income tax on interest, the general view is that it is a negative
effect.
Some of us ask what are the consequences of reducing savings. It
is generally felt that a reduction in savings will normally lead to a
reduction in capital accumulation and in the long run to a reduction
in output per capita.
In light of shrinking government budgets and the upcoming
review of our role in the provision of pension income, we have and
continue to encourage Canadians to invest in their retirement.
There are deductions for RRSP contributions, but why is there no
provision for savings account or Canada savings bond interest?
I realize that RRSP interest is taxed upon withdrawal, albeit
generally at a reduced rate. There are real limitations in the deferral
of taxation and these implications translate into economic choices.
Another argument in support of the motion is that it will help
Canada's senior citizens. After the $1,000 tax exemption was
eliminated in 1988 there were some very convincing statements in
favour of keeping the exemption, especially as it related to senior
citizens.
In the 1980s over 80 per cent of our taxpayers over the age of 65
claimed this exemption. It was said that the elimination would have
a disproportionate effect on senior citizens. Almost half the current
generation of Canadian seniors, about 50 per cent, live at or below
the poverty line. A small percentage, 5 per cent only, across Canada
enjoy incomes of $40,000 or more. The remaining 45 per cent had
hoped during pre-retirement years to invest in something that
would act as a supplement to their pension cheques. This 45 per
cent of Canadian senior citizens over the age of 65 would benefit
by the restoration of the $1,000 investment income deduction.
A third argument is that the exemption would compensate for
falling interest rates. Although economic activity may in general be
stimulated by falling interest rates, those whose incomes depend on
interest bearing assets are being hurt by falling rates. Seniors have
been hit hard in recent years by such falling interest rates.
While there are benefits for seniors and an encouragement of
savings I also have some serious concerns about the motion. The
proposal to exempt the interest on savings accounts runs counter to
current trends toward increasing tax revenue. If all bank interest
were tax exempt, the lost tax revenues would certainly be
significant.
In the mid-1980s the $1,000 exemption cost the federal
government about $900 million in loss tax revenue. In 1992, for
example, tax filers declared over $18 billion in bank interest. This
figure would be much higher if the exclusion were only for interest
earned at financial institutions, as investors would adjust their
portfolios to take advantage of the tax break.
Recently Revenue Canada instituted reporting changes for
financial institutions. Beginning with the 1995 tax year, these
institutions will be required to issue T5s for interest income at $50,
down from the current $100 limit.
This new measure is meant to limit tax evasion. Some taxpayers
with interest below $100 have simply ignored that income for tax
purposes, forgetting or ignoring that every interest dollar earned is
to be included as income. However the new change seems to
indicate the government considers bank interest an important
source of tax revenue.
Revenue is obviously an important component of our deficit
reduction policy and reducing revenue runs counter to this
necessary policy.
Another concern I have with the motion is the difference in
treatment of earned income and non-earned income. Those who
work for minimum wage are taxed on the first dollar they earn.
Those who earn income from interest revenue are treated equitably
under the existing system. I understand that invested money was
once income and was likely taxed at the time it was earned, but the
interest too is income. Allowing exemptions for interest income
will disproportionately benefit seniors. How can we balance this
against earned income so that it is socially equitable?
I will also address a comment by my colleague from Rimouski.
The bill indicates interest earned on savings accounts. This would
include all savings accounts and it would be an accumulative
effect. It would be the total of the interest that would be considered
an income. We could not spread our savings over five, six or ten
17267
different accounts. The exemption would apply to the full income
no matter where it was.
(1830)
While I have some serious concerns about the bill, I generally
speak in support of it because the investment income exemption is
one of the few tax initiatives that would reach out and touch most
Canadian citizens, including my constituents of Erie, rather than
just a select group of investors.
Taxpayers are crying out for tax relief and tax reductions, and
understandably so. This initiative could be a possible means of
partially satisfying these demands.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, contrary to the private
member's Motion M-497, the Government of Canada should not
support the elimination of personal income taxes on interest from
personal savings accounts when the amount of interest is $1,000 or
less.
As hon. members may remember, before 1988 individuals were
allowed to claim a deduction of up to $1,000 of interest income in
computing taxable income. This interest income deduction existed
at a time of high inflation as an approximate method of providing
some allowance for income tax paid on the inflationary component
of interest.
Inflation is now very low. Therefore this rationale would not
apply today. In addition, the elimination of interest income
deduction was one of a number of base broadening initiatives
introduced as part of the 1988 tax reform. Those measures made
possible a reduction in tax rates and the enrichment of certain tax
credits.
The elimination of interest income deduction for 1988 and the
subsequent taxation years was largely compensated by a $1,730
increase of the basic personal amount.
Therefore it would be inappropriate to restore this deduction
particularly at a time of very low inflation. The federal revenue
cost resulting from allowing a deduction of up to $1,000 of interest
income for income tax purposes would be very high; in the order of
$1 billion per year.
Because of the fiscal situation of our country we simply could
not afford to make such a change without making up lost revenue.
This lost revenue would therefore have to be made up through a
general tax increase, an increase in taxes across the board. Most of
the burden would fall on the shoulders of the average income
Canadians while the deduction would benefit only most higher
income individuals.
The bulk of the efforts of the government on the income tax side
since coming to office in the fall of 1993 has been directed at
ensuring the tax system is fair. A number of tax advantages that did
not meet the standards of fairness Canadians expect were
eliminated in the 1994 and 1995 federal budgets presented by the
Minister of Finance.
Let me highlight a few of those more important changes that
have contributed to making our tax system fairer. As hon. members
are aware, the federal budget of February 22, 1994 proposed a
number of personal income tax measures. First, the $100,000
capital gains exemption was eliminated. This exemption largely
benefited high income filers, and there was little evidence that it
encouraged investment and job creation as it was first intended to
do.
The tax exemption for premiums related to the first $25,000 of
coverage under employer provided life insurance plans was also
eliminated. This measure ensures individuals with employer paid
life insurance are not treated more favourably than those who
purchase life insurance out of after tax income.
The government did not limit its elimination of tax preferences
to those preferences that affect individuals. A number of tax
measures affecting businesses were also introduced in the
government's first budget. For instance, the deduction for meal and
entertainment expenses was reduced from 80 per cent to 50 per cent
of eligible expenses. This change makes the tax system fairer by
reflecting the significant element of personal consumption
involved in these or such expenses.
(1835 )
In addition, Canadian controlled private corporations with
capital of $50 million or more are no longer eligible for the small
business deduction and the enriched research and development
credits accorded to small businesses.
The government's commitment to tax fairness did not end with
the tabling of its 1994 budget; quite the contrary. The federal
budget tabled February 27 announced more steps the government
was taking to make the tax system fairer. For example, it was
announced that the tax deferral advantage enjoyed by individuals
with business or professional income resulting from their ability to
select their own year end for tax purposes was being eliminated.
As other Canadians, individuals who begin to earn business or
professional income will have to report their income on a calendar
year basis.
[Translation]
Moreover, the 1995 budget eliminated some of the tax benefits
from family trusts. The government repealed provisions allowing
the postponement of the implementation of a rule requiring a
deemed disposal of assets after 21 years.
Our efforts to make our tax system fair did not start and do not
end with budgets. The proof of that is the measures announced by
the government in December 1994 to prevent the erosion of the tax
base brought about by the active promotion of abusive tax shelters
17268
and a longer list of deductions in the calculation of the alternative
minimum tax.
What the government has done in the last couple of years attests
to its commitment to a fair Canadian tax system. Giving
preferential treatment to interest income, as suggested in this
motion, would not be consistent with the policy the government has
adhered to from the start. Such a change would benefit mainly high
income taxpayers, since they have more savings.
To conclude, and for all these reasons, I urge the House to reject
private members' Motion M-497.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There being no further
members rising for debate and the motion not being designated a
votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private
Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from
the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 96(1).
_____________________________________________