TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 31, 1994
Bill C-34. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4619
Bill C-17. Motion for third reading. 4621
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4621
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 4629
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 4646
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4651
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 4651
ORAL QUESTIONS PERIOD
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4654
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4654
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4654
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4655
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4655
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4655
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4656
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4656
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4656
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4656
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4656
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4657
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4657
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4657
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4657
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4658
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4658
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4658
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4658
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4658
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 4659
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4659
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 4659
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4661
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 4662
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 4662
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 4668
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 137; Nays, 91 4679
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 4680
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4683
4619
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 31, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. When Bill C-18 was reported to this
House from the Senate the note in
Votes and Proceedings for that
day, I believe it was a week ago Wednesday, indicated that the
message had been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate had passed Bill C-18 with amendments.
The amendments were not printed as part of the text of
Votes and
Proceedings and I am concerned that it is very difficult for
members to have to order a sessional paper in order to see the
text of these amendments.
In our own House when there are amendments moved at the
report stage of a bill the text of the amendments, of course,
appears in Votes and Proceedings as part of the minutes of the
day. I suggest that while many may regard the proceedings in the
Senate as irrelevant and unimportant, in this particular case they
have some importance for this House and it would be convenient
if members were able to read the text of the amendments in Votes
and Proceedings. Otherwise members have to go through some
difficulty to obtain copies.
My own committee has approved changes in the way that
Votes and Proceedings is prepared, designed to save money and
eliminate duplication of printing. The Senate amendments are
not printed in any other House documentation and I do not know
whether Your Honour has ever tried to get minutes of the Senate.
I have tried to subscribe for the five or six years that I have been
in this place, and I cannot get them delivered on a regular basis.
They are very difficult to obtain and I could send a staff
member to the distribution office to get a copy but that seems
needless trouble every day. That is what I am expected now to
do; at least that is the only way I seem to be able to obtain the
minutes of the Senate.
In the absence of a printed record I suggest that it would be
entirely appropriate to have Senate amendments printed in the
Votes and Proceedings and I would ask Your Honour to direct the
amendments to Bill C-18 be printed as a correction to the Votes
and Proceedings for the day on which the matter was reported so
that they will be recorded then and for the future in our
proceedings so we can see what amendments the Senate makes
to Commons bills when it decides in its wisdom to make
changes.
I know there are many members who feel it inappropriate for
the Senate to make changes to Commons bills, but the fact is that
it does happen from time to time and we do have to tolerate this
inconvenience. I do think it ought to be brought to our attention
in our Votes and Proceedings when a message is received from
the Senate indicating that there is such a change.
The Speaker: The hon. member's point is, of course, well
taken and your Speaker will look into the matter and come back
to the House with this information.
We will now proceed to routine business of the day.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
(1010)
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an act to
approve, give effect to and declare valid land claims agreements
entered into between Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada,
the Government of the Yukon Territory and certain First Nations
in the Yukon Territory, to provide for approving, giving effect to
and declaring valid other land claims agreements entered into
after this act comes into force, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, the petition I am tabling this morning requests that
either the
4620
government or a government agency control all forms of abuse
in the media.
[English]
These petitioners request that abuse, be it physical, regarding
language or otherwise, be controlled. They believe that it is not
necessary to have different forms of abuse of television, radio or
written media in order to entertain or to inform.
The abuse depicted is often counteracting their efforts to raise
their families as they feel they ought to be raised. Therefore they
ask that the government intervene.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 34.
[Text]
Question No. 34-Mr. Mayfield:
With respect to the Canadian Ranger program, (a) how many participants are
there in each province and territory, (b) how much funding was provided to the
program, per province, for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994, (c) is the recruitment
for the program under way in all provinces; if not, why not, and in which
provinces is it not taking place?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): (a) At
the end of 1993, there were 3,210 members of the Canadian
Rangers serving in the following provinces and territories:
(i) British Columbia 650
(ii) Alberta 30
(iii) Manitoba 20
(iv) Ontario 50
(v) Quebec 345
(vi) Newfoundland and Labrador 965
(vii) Northwest Territories 875
(viii) Yukon Territory 275
![](/web/20061117190325im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0752102_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190325im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0752102_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190325im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0752101_r0.gif)
![](/web/20061117190325im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0752101_r1.gif)
![](/web/20061117190325im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen0752101_r2.gif)
(c) (i) No.
(ii) The role of the Canadian Rangers is to provide a military
presence in those sparsely settled northern, coastal and isolated
areas of Canada where it is neither convenient nor economical to
station other components of the Canadian forces. Therefore, the
Canadian forces has decided not to organize Canadian Rangers
units in the provinces which have an adequate military presence.
(iii) Provinces without Canadian Rangers units are Nova
Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and
Saskatchewan.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 7 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that
Question No. 7 be deemed to have been made an Order for
Return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
4621
[Text]
Question No. 7-Mr. Strahl:
What is the transfer policy of the Correctional Service of Canada in a case when
a prison guard has been found to have been victimized by an inmate and, with
regard to employee Edward Tyson of Abbotsford, British Columbia (a) what
mechanisms exist for a hearing on his case (b) what avenues are available to apply
for compensation, should a hearing determine in his favour?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
4621
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved
that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 22, 1994, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to urge
members to support Bill C-17, the 1994 budget implementation
act.
I would like to begin by saying that Bill C-17 which revamps
the unemployment insurance entitlements taken in isolation
would be considered a very tough bill because during a very
difficult period of our economy when people are unemployed,
when one takes an unemployment insurance act and reviews and
revamps it, there could be people exposed to added suffering.
This bill also deals with restraining parliamentary wages, public
service wages and cutbacks in transportation costs. If the bill is
taken in light of an overall budget strategy I believe sincerely
that Canadians would understand exactly where we are coming
from.
(1015)
Our number one priority in meeting the objective of putting
Canadians back to work is to ensure the fiscal framework of the
country is restored to a healthy position. The very difficult
deficit and debt the country is burdened with today put an
incredible strain on our tax burden. They affect our ability to
raise capital in the country. This means governments compete
for capital with small and medium sized entrepreneurs.
In order to create a total environment for business recovery
we have to deal with very tough legislation like revamping our
unemployment insurance system. I am proud to be part of a
government that had the courage in the budget to meet the
problem head on.
We also heard the reduction in the unemployment insurance
premium cost would be a very important benefit to small and
medium sized business persons. Many of them have said a
reduction in that cost would spur them on to making decisions
that would put people back to work.
In a survey that was announced last night-and it was on
``Canada AM'' this morning-of about 1,000 businesses across
Canada, two out of three said that in the near future they would
be hiring again or employing people again. This certainly gives
the government side a feeling of hope that the strategic plan of
the Minister of Finance to revitalize the economy is working.
I repeat that Bill C-17 in isolation is something that is very
tough in itself, but we must look at the other factors in the
strategy the Minister of Finance has put forward. We have all
been working on the strategy for the last few months. It is
important for Canadians to hear about some of the things we
have been doing on all sides of the House.
Another piece of the strategy was access to capital for small
and medium sized businesses. I have repeated this message
many times in the House, but I believe as a member of
Parliament that one of the single most important factors is
giving hope to small and medium sized entrepreneurs. The men
and women who have the energy and the creativity to spark the
economy need access to capital. They told us that over the last
two or three years banks had been very tough in accessing credit
to them.
Yesterday the Minister of Industry dismissed the study that
was somehow leaked from some department and indicated that
the banks were not being difficult in accessing capital to small
business. The Minister of Industry said yesterday in question
period that the study did not reflect what he or other members of
Parliament had been hearing.
For two and a half months in the industry committee members
of the Bloc Quebecois, members of the Reform Party and
government members have been hearing witness after witness
from the small business community talking about their
experiences with banks. We have also heard from the bank
leadership and other financial leadership. They actually
admitted that there was room for improvement in their bank
policy direction.
(1020)
It is important for all Canadians to realize that is another
factor in the overall budget strategy we are debating today. It is
an important component as well. To take a bill like Bill C-17 and
4622
revamp the unemployment insurance entitlements without
considering the other component pieces is not right.
All members have been working very hard on the report on
access to capital. Hopefully it will be presented to Parliament by
the end of June and some of the recommendations will find their
way into a revised approach to regulating the financial
institutions and the way they deal with small and medium sized
businesses.
While I am on the specific area of access to capital, it is
interesting that we are discovering in committee many new
opportunities to access capital for small businesses that will
become apparent to the 900,000 entrepreneurs that are trying to
re-spark the economy across Canada.
The insurance companies, the mutual funds, the stock
exchanges and all other financial instruments have suddenly
discovered in the last six to nine months that the real future or
the real action in terms of the new economy, especially the
knowledge based economy, will be with the small and medium
sized business sectors.
I am optimistic that all kinds of capital will be available in the
not too distant future for people with good business plans and
good ideas who have the courage to take risks and achieve.
Another aspect of the budget strategy linked to the Bill C-17
review or revamping of the unemployment insurance
entitlement is that we have reviewed in committee what has
been going on with the goods and services tax. The issue of the
GST has not gone away. As the government we are not running
away from that issue. We know what Canadians think about the
GST. It is a complex, inefficient tax, especially for the business
community across Canada. It has added to the cost of doing
business or the paper burden, an issue we cannot run away from.
The whole tax review issue is part of the budget strategy. It is
being handled in the finance committee. That is something we
are coming to terms with. It is a lot more difficult actually than
the access to capital issue. We can put our fingers on access to
capital in an easier way but dealing with reform of a tax act is
very tough, very difficult. We are meeting that challenge.
Hopefully by the fall we will have some recommendations in
that area.
Another area also linked to the budget strategy concerns the
reduction of paper burden. Committees in the Department of
Industry and the Department of Finance are dealing with ways in
which we can reduce the paper burden of business in the country.
When we put together all factors in the equation Bill C-17
starts to make some sense. As I said, in isolation it is a very
tough bill. I recognize members of the Bloc Quebecois are
nodding that it is a tough bill. We recognize we cannot look at
revamping unemployment insurance entitlement in isolation. If
we dealt with the bill in isolation obviously the criticism would
be well founded. It is very difficult in a time when people are
unemployed to put pressure on unemployment insurance
benefits. We have to look at it in the context of a total strategy.
We have to look at it in the context of trying to put the fiscal
framework of the country in order. When Canadians see it in the
context of an overall plan they will be a bit more understanding
of what we are trying to achieve.
(1025)
During this very difficult time of reviewing the fiscal
framework of the country and trying to regain some stability and
confidence we have also had to deal with the Bloc Quebecois.
We as members of Parliament came to the nation's boardroom.
We were elected to Parliament to build the country, to make the
environment of Canada better. I have been an elected member of
Parliament for six years but I have worked on the Hill since
1980. I had the privilege of working for someone who I believe
was one of the greatest prime ministers the country ever had,
Prime Minister Trudeau.
I see Bloc members getting excited already. They recognize
that if Trudeau were here they would not even exist. He would
not even give them the time of day because he would not
stomach the fact that people would be in the nation's boardroom
trying to destroy it. It is very difficult to sit down with people,
whether they are business people or educators, who do not
understand the country. The people in this room are supposed to
be building Canada, yet they are here trying to destroy it.
It is a real mystery for us to try to comprehend why they would
want to become part of an organization. Usually when one joins
an organization, whether it is a community group, a hockey
team, a school or some other kind of a club, one comes to that
group of men and women to try to make it better. The logic of
having an organization where people sign on to destroy it is
difficult for me to comprehend. It is nothing personal. In my
mind it is very difficult to understand.
The point I was trying to make is that we are dealing with an
economic strategy aimed at putting people back to work in every
riding of the country: in all the ridings of Quebec and all the
ridings of Alberta. It is very difficult to do so when saddled with
a group of men and women sowing seeds of dissension and doing
their level best to destroy economic confidence in the country.
They stand in the House of Commons to criticize revamping
the unemployment insurance system. It is the role of the
opposition to constructively criticize what we are doing on this
side of the House. We welcome it. I have been a member of the
opposition. I believe in its right and the responsibility to stand to
criticize the flaws in a particular piece of legislation being put
forward.
(1030 )
It is totally disgusting that there is a group which is not really
constructively criticizing. If those members were constructively
criticizing for the benefit of all Canadians they would stop
4623
trying to dismember and dismantle the country. That is a very
difficult thing for me to cope with.
I can accept an amendment or a recommendation to improve a
bill but if they were really sincere about building this country
then why not put away this destructive anti-Canada action
which has been going on. As the Prime Minister said in Montreal
last night, it is starting to affect in a profound way the markets
and their attitude toward Canada.
Maybe I am being a little too strong when I say profound.
Canada is a very strong country in its own right, but it does have
a psychological effect on investors. When there is a group which
is trying to dismember Quebec why would anyone from the
private sector want to invest billions of dollars in the Quebec
marketplace? They would have to think twice. I am not saying
that people will not do it, but I am saying it is a very tough
decision. The Bloc Quebecois is making it very tough to
rekindle the whole country.
This is nothing personal, but members opposite would have to
agree it is a highly unusual approach to come to an organization
for the purpose of destroying and dismantling it. What they
cannot seem to get through their thought process is that they are
hurting their own constituents. Speaking as one member of
Parliament, this ultimately has to affect not just my
constituents, but all constituents, the men and women right
across Canada.
Getting back to Bill C-17, we as a government are taking a
very difficult step in revamping the unemployment insurance
system. We are asking parliamentarians to cut back. We are
freezing the public service wages. Those are tough steps,
especially on unemployment insurance.
We have to look at it in the context of an overall strategy. I
have mentioned access to capital. I have mentioned the tax
review situation. I also have to mention what the minister of
human resources is doing beyond his reviewing the
unemployment insurance system.
The minister is putting so much emphasis on retraining, with
very special sensitivity toward young men and women with the
youth corps. That is a tremendous first step for helping people
who are finishing school. Even though it is not a large number of
young people, it is a tremendous pilot project. If we can figure
out a way to help young people who do not have any experience,
and help them during that bridge period between graduation and
getting into the workforce, that in itself is a very important first
step.
If we can refine that youth corps it could be the model project
not only for a national government effort but also a more
extensive one at the provincial and municipal levels in the
future. That in itself is a very useful, important and positive
initiative which has happened in the last six months.
(1035)
Another thing we have to remember is that we only took over
the government seven months ago. Quite frankly we have done
an awful lot in a very short time. Turning around the fiscal
framework mess which we inherited is not an easy task. It takes
a concerted effort by all members of Parliament and we need a
very tight focus but I am beginning to sense that the market is
coming back.
Another initiative I want to talk about is linked to this whole
budget strategy and putting Canadians back to work. It has to do
with our effort of encouraging young business men and women
to get into the export field. I would like to talk for just a couple
of minutes about an experience I had during the last
parliamentary recess.
I had the privilege of working with the private sector group
Inter Canada Far East Trade Centre in Markham, Ontario. They
are experts in helping small and medium sized businesses get
access to China. Last January I met with this group and they
asked me if I would join them in taking a group of young
business men and women to Beijing in May.
As members know, during the campaign we said we were
going to put a very special emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region,
that we were going to make sure we gave very special support to
the small and medium sized business sector in helping them
trade in that market.
Therefore I obliged and took up the offer to co-chair a
mission to Beijing which left on May 17. I had the support of the
member of Parliament from North Bay, the member of
Parliament for Vaudreuil, the member of Parliament for
Vancouver East, and also the member of Parliament for Durham.
We went with the Inter-Canada group and 100 men and women
from small and medium sized businesses. We were there for 10
days.
About 80 per cent of those men and women had never had any
export experience; they had never gone abroad on a mission.
North America is the natural market for Canadian business men
and women. But they had the courage to go and they spent their
own money on the trip. About 80 per cent of those young men
and women came back with either signed deals or signed letters
of intent.
I say this in the context of our national budget strategy
because, I would venture to say there are 100,000 to 200,000
jobs in China for Canadians. There are jobs in China for every
sector of our economy. I have been on many missions around the
world since 1980. I went on missions in the private sector when I
worked with Magna, in the auto parts business. I have never seen
anything like what is happening in China right now. The
opportunities to put Canadians back to work are beyond the
imagination.
4624
I know I cannot display it, but I am holding in my hands the
book Co-operation Projects for Foreign Investment in the
Liaoning Province. It is one of the smaller provinces in China,
40 million people in the one province. We went up to Shen Yang
City which is the economic capital of Liaoning province. They
invited us to come back in October with a second group from
small and medium sized businesses. There are 1,000
opportunities for joint ventures with Canadian companies in this
book alone. If we do not get out there these opportunities are
going to go to our American, German and French friends
because they are all over there.
(1040)
The Prime Minister's strategy on China was right on. They
love Canadians. We have a great reputation because of Dr.
Bethune and former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau whose name
is gold over there. If we went over there and as members of
Parliament encouraged small and medium sized businesses to go
to China we would have all kinds of opportunity to put our
people back to work.
Some members might ask: ``What about human rights?'' That
is a fair question when talking about China because of its
history. Interestingly enough they are very sensitive to that issue
and we talked about human rights. I know some members might
dismiss it but I learned something on my trip to China. If you
have not been there you should not criticize until you know what
is going on.
This was the first time I had been there. The 140 men and
women on our mission were approachable because of their value
system and caring style. We were asked questions about our
country, about our educational system, our social service
system, how we look after the disadvantaged in our community.
Not only were they businessmen and women, they were also
educators and social workers who explained what goes on in our
country. That might represent the best way for us to make
change in the value system of that country.
I chatted with Premier Rae when he was over there and he
shared my view. I have to get a little dig in at the premier. He was
over there with the multinationals, the large Canadian
corporations whereas our contingent was the small and medium
sized businesses. It is interesting that Premier Rae was with
eight or ten of them-and I am not putting them down; they are
very important to our economy. However, when this government
made a commitment to help small and medium sized businesses
during the last campaign as is well stated in the red book, our
trip to China was further concrete testimony that we are not
going to walk away from that.
In closing I encourage all members of Parliament to look at
the opportunities which exist in China to help put those
unemployed men and women in their ridings back to work or to
help small businesses expand.
I notice the Bloc members once again with their sarcastic
smiles. It is interesting. I have listened in this House for five
months now and I have not heard one constructive idea from the
finance critic of the opposition party. Not one constructive idea.
Not once did I hear him say anything good about what we have
done in this budget as an overall strategy. Not once have I heard
him stand up and say: ``I love Canada''.
This is the nation's boardroom; it is not the Quebec legislative
assembly. This is Canada and this is what you should be doing
here. You should be building Canada. Constituents not just in
my city but right across the country are fed up with you people
coming to this Parliament of Canada and doing nothing. Then
when we put forward constructive ideas to help put your
constituents back to work and not just ours, you sit there with
your smug, sarcastic smiles.
(1045 )
The Deputy Speaker: The ostensible point of order is the
question about addressing remarks to the Speaker precisely to
avoid the kind of thing that is going on right now. Second, I
would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that his
comments at the moment do not appear to me to relate very
closely to the bill at hand.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I take
your point. Every now and again I become so emotional about
my country.
An hon. member: Don't apologize.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): When I have to sit in
the nation's boardroom with people who are trying to destroy it,
from time to time my emotion gets the better of me. I find this
hypocrisy distasteful at times. At any rate, I want to get back to
the bill.
Bill C-17 was a tough decision made by the government to
revamp unemployment insurance. It was not done in isolation. It
was done in the context of a very good strategy put forward by
the Minister of Finance and the minister of state for finance who
I have the privilege of sitting next to in this Parliament.
When we look at the work we are doing on access to capital,
the work we are doing on tax reform, pushing small business to
go abroad, and when we see the opportunities that are out there,
if we all work together, then within very short order we could
really get Canadians feeling good about themselves again. The
best way to get them to feel good about themselves is putting
them back to work.
I believe that we as a government are on the right path.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, the day Bill
C-17 is passed will be a sad day in Canadian history. Let me say
to my hon. colleague who just spoke that it will be a sad day
because of this bill which has the support of his government and,
for the most part, of the Reform Party.
4625
Unlike my hon. colleague who spoke before me, I would hope
that my comments will be guided by intelligence rather than
emotion. You will understand, however, if occasionally I do get
emotional. It seems to be much easier to attempt to discredit
members of the Bloc Quebecois who were democratically
elected by Quebecers than it is to rationalize Bill C-17, an
outrage for this party and for this government, which calls itself
liberal but will soon have to find a new name, much like the
Progressives became the Progressive Conservatives.
Before moving on to the heart of my presentation, I would like
to focus on one point that has been troubling me ever since my
hon. colleagues began talking about the instability that the Bloc
Quebecois is creating with its sovereignty plans. Those
responsible for the demise of Meech are sitting on the other side
of this House. They are the ones responsible for the movement
that has grown in Quebec, although neither I nor many of my
colleagues felt that Meech would be the agreement to settle
Canada's fate once and for all and to clearly satisfy Quebecers.
It is a certainty.
However, Meech was an attempt, an open door, and that is
why even sovereigntists could not reject it. Those responsible
for the death of Meech and for creating permanent instability are
not sitting on this side of the House, but rather on the other side.
(1050)
Instability was a problem during all those years when French
Canadian Quebecers were withdrawn, docile and poor.
Getting back to my prepared text-
The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Madam, there is a point of
order.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, would you
please call the hon. member to order. If he wants to comment, he
should be polite enough to listen and comment after the hon.
member has finished her speech. Good manners also apply here
in the House.
An hon. member: We are as well-mannered as you.
The Deputy Speaker: Let me say that there was a motion
from a member in the previous Parliament on a subject which I
think affected members more than any other, namely the lack of
public respect because we did some things here that the public
found awful. I see your point and I hope that your colleagues
opposite will respect your point as well.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I think
you have addressed most of this. The member knows that it is
not uncommon for members from time to time after they have
given a long speech to walk out into the lobby. As Canadians
should know, we have a television monitor there so I was
listening to the hon. member's remarks. I was not being rude to
the member.
The record would show that I have listened to many speeches
of members of the Bloc Quebecois in an effort to understand
where they are coming from as they try to destroy the country.
The Deputy Speaker: I will say this in English. If I
understood the point, and I was speaking momentarily with
counsel at the table, the member was not criticizing the
parliamentary secretary. He was criticizing another member in
the House for interrupting the speech of the member who had the
floor. I do not think the parliamentary secretary was in
anybody's mind to be criticized.
We have had this discussion before. The parliamentary
secretary, with respect, will remember the low repute that
Parliament went into in the last Parliament. He and I were both
here. As I said in French, the reason they did is because our
constituents thought we behaved improperly in this place.
Therefore, I hope that all new members in this Parliament will
give each other more respect than we gave each other in the last
Parliament.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I repeat that the day Bill C-17 passes will be a sad day in
Canadian history. Of course, it is much easier for the party in
power to talk about anything but this bill, because this bill shows
a bias to attack the unemployed, welfare recipients and public
servants and carefully avoids touching the wealthy, family trusts
and tax shelters.
We agree that something absolutely must be done about the
deficit, but we disagree when those opposite attack only the
unemployed, the poor and public servants, as we see in this bill.
It attacks unemployment insurance and social assistance at a
time when unemployment is extremely high, when few
Canadians feel their jobs are safe, even and I might say
especially small and medium-sized business owners because of
recent incidents that have come to my knowledge, incidents that
happened not in faraway places but in my own riding, where
small businesses have gone bankrupt. I know that a great many
small businesses are having a very hard time right now. I will
address this issue as well.
(1055)
The Liberal government decision to cut as much as it has in
the unemployment insurance program is an historic one on the
part of people who cloak themselves in the Canadian unity flag
and claim to be promoting national unity. If they have done their
homework and taken a good look at what they are doing, then
they should know how much of an impact these cuts to unem-
4626
ployment insurance will have on the various regions of Quebec
and Canada over the next two years.
I have quoted these statistics on several occasions in this
House, Mr. Speaker, but they are at the heart of this bill. In fiscal
years 1995-96 and 1996-97, cuts in that area alone will total
$630 million in Atlantic Canada and $735 million in Quebec. Is
that what Canadians have to hope for?
This means that together Atlantic Canada and Quebec will
bear 60 per cent of the cuts, while only one third of the total
population of Canada lives in these two regions. The situation is
even worse in the case of Atlantic Canada. That region alone
bears 26 per cent of the cuts, with only 8.5 per cent of the
population.
Besides the Bloc Quebecois, who has risen in this House and
denounced loudly the fact that the Maritime or Atlantic
provinces are made to pay the largest share? The other side may
refuse to hear, but we did point this out. We have not heard the
hon. members from Western Canada complain about how hard
Maritime workers were hit either. We, from the Bloc Quebecois,
are the ones who have made this regional disparity public. It was
no big secret and it should not be, but the information had to be
leaked out just the same. Then, the government was forced to
provide explanations.
I am pointing out for the first time in this House the extent to
which the Maritimes and Quebec are indeed targeted by these
cuts. Why is that? Just because they raise UI eligibility
requirements from 10 to 12 weeks. Is the effect achieved a
surprise? No, Mr. Speaker. If we in this House could show the
very nice charts compiled by Employment and Immigration
Canada, the people watching us would see that the great
majority of UI recipients with short periods of employment are
in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. It is known fact.
More surprisingly, it is even a known fact that the number of
recipients with 8 to 19 weeks of insurable employment fell from
610,000 in 1975 to 250,000 in 1990.
(1100)
This means that when we ``improved'' unemployment
insurance, recipients generally had a short period of
employment behind them. Since that time, however, the number
of unemployed people with a long history of employment has
increased. That is no reason to reduce benefits for those unable
to find longer-term jobs in their local economy, as I will
demonstrate.
In a document based on the data available, Employment and
Immigration Canada tried to predict how many people would be
affected by the fact that, in these regions where seasonal
employment is very important, the minimum number of weeks
of work required to qualify for UI will be increased from 10 to
12. So how many Canadians will be affected by this provision,
according to Employment and Immigration Canada's forecasts
which are likely very conservative. Forty-four thousand people.
Where are these 44,000 people? Newfoundland, 16,000; Prince
Edward Island, 2,960; Nova Scotia, 3,575; New Brunswick,
11,535; Quebec, 8,000.
Of course, some may find it strange that people cannot find
longer-term jobs. It may be strange that the East has a different
economic structure but history explains it. However, so far,
Canada's unemployment insurance has taken these different
economic structures into account. And I could go on, Mr.
Speaker. How many will be affected in Ontario? In all of
Ontario, how many will be affected? That is an interesting
question. We could hold a lottery with that. According to
Employment and Immigration Canada's estimates, 305.
How many will be affected in Manitoba? Two hundred and
five. This is 205 too many. In Saskatchewan? Zero. Alberta is
also a winner: zero. In British Columbia? Eight hundred and
fifteen.
These figures are telling. Why have UI cuts been made in this
fashion? The government wilfully targeted those who live in an
economy based on seasonal employment and who try to survive
by doing odd jobs. These are economies where, unlike in
Ontario, there are fewer good jobs, that is permanent jobs. This
is the truth. Perhaps those who drafted this legislation do not
realize that it is not out of laziness, carelessness or contempt
that a very large number of Canadians have short-term jobs
which, from time to time, force them to rely on UI benefits,
never knowing if they will be able to find another job the
following year. Well, now these people know; they know that
they will not be able to work next year.
According to this very interesting study, the number of those
people who will eventually have to go on welfare is not known.
Yet, social assistance estimates for provinces are established on
that basis.
(1105)
There are two other types of cuts which will particularly
affect people who use up their UI benefits. Again, the big losers
will be those living in eastern provinces.
Some, including members of this House, may laugh. Let me
tell them what Alain Dubuc wrote. Mr. Dubuc is an editorial
writer in La Presse, an economist by training, and he is certainly
not a spokesperson for community groups. He wrote:
``Axworthy is making a mistake-'', the expression hon.
minister is missing because this is a quote, ``-because he is
cutting before helping. I too deplore the fact that so many
people, in Quebec and in Canada, have to rely on that program.
But it is a mistake to think that we will succeed by depriving
them of UI benefits, without programs and a policy to give them
hope of finding work-''. We can talk about hope but in reality
there is more
4627
despair than hope for these people, and this is something which
can also trigger instability.
This morning we were told that the UN is starting to make a
parallel between the resurgence of trouble in the world and the
rise of poverty. Those who enjoy job security for five years or
who, in some cases, are sheltered from financial setbacks
forever cannot imagine, from the comfort of their homes, that
there are people who depend solely on UI benefits or welfare,
whose lives are in the hands of a civil servant who will decide if
they are entitled to UI benefits and for how long, people who
keep submitting their resumes and hoping for training programs
that are not available.
The truth is not what we are hearing here today, that
Parliament should ensure that all Canadians have access to
training. The truth is that there are a great many people waiting
to take part in training programs which are not accessible to
them. That is the truth. We are in the middle of a psychodrama
here with, on one side, all of the lazy people who do not want
training and, on the other side, the Liberal government acting
like a saviour and saying: ``First, we will reduce you to poverty
and then we will urge you to get some training and go back to
work''.
To think like that, you cannot be living in the real world. You
must, however, have a vision of what development and hope
should be. As far as I am concerned, this bill deals a severe blow
to the Atlantic provinces. The vast majority of the people in
Atlantic Canada voted for the Liberals. And with no warning
whatsoever, from what we can tell, they will now end up with an
economy in worse shape than ever, because the infrastructure
programs also included in the budget will not begin to offset the
economic impact of cuts to the unemployment insurance
program.
The Atlantic provinces stand to lose $630 million. This
shortfall of $630 million will not be offset by the Groundfish
Adjustment Program. This is a very sad day indeed, because it
seems to me that ideology is taking precedence over the real
needs of ordinary people. The government is proceeding with
cuts without having a real employment policy.
(1110)
An hon. member opposite said the Bloc Quebecois never
made a single constructive proposal. Well, from the very
beginning, in committee and in the House, we mentioned the
need for a genuine job creation policy. In Quebec, we call that a
full employment policy, a pro-active employment policy.
In the committee on which I sit, I had to make a big fuss before
they would invite someone who is an expert, not on
mini-measures, mini-reforms and mini-programs but on the
kind of pro-active employment policy that involves a large
number of components and instruments and whose chief
characteristic is the basic and abiding concern of the
government for job creation; not employment created at the cost
of productivity but an employment policy that would require
taking a closer look at all the measures taken by the
government, in the light of the need to deal with unemployment.
Last night I read a very interesting document by one of the
advisors on the task force of the Minister of Human Resources
Development. It started by stating that, in Canada, governments
have not been concerned about employment. Incidentally, the
same advisor was deputy minister at Employment and
Immigration Canada for a number of years. I think that is an
interesting point. And I think he underestimates an aspect that
we in Quebec have developed, perhaps because we were hit
harder by the first recession, and I am referring to the need for
consultation between companies, workers represented by their
labour organizations, regional interest groups and governments.
Consultation has to be learned, and let me tell you, from what I
have seen of the government opposite, it has yet to realize that
consultation is necessary.
I wish, and I consider this another constructive proposal, that
the government in its search for a job creation policy would
realize that consultation is essential. What does Bill C-17 do? It
starts by destroying the trust that is a necessary part of the
consultation process. The government starts by saying: Cut
unemployment insurance, and cut in the Maritimes and Quebec,
before our social reform and before we consult people, and
freeze public service compensation before starting a genuine
discussion but do not touch corporations, the tax treatment of
the rich, tax shelters or trusts. And then they say: Let us consult!
There are words to describe this, but they would be
unparliamentary.
Oh, and another thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am very
disappointed that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the
amendments one by one in the House. And I also want to
mention a point that is very important, and I am referring to the
negative impact on the economy. I will be brief, since my
colleagues will get back to this later on.
I wanted to say that the money that will not go to the provinces
is money that was used to pay for basic necessities, including the
rent. This means small landlords will be affected because it will
be harder to collect the rent. The money was used to pay for food
and for all those basic necessities that are often produced locally
and are in fact part of the economy of each community, of my
riding, of your riding and of the regions. It is money that will not
go into the economy. It affects the most vulnerable members of
our society. It affects those who already have no security in their
lives. It affects those who often make seemingly irrational
decisions. It affects people on welfare who, once a month,
receive a cheque many members here would spend in less than a
week-end, and people who depend on their unemployment
insurance cheque, but do not know how long they will keep on
getting it.
4628
(1115)
The number of people who may have to rely on unemployment
insurance is growing. I met one of them this week, he is not
young, although many young people are affected too. He is a
teacher with 20 years of experience, who has never enjoyed job
security and is now unemployed in spite of having 23 years of
schooling. He is extremely angry because when you are
unemployed you feel as if society has no respect for human
beings.
Right now, how many people are in the same situation? Do not
tell me that the budget as a whole gives Canadians hope for the
future. In what way, may I ask? First they cut, and them they ask
us to believe them.
My colleague opposite who, a while ago, mentioned
instability, reminds me of a pyromaniac who starts a fire and
then bemoans the fact that it is burning. With its measures, this
government is not rekindling hope for all those who live in a
precarious situation, a situation many know nothing about, a
situation so precarious that they end up with no self-respect,
that they cannot have a family of their own, and that they do not
dare look at people straight in the eyes. Unemployment
insurance is a lifeline, and when it is taken away, you drop quite
a few notches.
People come to my riding office, in a panic, because their UI
benefits are about to end and they may have to go on welfare.
They feel as if they were falling into a big black hole. Obviously,
we try to encourage them, but what is there to tell them except
that the situation is extremely tough and that there are few
opportunities?
One wonders what kind of social and economic model forms
the basis of this bill. By reducing the payments from 57 to 55 per
cent for 85 per cent of the unemployed, and by reducing the
number of weeks ever closer to half a year, we are moving
towards the American model. Whether we like or not, this is a
fact. The truth is that the Canadian unemployment insurance
program resembles more and more the American one.
A few days ago, a member from the opposite side was saying:
``Even with today's globalization, a country remains the master
of its social and economic organization''. In reality, the Liberals
are pursuing the policies of the Conservatives. Or, putting it
another way, the Conservatives, while in power, followed a
Liberal policy. Everybody is following the policy of the
McDonald report.
I remind members that the McDonald report was produced by
a commission chaired by Mr. McDonald who was appointed by
Mr. Trudeau. The Conservatives implemented its
recommendations and now the Liberals are implementing the
last part, the one concerning income security.
We cannot ignore the facts and keep on saying that the new
Canadian jobs will be provided by China.
(1120)
The pretext, heard several times in this Chamber, was that we
have to give small and medium-sized businesses a chance. On
that point I would like to say to my colleagues opposite that they
are stretching the truth a bit. First, I should point out that we
were the first, before January, to say that UI premiums should
not increase. They were at $3 and they should have stayed at $3.
We had proposed to freeze premiums. The government did not
listen to us. It increased them. Now, it is bragging about the fact
that it will lower them to $3 next January. And it adds-again
stretching the truth-that this will create 40,000 jobs.
The fact of the matter is that by raising premiums to $3.07, the
government has made it more difficult to create jobs this year.
With Bill C-17, it should at least have had the decency to reduce
the UI premium rate to $3 immediately, if this move could have
created jobs.
There are other ways to continue funding unemployment
insurance without reducing the benefits of the least fortunate
and creating in the process social and economic problems for
those regions hardest hit. There are countries that have found
alternative solutions. For example, why will the government not
consider increasing the average industrial wage through
contributions? Such a move would help to fund UI by getting
large companies, even those with few blue-collar workers, to
contribute without the government having to resort once again
to lowering the benefits of the least fortunate and, in the process,
creating additional social burdens.
When a government drives people onto welfare and then is
forced to invest money supposedly to convince them to leave it
behind, then its policies are illogical. Such policies cannot,
ultimately, create jobs.
This bill which unfortunately will be adopted shortly is a total
disaster. I would like to think that my hon. colleagues will be
convinced by our comments directed to all of Canada and to all
Canadians of the importance of equity and job creation in
Canada.
The government claims to be concerned about child poverty.
However, child poverty begins with poverty in the home.
Thousands of people are being forced into poverty and, later on,
the government will shed crocodile tears regarding their sad
fate.
Before concluding my remarks, I would like to point out that
one of the many provisions in this bill has not been given a
sufficiently high profile-not that we have not tried to focus on
it-is the total discretion enjoyed by the minister as far as pilot
projects are concerned. Allow me to explain myself.
Pursuant to this bill, when the minister designates a region to
be the focus of a pilot project, he alone can decide whether the
provisions will not apply to a particular group of citizens, to
whom no recourse is available.
4629
(1125)
One could even wonder if that is not ``unconstitutional''
under the Charter. The minister selects pilot projects and,
because of this, legislation, the application of which is usually
general, no longer applies to a prescribed group.
Of course, we can argue that the idea is always to improve on
the existing legislation. But the fact of the matter is that it is not
the case. It is not. Various conditions may be added that do not
apply to other employees, as was recently the case in the
adjustment program for ground fishermen.
So, this measure in itself would have required that we take a
closer look at it and ask ourselves if Canada really wanted to
introduce such a discretionary measure, and give a
minister-incidentally, a minister whose department is so large
that one cannot help but wonder if, as in the case of the British
Empire, the sun never sets on it, and how the minister can keep
up his fences-that much power, without any possibility for
ordinary citizens, except perhaps through constitutional
remedies not provided for by the act, to protect otherwise
recognized rights.
As you know, in the context of unemployment insurance,
there is always a tribunal where, among other parties, workers
are represented. I would have much more to say, from the
bottom of my heart, on this bill which affects all Canadians, a
bill that divides Canada, a bill that abandons Atlantic provinces.
We will discuss the adjustment program for groundfisheries, but
you are not going to come and tell me that this program alone
will revitalize the economy of that region. As I said earlier,
Atlantic Canada and Quebec are hard hit, savagely hit, while this
government blows its own trumpet, boasts, brags about being a
national unity government.
Yet, among the political parties represented in this House,
only the Bloc called attention to this problem. I am pointing this
out because I noticed it and I would like the hon. members
opposite to notice it as well. They are of course bound by
ministerial discretion. The Reform Party failed to do its job as
the national party that it claims to be. Let me assure you
however that our vision in the Bloc is not to destroy Canada.
We have tried to find our place within this Canada and the
response we got was ``no''. So, yes, we want to leave this
confederation, but not destroy Canada, quite the contrary. All
our action in this place, whether on cultural, social and even
economic issues, is fundamentally constructive. Yes, we want to
leave Canada, but we want our future friendly neighbour to be a
strong one as well.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-17, the budget
implementation act. In my remarks I will attempt to give an
overview of the Reform Party's position or, more accurately,
positions on the assortment of measures that constitute Bill
C-17 and explain why we will be voting against the bill on third
reading.
I will comment on the objections Reform has with certain
aspects of the bill, but I will also give praise where praise is due.
In fact, many of the measures contained in Bill C-17 are
supported by the Reform Party.
Before getting into Bill C-17 I would like to take this one last
opportunity to speak of the government's budget and to the
concerns my party has repeatedly expressed in the weeks and
months since the budget was presented to this House of
Commons. Those ideas we feel have not been heard as they
should and have fallen somewhat on deaf ears.
(1130)
I would like to make four points with regard to the budget as I
see what has happened in this assembly since February 22. First
of all, it is very clear that the government does not have a
concrete deficit reduction plan. We find that most of the cuts
were done in a haphazard way. There is no an over-arching
direction given to those cuts. Most of the cuts are merely a
combination of what we call Conservative policies and were a
continuation of thrusts that were set prior to the government
taking over in the fall of 1993.
Cuts to such programs as unemployment insurance which
were so eloquently talked about a few moments ago and the
defence policy were taken before any comprehensive foreign
policy review or a social policy review were put in place. It was
ad hoc in nature at best.
The target that the government has set for itself, what is called
the 3 per cent solution, which is supposed to be based on the
Maastricht treaty is an aberration of that treaty and not an
accurate reflection. It does not measure what is called the net
debt as it is in the Maastricht treaty. The Maastricht treaty talks
about all of the net debt of a country. In the formula presented
here by the government, provincial and municipal debts are not
taken into consideration in seeing the difficulties we face as a
country in terms of expending money and revenue sources that
are available to us.
The actions of the government are not a true reflection of what
I would call a meaningful Maastricht treaty 3 per cent policy. I
feel there is a gap between what should be done and what is
being done by the government.
4630
Second, we feel the economic assumptions that were placed
before us have already been thrown off course. As the Prime
Minister noted yesterday, the Quebec situation is creating
uncertainty and the higher rates of interest in the budget have
not been factored in. Interest rates have climbed significantly
higher than projected with no end in sight. Certainly the
prospects for interest rate declines are out of the question given
recent bond downgrades and the Quebec question that is before
us in the months ahead.
Most reputable economic firms have downgraded their
growth projections after noting the interest rate increases. The
growth in revenues that are so necessary to the Liberal plan are
in jeopardy. Unemployment is staying stubbornly high and with
downgrades in growth projections this key projection also
appears to be in jeopardy. The Liberals seem to be making as
little progress in job creation as they have made with deficit
reduction.
We raise the question, as we have done over and over again as
the Reform Party: When will the Liberals realize that in our
current situation only meaningful deficit reduction will lead to
long term job creation in our nation? That message is clear and
becoming more clear each day.
The third point I wish to make is that the second phase of the
deficit reduction plan is in jeopardy as it will be overridden by
larger political concerns. With the looming Quebec election and
the possibility-we hope not-of a victory of the PQ, the
political environment for further cuts and serious deficit
reduction is seriously in doubt.
The active work of the Bloc in the House and out on the
hustings to major changes in the UI system is a bad omen for
future deficit reduction. How will the federal government be
able to achieve significant savings when every move to do so
will be used by the separatists, as they have done in the House
already, as further fuel for their fire?
(1135 )
The apparent refusal of the government to clearly lay the
groundwork for the separatist debate now can only mean that
significant resources that are needed for deficit reduction may
be diverted to fight battles with Quebec separatists. That is
unfortunate.
If I may make a comment on what the previous speaker from
the Bloc said, when the separatists say they are not here to break
up the country, the inferences and the actions of that party have
already started a turmoil within our economic community. They
are reflected in the future lives of not only businesses but
individuals, and certainly in the overall public responsibility
that we have in the House of Commons.
Reformers have a plan. We are currently developing a
comprehensive deficit reduction plan which looks at each
department of government with a view to comprehensive cuts
and reductions that we know will result in economic confidence
and growth. What actions are contemplated and what will we do
in the months ahead? First of all, we will have a department by
department review to determine expenditure excesses and the
elimination of certain functions that government can no longer
afford.
Second, the comprehensive plan will be further developed
over the summer and will play an integral role in the Reform
legislative agenda for this fall. Third, the comprehensive plan
will be presented in detail to the Minister of Finance during the
pre-budget consultations also scheduled for the fall. I give full
credit to the minister and the government for setting up those
consultations. They are a first and the government deserves
accolades for taking such action.
Fifth, this plan will be ready for any crisis that may take place
in our national finances. It will also function as the Reform
platform for suggestions of future government reductions and
future government initiatives that lie ahead as a responsibility in
this House.
With those few comments about the budget, I would like to
turn back to Bill C-17, the budget implementation act. The bill
contains many measures which, as I have said, the Reform Party
supports. A number of the principles that underlay changes
contained in Bill C-17 are compatible with Reform policy, yet
we cannot support the bill and will vote against it at the
conclusion of the third reading debate.
Let me explain why Reform is voting against Bill C-17
despite supporting much of its content. There are two reasons:
the omnibus nature of the bill and the lack of an overall plan or
vision of where these changes will lead. Let me first talk about
the omnibus bill.
The Oxford dictionary defines omnibus as follows: ``serving
several objects at once; comprising of several items''. What we
have before us today is an omnibus bill composed of five
distinct pieces of legislation which bear little relationship to one
another. This approach is not new and I am sure members have
witnessed it many times in the House. Certainly I have in the
provincial legislature of Alberta.
Today I am reminded of an event that is somewhat similar as
this. Some 12 or 13 years ago the government of the day of
which the Prime Minister and a number of his colleagues were
members tried to pass another omnibus bill. The loyal
opposition fought back the only way it could, by refusing to
report for the vote. As a result, the bells rang for days until the
government finally agreed to break the bill up to allow members
the opportunity to represent their constituents.
The problem with omnibus legislation is that there is no way
for an individual member to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
One must either hold one's nose and vote in favour, which I
suspect a good many of my colleagues on the opposite side will
do when we come to the voting stage, particularly those from the
east, or members will vote no, thereby risking the defeat of some
of the measures that they believe are good, sensible,
progressive pieces of legislation.
4631
(1140 )
Of course that is the purpose of omnibus legislation, to allow
a government to hide a number of lemons among the Cadillacs.
It is a procedural tactic employed to prevent members of
Parliament from effectively representing their constituents, a
tactic that deprives them of the opportunity to exercise their
direction in choosing which policies they support and which
policies they oppose.
In the case of Bill C-17, the use of this tactic forced the
Reform Party to play politics somewhat, to engage in procedural
games in order to represent its constituency. The only way we
could express our support for some of the clauses in Bill C-17
while simultaneously expressing our opposition to other parts of
the bill, notably the clause granting borrowing authority to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was to table a series of
report stage amendments.
This allowed us to break up the bill for the purposes of debate.
It also produced a situation in which members of the Reform
Party were forced to vote against their own amendments. I know
a lot of members were concerned about it and raised that
question. However, it was the only way we were able to set up a
circumstance where we could vote on individual items in the bill
and then be able to express our constituents' will.
The second point I wish to make is with regard to lack of a
plan. That is the second reason the Reform Party opposes Bill
C-17. While we view many of the measures contained within as
a good first step and while we support the general principle and
the direction of some of these changes, we are troubled by the
absence of any overall vision in Bill C-17. It is similar to the
vision we witnessed in the budget as a whole where there was not
a vision that was seeking some kind of a plan or a future or an
identifiable objective for the country as a whole.
I would like to look at the parts of Bill C-17. It consists of five
parts as the House well knows. First, public sector
compensation; second, reductions in the Canada assistance plan
and the public utility income tax transfers; third, the reduction
in transportation subsidies; fourth, CBC borrowing authority;
and fifth, the item that is being well aired and vented in this
assembly, unemployment insurance and the actions taken
thereon.
Let me deal with each one. The first one is public sector
compensation. The Reform Party supports the government's
move to extend public sector wage freezes for an additional two
years. While we are troubled by some of the inequities that arise
from the freezing of pay increments within salary grades, we are
prepared to support this in recognition of the government's
difficult fiscal situation.
Some people have tried to portray the Reform Party as public
servant bashers. This is absolutely unfair. The reason we support
the continuation of the public sector wage freeze is because of
the recognition that in difficult times, and these are difficult
times, everyone must make sacrifices. While it is true that many
in the public service have not had a raise in a number of years,
the fairness of the wage freeze becomes apparent when we
compare what has occurred in the private sector in this last
recession.
We need only ask the tens of thousands of private sector
employees who have been victimized by corporate downsizing,
those who have been laid off as businesses struggled to meet the
demands of globalization. We should ask these people if they
would have accepted a salary freeze in return for job security. I
am sure the answer would have been: ``Yes, I am prepared to do
that''.
However, most of those people were laid off and are out
looking for other ways to support their families, their mortgages
and their responsibilities. In fact, a considerable number of
private sector workers have gone even beyond just salary
freezes. They have gone to salary rollbacks in order to save their
jobs.
This is not to be seen as a positive development but rather as
an acknowledgement that if Canadians are to meet the
increasing demands of the global markets then everybody,
employer and employee, must be prepared to sacrifice in this
partnership that is a responsibility of all of us.
(1145 )
With an equally formidable problem facing the government in
the form of our massive debt, Reformers do not see it as too
much to ask that the public servants, who according to a recent
study conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent
Businesses are paid 14 per cent more than those people in the
private sector with comparable jobs, accept the extension of a
salary freeze.
We in the Reform Party, in acknowledgement of this difficult
fiscal situation, have tried as well within our own party and our
own caucus to demonstrate some leadership in this area by
taking a voluntary 10 per cent to 15 per cent salary reduction.
We are not asking the public service to do anything that we are
not prepared by example to do ourselves.
However, while we support the government's action in this
area, we also believe that this alone will do very little to bring
the government's deficit under control. It is my guess that the
government had no idea where to cut or how to deal with the
priorities, and it saw the salary freeze of the public service as an
easy target and that target was placed before us in the budget.
4632
The next areas I would like to deal with concern the
reductions in the Canada assistance plan and the public utilities
income tax transfers.
First of all, while we support reductions to the Canada
assistance plan, transfers to the provincial governments, we
believe that the corollary of this is that the federal government
where it has a responsibility must give the provinces more
freedom in adjusting to the lower level of funding. They cannot
make ground rules that cannot be lived with within their
economic means. If we cut funds from the provinces, then we
must also change the level of responsibility in order that
adjustments can be made at the local provincial level.
If we look back when the Canada assistance plan was created,
the federal government used its fiscal powers to intrude into an
area that was exclusively provincial jurisdiction. It agreed at
that time to pay 50 per cent of costs if in return the provinces
agreed to certain national standards. That was the deal. Since
both levels of government were happy with this cost shared
agreement there was no problem. What we have to do is look
ahead and see what happened.
However, after continuous cutbacks of Canada assistance
program transfers the federal contribution, for example, in
Ontario today is just 29 per cent, about half of what it was in the
first commitment that the federal government made. Yet the
federal government at the same time insists on the provinces
maintaining certain national standards. The government cannot
have it both ways. There must be a change in planning, policy
and attitude.
If the federal government wants to continue to have the say in
the field of welfare, a field exclusive to provincial jurisdiction,
then it on the other hand must be prepared to pay its full share.
That is not what I am talking about here today, but that is the
option that should be open to the government.
We in the Reform Party recognize that the federal government
simply cannot afford to maintain such a level of funding. That is
why we support a cap on the Canada assistance program.
However, as the quid pro quo we are prepared to allow the
provinces the freedom which I have talked about that they need
to experiment in creating sustainable and efficient income
support programs.
My concern with the government's cuts to the Canada
assistance program is that they have been made in isolation,
with no consideration of the consequences that these measures
will have on other aspects of Canada's income security system.
This measure does not move the country closer to a permanent
solution to our financial crisis; it only offloads the debt from one
level of government to the other. We cannot afford to do that in
our nation. It is unfair.
(1150)
As a senior government we have to take a parental
responsibility and understand that we cannot unload the debt on
our children, that we have to deal with the circumstance here in
this assembly as adult, parental, responsible persons in charge
of the program across this nation.
We must remember in doing this that there is only one
taxpayer and if we keep loading it down from one government
level to another that taxpayer is going to be suffocated in this
transfer of funding responsibility.
I would like to now talk about the reductions in the
transportation subsidies. The Reform supports the principle of
reducing transportation subsidies but we question the wisdom of
making these cuts in isolation from other measures which would
address the various serious transportation problems facing the
country.
Supporting reductions in the grain transportation subsidies is
not an easy thing for me to do. I am a grain farmer and many of
the voters who sent the Reform Party to Ottawa have benefited
from the Crow rates. However, we must be realists. I realize that
the federal government simply cannot afford to continue
subsidizing western and Atlantic transportation costs at their
current level. Last year alone federal subsidies for the Crow
benefit totalled $720 million.
Unlike the government the Reform Party does have a plan.
The Reform approach is to eliminate transportation subsidies
and redirect the funds to the Reform Party's proposed
comprehensive safety net programs which will defend Canada's
food producers against matters over which they have very little
control.
In order to create a genuinely competitive transportation
environment we will deregulate the rail transportation system
and will consider privatizing the Canadian national rolling
stock.
Unlike the Liberal government's insensitive, across the board
approach to reducing transportation subsidies, the Reform
policy is a balanced one which provides support to those who
truly need it while laying the foundations for an efficient and
market driven transportation system that will carry Canadians
into the 21st century.
The next subject I would like to deal with is CBC borrowing,
the borrowing authority that is given in this bill. It is the first
borrowing authority to be provided to that crown corporation by
the government through legislation.
I want to say very clearly that the Reform Party is strongly
opposed to the provisions in Bill C-17 that would amend the
Broadcasting Act to allow borrowing by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. CBC representatives have told us
that this $25 million would be used for a purpose that would
provide a more business like flexibility to the organization. We
in the Reform Party see this as nothing more than a back door
way of
4633
providing the CBC with additional funding. Rather than coming
through the front door as a subsidy or a grant from government it
is another way it can access funds outside of the purview of the
House of Commons. That is not correct.
On a more fundamental basis, Reform feels it is time to
re-examine the purpose and the mandate of the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. First, in this new age of satellite
dishes and information highways, of cable TV and pay per view,
is it realistic to expect the CBC to retain a sizeable viewing
audience? By the CBC's own admission this audience has
already declined to just 13.3 per cent of viewing share. It has
diminished significantly.
Second, is it fair to allow the CBC to straddle the line between
market player and crown corporation? While some have called
on the CBC to act like any other private sector business, this is
not possible. In the private sector you have to earn a profit or you
die.
(1155)
The CBC does not have to confront this discipline of the
marketplace. It does not matter if it loses staggering sums of
money. At the present time as Canadians we are subsidizing it.
Many Canadians do not realize that $1.1 billion is going directly
out of the public purse to subsidize the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation. That is the way it is. The government has always
been there to bail it out when necessary.
We are in a period of time when this is a legitimate question.
How can a private network like CTV be expected to compete
against a company which has billions of dollars of government
money behind it? This question must be addressed.
Communication and technology are so different today than
ever before. People who did not have access to television or
radio at one time in our history today have that access.
Anywhere in the world you can project television, anywhere in
the world you can project radio or communication systems. We
do not require a subsidized organization to meet that
communication demand that was there at one time.
I recall my stint at the University of Alberta where one of my
colleagues, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, and other colleagues I
spent time with debated this issue. At that time I supported the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the basis that there were
places in Canada unable to receive this communication of
television or radio and we needed the corporation for that
purpose. I supported it at that time. That reason is gone today.
We have to look at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
running on its own two feet on a non-subsidized basis from the
Government of Canada.
The last item I would like to deal with is the unemployment
insurance question which has been discussed in this assembly.
The Reform Party supports the direction the Liberal government
has taken in the principles it has embraced in the changes to the
unemployment insurance plan.
First, Reform congratulates the Liberal government for
reducing the unemployment insurance premium rates. It has
long been the Reform Party's position that the most effective job
creation tool available to government is to reduce the tax burden
of individuals and of businesses.
Second, Reform fully supports changes designed to improve
the link between work history and unemployment insurance
benefits. These changes move the unemployment insurance plan
back toward a true insurance program, as it was intended to be in
the first place. As I will argue later, many of the other policy
goals UI is currently serving would be better accomplished
through other government programs.
Third, Reform supports changes to the qualifying period, the
benefit rate and the benefit period, all of which reduce some of
the program's disincentives to work. While we have some
concern about changes making it easier to allow voluntary quits
to collect benefits, the general direction of the changes is to
encourage people to find employment, whether it is
self-employment or employment with another individual or
another business firm.
In another area, while Reform is glad to see the Liberals
abandon the principle of universality by moving to a two tier
benefit structure which targets those most in need, we believe
that such means tested criteria are not suitable for an insurance
program. Such goals should be met through other government
programs.
While we in the Reform Party support these actions in and of
themselves we are disappointed that they were not part of a
comprehensive review program, the comprehensive social
review program that is currently going on. We feel that as with
the rest of Bill C-17, the changes proposed in the bill are
indiscriminate, ad hoc measures taken with little or no
consideration as to the impact these changes will have on the
broader network of Canadian social programs.
(1200)
The government seems to have forgotten that the income
security system of our country is not a crazy quilt of piecemeal
programs, all existing independent of the other. Rather it is an
intricate series of interdependent programs consciously
designed to complement and strengthen one another to meet a
broad range of needs faced by Canadians in their daily lives.
In the last portion of my speech I will address the vision of the
Reform Party of the unemployment insurance program and its
proper place within the broader family of programs that
constitute Canada's social safety net. It is instructive to look at
the government's approach to UI reform, for it is representative
of
4634
the government's overall approach to the budget: ill planned,
disjointed and demonstrating little sense of an overall objective
or goal.
I was struck during the finance subcommittee hearings on Bill
C-17 by the confusion and the concern of witnesses surrounding
one small provision of the bill, that dealing with allowing the
government to experiment with pilot projects. Group after group
denounced the provision.
Some union briefs portrayed it as a back door thought to
institute workfare or to supply business with cheaper labour.
Others asked what criteria were being used to monitor the
success of the pilots or even whether there were any guidelines
on what qualified for consideration as a pilot project. A number
asked what right the government had to appropriate moneys
from the UI fund, moneys paid 100 per cent by employers and
employees to develop programs that seemingly had little to do
with providing insurance to those who had lost their jobs and
were needing support on a temporary basis.
The confusion became so persuasive that the hon.
parliamentary secretary for finance felt it necessary to have a
clarification of the criteria for pilot projects and how they would
be funded read into the record of our meetings.
While I am not completely satisfied with the government's
assurances, the principle of the pilot project does not trouble me
very greatly. Reform has always supported the idea of
experimenting with new and innovative ways of updating and
improving our social programs. What troubles me is the reason
for all of the confusion in the first place.
There was no consultation into these provisions and we
witnessed that very clearly in each committee meeting. Where
was the input of the people who were to be directly affected by
these somewhat innovative measures? There was none. None of
the business or labour organizations appearing before the
subcommittee had been consulted on what the experimental
initiatives should be.
It was a top down exercise controlled by bureaucrats and
departmental officials rather than from the bottom up involving
the program's true stakeholders, the employers and the
employees who fund the UI program. That was a major neglect
of government in this process.
What were all the witnesses appearing before the
subcommittee really saying to us? They asked whose program it
is. The question from them was a good one. After all,
unemployment insurance is completely self-financing. The
government theoretically contributes nothing to UI, neither
toward the payment of benefits nor toward the cost of
administration. Yet it still controls the program.
Much of what ails the UI program, the $6 billion debt, the
inefficiencies and the allegations of abuse, stems from the
simple fact that the original purpose of UI has been
compromised by politicians and by bureaucrats who distorted
the program to perform a number of functions for which the UI
program was never intended and which it is relatively
ineffective in performing.
Let us look back to the 1930s and 1940s, which is far in one
sense but not so far in another sense depending how old one is,
when the concept of unemployment insurance was first
originated. In those years people had in mind that it should be a
pure insurance program, one that would provide temporary
income support to unemployed individuals and would entitle
contributors to benefits commensurate with their contributions.
(1205 )
Unemployment insurance, if we look at it today, is far from
that ideal. Over time changes have been introduced which
created inequities based on where one lived and caused a
disproportionate share of benefits to flow to workers engaged in
seasonal industries, to those who live in high unemployment
regions and to those who live in areas with a relatively weak
attachment to the workforce.
I look back at the Forget commission 1985 report. In the
report it was argued that the program's provisions for regionally
extended benefits amounted to an income supplemental
program rather than an insurance program. It was noted that in
1985, nine years ago, the program's original objectives were off
track. What has led to this drift of first principles? A conclusion
was reached in the Forget commission report:
The innumerable modifications to the program over the years were political
compromises. A review of the history of the unemployment insurance program
reveals that the major influences on this policy since 1940 have been the result
not of negotiations between the employer and the employee interest but rather
of political and bureaucratic interventions.
It is government that caused the distortions, not those really
paying the bills.
We in the Reform Party believe that ownership of the
unemployment insurance program must be given back to the
people who founded it and are the stakeholders in that plan: the
employers and the employees. The case of the unemployment
insurance is the extreme example of the phenomenon alluded to
earlier of the federal government continually trying to have its
cake and eat it at the same time.
We have seen this in other areas of social assistance where the
government freezes its contributions to the Canada assistance
plan yet insists on continuing to have a say in how the program is
being run. We have seen this in the area of health where the
federal component of health care funding has eroded to the point
where it is now in the neighbourhood of or on average 22 per
cent of health care spending. Yet the federal government insists
4635
at the same time it has the right to tell the provinces how
medicare should be run.
We have said in the House in question period and through
other mediums that the whole format should be changed so that
the provinces can react to their own individual needs and
circumstances under the economic situation that may prevail in
their respective areas of the country.
In the case of unemployment insurance the government does
not pay a full share of the cost. It pays none of the costs. Yet it
legislates changes which amount to expropriating moneys paid
to the contributors, arbitrarily transferring them into certain
categories of contributors at the expense of other categories of
workers, or to experimental pilot projects as I mentioned a few
moments ago.
It is unfair. It is inefficient. It certainly should not continue.
This program needs review like every other social program that
is the responsibility of this assembly.
The federal government must decide whether it is in or
whether it is out. If it wants to continue controlling the
principles and the administration of UI programs, and if it wants
to continue using UI to perform other social policy objectives, it
has a moral obligation to become a full partner in terms of
funding the programs.
If the federal government is not willing to assume its share of
financing it should relinquish ownership of the programs to
employers and employees, the stakeholders who are paying for
and should be benefiting from unemployment insurance.
(1210 )
In conclusion, the Reform Party's position is that government
should return UI to its original function as a true insurance
program and allow employer and employee groups to administer
the program. This is not a new idea. Nor is it a radical idea, as I
listened to the variety of groups that made presentations to us. It
is an approach which both employer and employee groups
appearing before the finance committee supported. These
grassroots groups supported the concept the Forget commission
recommended to the government of that day.
We should listen to those representations and to what is being
said by the private sector. It is time for government to trust
others in terms of responsibility, to trust the provinces in terms
of meeting some of our economic goals, and to work in
partnership. We cannot do it alone. Nor can we take away the
funds from those who carry out legislated responsibilities for us,
such as provinces, such as municipalities, such as the
unemployment commission, and so on. We have a grave
responsibility.
I appreciate the time I have had to spend on Bill C-17. As I
said earlier even though the Reform Party supports a number of
initiatives, because of the omnibus nature of the bill and because
we feel the bill and the budget have not presented to us as
Canadians and as legislators a good vision we have an obligation
to vote against Bill C-17 at third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: We will now revert to 20-minute
speeches.
[Translation]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
be able to say a few words today on this important legislative
measure.
When this government came to office late last year, the
economy was stagnant and the public purse was burdened by a
deficit exceeding $40 billion. The government reacted,
especially in the recent budget, by opting for a balanced solution
to turn the economy around, reduce the deficit and introduce
social reform.
Our goal is to substantially reduce the deficit in the current
fiscal year while promoting an economic recovery.
[English]
The bill we are discussing today, the budget implementation
act, 1994, represents some measures the government believes it
must take if we are to remain optimistic about the economic
future of Canada.
We believe immediate measures are necessary to reduce the
deficit. It imposes severe constraints on economic recovery and
growth. It imposes severe threats to programs that are important
to all of us as Canadians: unemployment insurance, social
programs and health services among others.
It is fair to say that all Canadians realize we cannot blindly
spend our way out of the financial problems facing us but rather
we must do better with what we have. They and we realize that
government leadership to create the climate for job generation is
an important factor in balancing our books.
With that in mind, I would like to focus particularly on
measures affecting Canadians who work for the Public Service
of Canada, the RCMP or the Department of National Defence.
Bill C-17 extends the public service wage freeze currently in
effect for a further two years. It suspends pay increment
increases for a two-year period and enables payments to be
made to full time employees of national defence who are retiring
under a civilian reduction program.
Solving our fiscal problem required taking more restraint
measures in operating budgets. Public service salaries account
for a major portion of federal expenditures. The total
compensation cost of the government including the military and
the RCMP amounts to some $19 billion. Any measure to control
the deficit must therefore take these costs into account. Freezing
salaries and pay increments will contribute $1.5 billion in
savings over the next three years.
4636
(1215)
We know the debt and deficit problem will not be solved only
by cuts to the public service. The entire cost of operating the
Government of Canada is $20 billion out of total government
expenditures of approximately $168 billion. The compensation
cost of the public service employees who run that government is
$12 billion, considerably less than 10 per cent of the budget of
Canada.
Given this morning's clippings, I would like to comment on
the report of the C.D. Howe Institute. It has identified further
cuts to public service wages and government operating costs as a
major candidate for government reductions. I must admit I am
confused. Not long ago the Conference Board of Canada was
telling Canadians that a freeze on public sector wages at the
federal level would have a dampening effect of 1.5 per cent on
economic recovery that would be even further intensified if the
example was followed by provincial governments and the
sectors at other levels.
As I said, we realize the debt and deficit problem cannot be
resolved only by cuts to the public service. Therefore we have
implemented many other cuts in an attempt to achieve the deficit
target we have set for ourselves.
Many have questioned why pay increments were suspended in
addition to the wage freeze. The answer quite simply is fairness.
Increments were frozen because it is important that all public
service employees be treated equally in this difficult time. It did
not seem to us to be fair that some people working for the public
service were seeing their salaries rise while others were not.
[Translation]
I know very well that some consider these measures to be
severe, but it is important to place them in their proper context.
The government is committedto maintaining job security for its
employees. In its opinion, extending the salary freeze and
suspending pay increments are better ways to control public
spending that forced leave, wage reductions and layoffs. In
addition, this approach will minimize the impact on our ability
to offer quality services to Canadians.
[English]
I recognize there is concern over potential job losses. While
there have been layoffs and wage rollbacks in the private sector
and in other public areas, our government is committed to
maintaining a high level of job security in the public service.
Despite these measures, our government is taking a number of
steps to rebuild a positive and constructive relationship with the
public service.
We believe that our best allies in controlling government
expenditures while maintaining the delivery of quality services
to the people of Canada are the people who work for the
Government of Canada. That is why in the budget we committed
to undertake an efficiency review in co-operation with the
unions. Any efficiency savings in government operations
identified through this process will be used to shorten the period
of the wage and increment freeze.
These discussions have begun and are addressing
longstanding concerns of our employees, such as contracting for
service and the use of temporary employees from outside the
government. Already we have been able to show that under the
previous government while departments were being downsized,
while Canadians were being told that costs were being reduced
in this manner, the cost of contracting actually increased at a
rate 43 per cent higher than other government expenditures.
The efficiency review is not limited to these two areas,
although they are certainly a prime concern to our employees.
We are prepared to consider any area of government spending
that the unions, our employees, our managers, or indeed
members of this House of Commons believe should be looked at
in terms of their efficiency in delivering quality services to
Canadians.
(1220 )
This is a new process and naturally enough, there is some
apprehension on both sides as to how successful it will be. A
great deal of time and effort is needed on both sides to ensure
that a relationship of trust is built up so that we can work
together on this.
In addition to a close examination of contracting as part of the
efficiency review, the President of the Treasury Board has asked
a committee of Parliament to undertake a full review of
contracting and to prepare a report to the House. Throughout
government as well, deputy ministers have been asked to work
closely with the unions representing their employees and indeed
with their employees at all levels to find the necessary means of
meeting their operating cost reductions.
I believe that by working together we will be able to identify
those savings that will not affect the delivery of services to
Canadians but will allow the period of the wage and increment
freeze to be shortened. It will allow us to assure Canadians that
we are working to get the best possible value for the dollars they
pay in taxes.
This is the first opportunity employee representatives have
had to work with the government, to work with their employer,
to help manage the difficult economic situation we face and the
changes it necessarily entails.
The unions have correctly made the point that the pay
increment freeze will affect proportionately more women than
men employees. At the same time I should indicate that for our
lowest paid employees earning under $30,000 proportionately
more women than men have benefited from reclassifications and
promotions which have improved their earnings, even during
the period of the wage freeze. Nonetheless it is the case that
approximately two-thirds of employees at the lowest salary
4637
levels are women. It is of course at these levels that a wage
freeze has the greatest impact.
That is one reason I am proud to say the President of the
Treasury Board has already initiated discussions with the two
largest unions representing those employees in female
dominated categories of work to explore ways of resolving the
pay equity issue. For many years outstanding pay equity
complaints have been making only slow and painful progress
through the human rights tribunal process. We would like, if at
all possible, to work with the representatives of the employees
to settle these complaints by negotiation, thereby improving the
economic status of more than 60,000 employees in female
dominated groups in the public service.
For the first time, public service unions were involved in
prebudget consultations, as were many other Canadians. We
realize the period of time for these consultations was short. We
realize the amount of impact they could have on the budget was
limited because of that. We will in fact be conducting those
consultations much earlier in the process for the 1995-96
budget.
Many proposals made to us in these consultations by the
public service unions and by others were implemented in this
budget or are being reviewed for possible implementation in the
1995-96 budget. It is worth mentioning a few.
Corporate profits transferred out of Canada that were not
previously subject to taxation will now be subject to taxation in
Canada. The capital gains tax exemption is being removed. Tax
deductions for business meals and entertainment have been cut
to 50 per cent. Operating budgets were reduced to reflect our
government's red book commitment to reduce spending on
contracting for professional services.
As far as items proposed by our unions and by others to be
reviewed for possible inclusion in the next budget, among them
I include such things as RRSPs and their role in providing for the
future of Canadians, and the taxation of family trusts.
(1225 )
The other message we got very loudly and clearly from the
unions representing government employees was do not roll back
wages, do not enforce unpaid leave, do not lay off. That is why
this government has renewed its commitment to the workforce
adjustment policy.
This policy was negotiated with the unions and has been in
effect. The previous government threatened to legislate this
policy out of existence. We have said quite clearly that we are
committed to the workforce adjustment policy. Changes we
might want and changes the unions might want are now being
negotiated. Any changes will be subject to agreement at the
bargaining table.
This government recognizes and values the important role
members of the public service play in the governance of the
nation. Without them, no law, no policy, no program we approve
in this Parliament can be implemented. They keep our food, our
skies and our borders safe. They perform needed research,
provide rescue operations at sea and deliver pension cheques to
millions of Canadian seniors.
Our government intends to restore the relationship of mutual
trust with the public service. Both unions and managers will be
involved in the broadest possible dialogue on matters of concern
to them as our employees and as our partners in delivering
quality, efficient and cost-effective services to Canadians.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that this government
recognizes these measures are difficult but are necessary as part
of a number of measures to control public spending. They are
necessary to maintain both employment security for our
employees and quality service for Canadians.
Recovery must start somewhere and these measures are only
part of that recovery. If we are to meet our objective of a deficit
which is no more than 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 then all
Canadians, public service employees and ourselves included
will have to realize that our future prosperity depends on the
action we take today.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I am very
surprised to hear the hon. member who just spoke touting the
benefits of such a direct, sneaky attack in one of its first pieces
of legislation; it is sneaky because the Liberal Party never talked
about it or discussed it in the election campaign.
She is taking a completely different line than the Liberal
members took when they were here in the opposition and the
Conservative government attacked federal public servants and
the whole federal policy and administrative machine through
legislation.
Suddenly, they only see benefits in a measure announced by
the Minister of Finance. That measure is devoid of content or
any long-term vision; it just sets up 22 committees to study this
and that, but when it comes to public servants, they are hit hard.
Their salaries are frozen much more drastically than under the
Conservatives, because pay increments are also frozen. This
means that someone who works at a certain level, gains
experience, wins a competition and advances to a new position
keeps the same salary, even if the level changes. That is
incredible.
4638
So what does this mean for the lowest-paid people who enter
the public service? They want to rise in the public service. They
apply for new positions, but if they obtain one, their salary is
frozen. That was not the case when the previous government
froze public servants' salaries.
So the lowest-paid people in the public service are penalized.
I am surprised to hear the hon. member praise such dictatorial
action taken against public servants.
(1230)
I ask the hon. member who just spoke if it was one of your
election promises. During the election campaign, you never
talked about attacking the public service. But it is typical of the
Liberal Party to do the opposite when it takes power.
We will remember the wage freeze in the Trudeau years,
against Stanfield. He promised that he would never freeze
salaries, but Stanfield, during the election campaign, wanted to
freeze them. Six months later, the Liberals froze salaries.
What is really going on? The Conservative and Liberal
policies are exactly the same. In fact, the Liberal policy is even
worse in this case, in terms of thrust and dictatorship over the
public service with the salary freeze, the total lack of
negotiations and the denial of the right to strike. What good is
the right to negotiate if it is denied before even beginning and if
new rules are imposed by orders in council?
You referred to possible discussions concerning women in the
public service, because they are the most discriminated against
by this measure, but you are prepared to discuss after the fact.
You allude to consultations after saying: ``This is it: salaries are
frozen and programs are cut. Do your share''. I ask the hon.
member: Why is the sacrifice which you are asking from civil
servants and unemployed people so great-we are talking
billions of dollars, here-when you do not ask the rich to make a
sacrifice too?
You are considering looking into tax havens. We all know that
16 billion dollars are hidden in tax havens every year; this
represents hundreds and hundreds of millions! But no! You
would rather protect the rich, who finance your party as well as
the Conservative Party. You should have denounced this
situation as soon as you took office; you should have told these
people that they would have to pay taxes like everyone else.
Why do you not go after these people? Make them do their share,
with their hundreds of millions!
They are not doing it! It is easy to force the unemployed, the
poor and the civil servants to do their share. This is what is not
logical in the hon. member's argument. What is her government
doing about tax havens, family trusts, and rich families who
resort to lobbying? It was mentioned in an article that Prime
Minister Mulroney had been the victim of the lobby
representing rich families. The same is true in the case of the
current Prime Minister: He is a victim of the same lobbying by
rich families.
Why do these people have the right to carry over their family
trusts, right down to the youngest survivor? In 1972, the act
provided that 21 years later, in 1991, an evaluation would be
made of family trusts, so that the rich were going to pay taxes
like everyone else. Yet, this review is now being postponed and
you are responsible for that situation.
I remember that, when you formed the opposition, you
questioned that for a long time. So, I ask the hon. member: Was
the salary freeze in the public service, including the pay
increments, an election promise you made after denouncing
such a measure when you were in the opposition?
Is this a permanent denial of the right to negotiate, and when
will you also make the rich pay?
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the
hon. member remembers so well what happened during the last
Parliament and especially the salary freeze introduced in this
House by the government he, his leader and many several other
members of his party were part of. At that time, I would have
liked to hear the hon. member say what he just said.
I would like to correct some of the statements the hon.
member made. I am sure it was a mistake and that he did not
intend to misinform public servants, but he did say that public
servants would not get a salary increase even if they accepted a
new position. That is not true.
(1235)
I do not mind if the hon. member takes part in this debate, but
I want him to stick to the truth. I want to remind him that it was
the government which he, his leader and many members of the
Bloc were part of that maintained the tax exemption for family
trusts for another generation. It was not a decision made by this
government, but we are trying to find a way to right the wrongs
for which the previous government is responsible.
Of course, my government and I are not happy about the tough
measures we have to take, but these decisions have to be made if
we want to give our employees the assurance that they will not
lose their job or see their salary decrease. We know this is a
tough measure for civil servants to accept, but it is also
necessary for their job security.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, today I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-17.
This bill is almost symbolic, because in it the government
turns its back systematically on its political commitments, a
government that was elected on a promise that it would put
Canada back to work and that has now reversed its position. It
decided that it is was back to the old routine, that nothing had
4639
changed, although it promised something quite different during
the election campaign.
Instead of proposing a strategy to promote employment, it has
proposed the very opposite. Let me explain.
First of all, the number of weeks worked to be entitled to
unemployment insurance has been increased. Instead of ten
weeks of work to be eligible for employment insurance, people
now need twelve weeks. In the Magdalen Islands, for instance,
43 per cent of the people who are on unemployment insurance
cannot find work for more than 10 weeks. Today, I imagine the
voters who elected the Liberal candidate in
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine must feel betrayed,
because the 43 per cent who worked only the minimum number
of weeks will now have to go on welfare.
There was no consideration for the seasonal aspect of the
economy in the Maritimes and especially in the Magdalen
Islands. Even worse, the government is doing the exact opposite
of what it promised during the election campaign, so it is also a
matter of political ethics, and perhaps that is the worst aspect of
Bill C-17. The bill could be seen as a symbol of the
ineffectiveness of this government and of the way it has started
to mislead the people during its first mandate and its first six
months in Parliament.
And the same holds true for the reduction in weeks of
benefits. Speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, the hon.
member for Mercier explained how this bill would have a
negative impact on all parts of the Maritimes, not only on the
people affected by unemployment insurance cuts who will now
have to go on welfare, but also on the small businesses that
depend on the money these people spend.
I find it very hard to understand why members from the
Maritimes who were elected by their constituents to provide a
different kind of government have chosen to remain silent today
and are not rising in the House to call their government to order
and to say this does not make sense and it cannot send this kind
of message. The unemployed are getting the following signal:
the government is first going to make it harder to be eligible for
unemployment insurance benefits, and then they will introduce
social reform.
(1240)
This could explain in part the comment by Wood Gundy in an
investor's guide which says that in the defence sector the
government has finally decided to use restraint, but that the
measures announced so far impact only on a small part of the
economy. This means that instead of a real employment strategy
we are given a series of smaller decisions taken to respond to
fiscal pressures, to soothe lenders. The original solutions that
voters expected to put Canada and Quebec back to work have not
been forthcoming.
Another thing which was clear and simple, and that we
proposed in an amendment rejected by the Liberal government,
was a lowering of premiums paid by employers. In the fall of
1993, immediately after the election, the government pulled one
over on us and increased the premiums to $3.07. Then, for Bill
C-17, it made a wonderful announcement. In a press release
dated March 16 the minister says: ``One of the measures is the
lowering of unemployment insurance premiums, which will
decrease the cost of job creation''.
This lowering to $3 is scheduled for 1995. Tell me, do you
know any unemployed who have long term jobs? I would like to
know them. We must create jobs now, not just next year. It is not
next year, or the year after or just before the next elections. The
economy needs to be revived now. Wood Gundy said something
I find very apt about the budget: ``The government is hoping for
a cyclical recovery of the economy to revive job creation''.
What it means is that the government machine is on automatic.
What the government said is: ``We do not have the means, we do
not have the guts to make fundamental changes, and we do not
have any clear idea of what we want in terms of job creation''.
So we have a piecemeal approach, we have measures that allow
us to wait for a recovery. I am sure that every day, every month
end, the ministers wonder whether the unemployment rate will
finally go down a little, so they can use it as an argument. None
of their actions has any impact. The automatic pilot is on, and we
are waiting to see if the economy will recover somewhere.
Moreover, they are killing consumer confidence for those
who could help the economy recover, namely UI
recipients-who are also consumers-and civil servants whose
wages are frozen.
Only a few months after being elected, this government told
people: ``We do not trust you. We will not enter into bargaining
with you on behalf of others, since we would not be able to
agree, anyway''. It said that, just after the elections, to the
Public Service Alliance of Canada which had told its members
to vote for the Liberal Party in order to bring about changes.
This government is devoid of political honesty and sends the
message that, once elected, it does not have to honour its
commitments. It is pure rubbish, of course. The way the Liberal
government betrayed its campaign promises, especially with
Bill C-17, will come back to haunt it.
Allow me to give you a little inkling of what this government
is really like. During the election campaign, we were told that it
would cut waste, tighten up the public purse, and manage
everything as best as possible.
And then, it tries to put one over on us with this bill, giving
borrowing authority to the CBC, a corporation which, in the
past, has not always been the best of managers, and in fact, has
often spent money unwisely and is still doing so. As we know, it
offered $28 million for the TV rights to the next Olympic
Games, whereas TVA had offered $10 million, while claiming
that it had made no profit. Can you imagine the taxpayers'
money being used to broadcast a world event for three weeks?
4640
People in my riding find it totally unacceptable to spend $28
million that way, when the entire network of CBC regional
stations has been closed down, and to see that the Liberal
government has never said a word to reverse that decision. This
kind of attitude is a slap in the face of people who are entitled to
regional services. The government is taking advantage of an
omnibus bill to put one over on us quickly as far as borrowing
authority is concerned, without requiring the corporation to
account in any way for the use of these funds.
(1245)
Even when I give my children an allowance, I ask them to tell
me a little how they plan to use the money. In some cases the
government lends money and asks for an accounting, while in
this instance, it is giving the corporation a $25 million margin to
manoeuvre, without asking it for any king of accounting. This is
another example of how this government behaves: as if it had
been in power for eight years and was totally incapable of
coming up with any fresh ideas or solutions to problems. The
fact is that this government is only beginning its mandate. In its
first few months in office, it has introduced a bill which
systematically reneges on the commitments made during the
election campaign.
I want to come back briefly to the issue of employer
premiums. On the one hand, the government creates a nice,
politically correct program such as the Infrastructure Program
which allows it to announce in various locations available
seasonal, temporary jobs. On the other hand, it introduces a
measure which is not as glamorous as the Infrastructure
Program, but which would allow those who create the most jobs,
namely small and medium-sized businesses, to be active and
give some confidence back to people. So what does the
government do? It tells businesses to wait until 1995 for the
premium level to be brought back to $3 per $100. In other words,
it is sending out a message that job creation is not such a priority
after all, that the machinery of government will lumber on, that
the unemployment rate will fall one day and that jobs will
ultimately be created.
Basically, this is typical of a government that has decided not
to honour the promise it has made during the election campaign
to give priority to job creation, to put the people of Quebec and
Canada back to work, especially young people. Take for
example the 4,000 engineers in Quebec who are out of work.
Would it not be possible to develop some aggressive
job-creation programs to provide work for these people?
I would say that, as far as job creation is concerned, this
government does not make the grade. It is a failure. During the
summer holiday just a few weeks away, wherever we go, if we
visit campgrounds or attend any number of functions, people are
going to tell us: ``You politicians are all the same. You make
election promises you never keep''. That about sums up what
this government, a government that wanted to give people hope,
has accomplished.
I derive great pride from the fact that, for various reasons, the
people of Quebec have decided that this government did not
have what it took in terms of commitment, I mean the necessary
level of credibility to honour its commitments. In that respect,
we can be pretty proud of ourselves in Quebec. The people have
voted for a party capable of representing them in the opposition,
to make itself heard and state clearly what commitments have to
be fulfilled in Quebec. There is nothing in Bill C-17 to give
people hope.
When you tell people in need of a job: ``The first thing we are
going to do for you is to require that you work more weeks to
qualify'', you kill their confidence in the economy and
contribute to maintaining the negative dynamics by which fear
is fostered.
Bill C-17 was a golden opportunity for the government to put
its cards on the table. Such a bill could have been used to address
problems like tax havens and family trusts. Where in this bill are
there measures affecting well-off people who could make a
significant difference in terms of creating jobs? They have not
be called on to help create jobs.
(1250)
In fact, this bill is somewhat reminiscent of the budget as a
whole. The Liberal government prepared a budget that was a
little lazy. It could have taken advantage of the momentum
created by its election to bring together all segments of
Canadian society, including employers, unions and social
groups, and ask them in December 1993: ``What shall we do to
stimulate employment?'', to clearly show we must join forces
on this.
Their budget consultation process was a bit of a sham because
they did the opposite of what the people told them to do. They
decided to throw out the old files prepared by the bureaucrats
and to recycle the Campbell material into the Martin material.
They continued to act like before without really stimulating
employment.
I think this government relies way too much on the four-year
mandate that lies ahead, telling itself: ``We will hand out the
usual goodies at the end of our mandate to ensure that we get
re-elected''. But they forget that their mandate is not to win the
election but to offer good government, to ensure that Canadians
have jobs that they like and that they can do something with it.
I would also like to let you know that some people asked this
morning: ``How can the people opposite-that is, Bloc
members-criticize such a bill when what they want is to break
up Canada?''
Instead of scaremongering, I can tell you that in proposing our
amendments to Bill C-17, we tried to defend the interests of
Quebecers. When we say that increasing the number of weeks of
work required to qualify for UI goes against common sense, you
4641
can be sure that in my region, in the Lower St. Lawrence, the
Gaspé and the islands, everyone understands what it means.
This bill does not bring into question Canada's structure but
rather the efficiency of this government. It offers a number of
little recipes, of mini-measures, that did not convey to anybody
the message that the first budget of the Liberal government
would really emphasize job creation. They decided to give a
little to everyone and tried to get by on a traditional economic
recovery.
Although these people call themselves experts and say they
are concerned about the economy, I think there is a lack of
vision. They did not see that North America and the entire
Western world are currently undergoing deep structural changes
and that such measures will not provide Quebec and Canada
with the tools they need to hold their own in the new global
economy.
I think that Bill C-17 is unacceptable. I am thinking
especially of members who represent ridings in eastern Canada.
Personally, if I were a member from the Maritimes and I voted
for this bill, I think that I would find the coming summer, fall
and winter very long, because after the summer when a few
seasonal jobs are available, people will face the fall and winter
and, if they did not work the minimum number of weeks, they
will end up on welfare. They will have less to spend on consumer
goods and this will affect the whole economy of eastern Canada.
If this had been presented by a Conservative government, we
would have said that they were keeping their commitments,
people elected them for that, we may agree or not, but they
would be doing what was expected of them. But this is presented
by a government that said it would be different, a different kind
of government that would change things and take a different
approach to the economy and make job creation a priority. And
nowhere do we find any of these things there.
All we find, and I think that I will conclude with this, is a
budget whose only purpose is to make some lenders feel secure
and it does not even achieve this result.
(1255)
The people who lend money to Canada now did not applaud
this budget; they just said that they thought the real Liberal
budget would come next year. There was no Liberal budget, it is
the same as the Conservatives'. The message given to the senior
federal public service is that things are all right and that we will
continue as before; with this government, we will continue to
pass on our good figures, our good results, and our vision of
development, whereas the people who were elected, especially
the 200 or so new members, whatever their party, certainly came
here to manage Canada differently from the way it was run in the
past and to make Canadians feel that changes were being made.
If they said that they would tackle unemployment head on, it
would have had a small effect on inflation, but I think that the
people would have been prepared to accept it because they have
suffered so much from the negative consequences of
unemployment. A whole generation was sacrificed. When you
look at the résumé of someone who is 25, 30 or 35 years old, you
see that they worked on a project for three months, then were
unemployed for six months, worked on another small project for
two months and then were jobless for a year. That generation
will not have the skills needed to take over when the time comes.
Bill C-17 is important for the government, because it will be
judged by it. The people in our communities will not say that
Bill C-17 is a bad piece of legislation. Instead, they will say that
the Liberal government does not keep its promises or its
commitments and that it has absolutely no credibility. The
people will easily come to those conclusions, because they can
expect nothing concrete to come out of these measures, nothing
that would prove that economic recovery is on the way.
We will eventually achieve economic recovery if the
government decides to launch initiatives that bring all
stakeholders to focus clearly on one priority, job creation. By
telling small employers that, in 1994, they will get $3.07 for
every $100, the government is sending them the message that
they need not put so much emphasis on job creation, because it is
not giving them the flexibility they need to create more jobs.
All of the provisions included in Bill C-17, whether it is the
increase in the number of insurable weeks to become eligible for
UI benefits, the reduction in the weeks of benefit, the salary
freeze for civil servants, or the unaccountable borrowing
authority given to the CBC, send out a very clear message to
Canadians, which is that the current government has decided not
to honour its commitments, but instead to watch the economy
from the sidelines rather than play an active role in this area.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
very much appreciated the remarks of my colleague opposite
and I listened to them with great attention. I certainly appreciate
the sincerity with which he made many of his points and I think
all of us on all sides of the House are very conscious of the fact
that any changes to unemployment insurance have to be done
with great care and forethought. Certainly to extend the number
of weeks of eligibility for unemployment insurance is to bring a
certain amount of hardship to some people.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he feels that
unemployment insurance as a concept is something sacrosanct,
that can never be touched, that can never be reformed. We really
4642
do have to look broadly across the social services in Canada
which I think he will acknowledge we are having difficulty as a
country affording.
In that context, if he is going to answer yes to that would he
then take the concept of unemployment insurance and go the
other way? Would he reduce the number of work weeks in his
area for eligibility and if so how can we pay for that?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I thank the hon. member for the relevance of his
question. It is indeed a timely one.
(1300)
I think that unemployment insurance is a tool which
Canadians devised to avoid a repetition of a crisis such as the
Depression in the thirties. At the time, there was no social safety
net and people were no longer able to consume goods.
Consequently, the whole economy came tumbling down. In a
sense, the scenario is the same with Bill C-17. The government
has decided to limit the spending power of UI recipients and the
consequences of this decision will be similar, albeit less severe,
to those in the thirties, during the Depression. There will be
reduced consumption which, in turn, will mean even less jobs,
thereby adversely affecting economic recovery.
Generally speaking, I think that the unemployment insurance
issue must be considered in the context of an active employment
policy. First, the government should announce that employment
will be a priority. Second, it should develop an appropriate
strategy. An important aspect of such an initiative-and
something which we have been doing in Quebec for 20 years
now-is to consult the various stakeholders to make
employment a priority.
I believe it is very important, in such an exercise, to respect
the effectiveness of local officials. In other words, if we try to
implement the same employment policy right across Canada, we
will experience the same problems as we did with the Bank of
Canada trying to control the value of our dollar. Indeed, the
Bank of Canada controlled the dollar based on the overheating
economy of Ontario, while other parts of the country were not
experiencing that activity. This had the effect, in those regions,
of killing economic recovery.
The same thing will happen with employment if we think we
can develop an employment policy applicable throughout the
country. Because of the issues of mobility and of different types
of workers, I think that, at least in each of the main regions, and
possibly in most provinces-and that has long been one of
Quebec's claims-the whole issue of employment should be
managed in an integrated fashion, from the training provided to
people to the way that we deal with people who are unemployed
and who are looking for jobs. We should to able to bring all these
aspects together, and also avoid spending money, as we are
doing at the manpower level, where governments are wasting
$250 million each year only because of the double structure.
If this decentralization were to occur in all parts of Canada,
we would have annual savings of $1 billion which, instead of
being spent on the structure, would be directly spent on
providing training activities through programs allowing people
to find jobs.
So, concerning the question of whether unemployment
insurance is something that can never be touched, I believe it is a
tool. In my mind, unemployment insurance should instead be an
employment insurance allowing people who have the ability to
work to effectively do so and, if they worked for 15 or 20 weeks
before their employment came to an end, they would be able to
earn money with, for example, social, community or
government employers, but they should not be exploited. If
these people were trained as technicians, for example, and
would deserve a salary of $10 an hour, we should be able to offer
them something through the insurance which they would earn
and which would correspond to that amount, even if it were only
be a part-time job.
So, some changes are possible in that area. I think that
unemployment insurance is a tool, but it should be integrated
into a structure, into an active employment policy so as to make
it work. Countries where this works have given a very clear
direction to these things.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-17, the budget
implementation act, because the bill seeks to legislate a number
of measures announced by the minister in his budget in
February. The bill reflects the widely shared conclusions
reached by many Canadians from all walks of life who
participated in the prebudget conferences. They agreed at that
time and I believe we agree in this House that action is needed on
three major, closely linked challenges.
(1305)
First, Canadians want the government to create job
opportunities and to take action to restore the country's
economic viability. Second, Canadians have called on
government to address the deficit problem. Third, they point
out, as they did in those prebudget conferences, the urgent need
to reform Canada's social security programs, including
unemployment insurance, so that these programs better serve
those who are in need while remaining affordable for a nation
with a growing debt. These are three important challenges: job
creation, deficit reduction and the reform of social programs so
that they can better serve the needs of Canadians.
On that last point, when we gave the enabling legislation in
this House with respect to the reform of social programs, I said
at that particular time when this issue was under debate at least
that reforming social programs ought not to be a code word for
dismantling, for gutting social programs. I am careful to say at
all times when I talk about this that it must be an effort which
4643
improves, better tailors those programs for a new time, not an
excuse for gutting those programs.
There are people in need. There are people who depend on
those programs. That is why I am proud to live in Canada. We
were told this week once again that we live by internationally
accepted criteria in the best country in the world. That comes as
no surprise to us; even those who are working hard to leave the
country must grudgingly acknowledge that.
The budget addresses all three of those important elements or
areas. There are initiatives to create jobs, including the $6
billion shared cost infrastructure program which is now well
under way. In so far as Newfoundland is concerned, the first
phase was announced a month or so ago. The second phase will
be announced tomorrow, a number of other projects that will
help stimulate the economy and some short and medium term
job creation.
The budget also contains important support for technological
innovation and for the small business sector, a subject dear to
the heart of my good friend from Broadview-Greenwood.
There is also important action in this bill, in this budget, to
reduce the deficit primarily through cuts in government
spending. Gross fiscal savings including the savings announced
in previous budget secured by this legislation total $28.6 billion
over the next three fiscal years. Net savings in that period total
$20.4 billion. These measures will help to shrink the deficit
from $45.7 billion in the year just ending to $39.7 billion in
1994-95, and to $32.7 billion the year after; $13 billion savings
in two years.
I say to my good friend from Yellowhead, whom I am always
delighted to see in this Chamber, it is important that the choice is
not seen as being between jobs and the deficit. It is not one or the
other. We would be irresponsible as parliamentarians if we saw
it as one or the other, as if we said put the whole job need on hold
for five years until we get the deficit under control, or put the
deficit issue under control for five years until we get the job
situation properly addressed. It is not that simple. Life does not
stand still for people who have to buy the groceries, nor does life
stand still in terms of accruing interest on our indebtedness as a
country.
We have to juggle those two very difficult balls at one time.
That is the challenge. The country is full of experts there who
will tell you how to create jobs, who will tell you how to reduce
the deficit. The crunch comes when you ask them to hold both
balls in the air at the same time. Whatever the rhetoric of various
members in this House, including mine, I do not believe there is
a single soul in this chamber who believes that we can put one of
those issues on hold while we solve the other. That would be
irresponsible and I do not think Canadians sent us here to be
irresponsible.
(1310)
The measures announced in this budget last February will, of
course, be supplemented with further initiatives next year as we
reform major spending programs. We are taking some action
now and will take some more in the future to ensure the deficit
continues to decline steeply.
The budget also takes some measures to provide stable,
sustainable funding for Canada's social safety net. This funding
will provide a secure and constructive environment for both
individual Canadians and policy makers at all levels of
government as we embark on the process of reform and renewal
that is currently under way. This legislation, Bill C-17,
addresses two areas of spending in this regard: transfers to the
provinces and changes to the UI program. I want to spend a
moment on each of those.
First, the matter of unemployment insurance, a matter that is
dear to my heart because it is dear to the hearts of my
constituents who, through no fault of their own, have gone
through the following traumatic situation in the last few years.
I say to my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap that when I first
came here in November, 1979 my riding had a rate of
unemployment which was the same as that in Alberta, the
province of my friend from Yellowhead. It was 3.8 per cent in
November, 1979. The riding of Burin-St. George's with its
deep sea and inshore year round fishery, unaffected by ice
conditions which have an impact on other parts of the island of
Newfoundland, has always had a basic 11.5 month fishery, never
a 12 month fishery. We believe strongly in certain things in
Newfoundland and one of the things we believe in is the 12 days
of Christmas. We take that time off for a great celebration of a
great Christian festival and for a great party. In Newfoundland
these two issues are not mutually exclusive.
It is an 11.5 month fishery. It never was a 12 month fishery. I
would oppose it from ever becoming a 12 month fishery for the
above reasons. It has degenerated, through no fault of the hard
working people whose ancestors came to that coast 500 years
ago. It is certainly not laziness or what we call in Newfoundland
being a hangashore, one who stays ashore rather than go fishing.
We have a very provocative and descriptive term for a lazy
person in Newfoundland; he or she is called a hangashore and by
definition that is somebody who will not go fishing. In
Newfoundland work is fish, basically. That is why 17,000
people in my riding, until the recent catastrophes in the fishery,
have traditionally earned their living either in the fishing boat or
in the fish plant.
I was saying to my friends from Alberta and British Columbia
across the aisle that in 1979 the rate of unemployment in my
4644
riding was 3.8 per cent, the same as in Alberta, the province at
that time with the fastest growing economy in Canada and the
lowest unemployment rate in Canada. My riding was identical.
Today I could not even put a figure on it. Is it 40, is it 50, is it
60, is it 70 per cent? It depends on what you do with all those
people who through no fault of their own are not in the boats
today, not in the plants today, drawing a compensation package
as a result of the moratorium.
This UI issue is very dear to my heart because it does affect
some of those people. Contrary to public popular opinion in
Ontario, I would say to my friend from
Bramalea-Gore-Malton, all the people down there are not on
the the fisheries compensation package. Many people in
Newfoundland ply their trade in terms of forestry and in terms of
seasonal construction activity, in terms of mining, in terms of
tourism, and so on. These are impacted by unemployment
insurance changes as well.
These changes being proposed through this bill are designed
to achieve a couple of things. The first is to encourage the
private sector to create jobs. We believe firmly in this party that
government cannot be the employer of last resort. We believe
that government can help create the climate, but it is private
industry, including the small business sector, which must create
the jobs. My hon. friend from Okanagan-Shuswap agrees. He
and I agree on many things and this is one of them. It is the
private sector. That is one of the objectives.
(1315)
The second is to increase the fairness of the system by
increasing benefits to low income recipients with dependents.
To help create jobs, the bill rolls back the UI premium for 1995
and 1996 to $3. We believe and we hope this payroll tax relief
will encourage business to create jobs.
By the end of 1996 the government expects that there will be
40,000 more jobs in the economy than would be the case if
premiums had been allowed to rise to the levels required by the
previous legislation.
Those rollbacks have to be accomplished in a way that
supports deficit reduction. With this in mind, the legislation
proposes measures to reduce UI expenditures by $725 million in
this fiscal year and a further $2.4 billion annually thereafter.
I submit that these rollbacks in expenditures are being done in
a way that is fair so that persons in areas with high
unemployment will still be eligible for more benefits with less
work activity than people in other regions of the country.
Our package of UI reforms promotes fairness in other
respects. It increases the benefit for low income claimants with
dependents. As well, the benefit of the doubt will be given to
claimants who quit voluntarily. I have to say that this is an issue
that I had a lot of difficulty with when the former administration
brought in that change, about letting the axe fall when people
quit or were fired because it put employees at the mercy of the
employer in a way that they never should have been. This
redresses that issue in a way with which I am comfortable.
Let me come to the Canada assistance plan. To help create a
positive, co-operative climate for social security reform, the
government is providing a two-year period of predictability and
modest growth in social security transfers under the Canada
assistance plan and established programs financing.
This means that in 1994-95 there will be no new restraint
measures applied to either CAP or EPF transfers. The legislation
before us today will place a ceiling on subsequent CAP transfers
to the provinces, so they do not exceed the current year's levels.
This ceiling will remain in place next year pending social
security reform the following year.
EPF financing is not affected by this legislation. However, the
existing restraint will be maintained. The process of social
security reform has a goal of central interest to all Canadians, no
matter where they live, to renew and revitalize Canada's social
security system over the next couple of years. We will preserve
protection for those in need. We will improve incentives to work
and we must ensure that the social safety net remains affordable.
Bill C-17 is a key part of the government's agenda, an agenda
that includes job creation, deficit reduction and renewal, and
reform of our social safety net. Our mandate for this agenda
comes from the people of Canada who entrusted us last October
to set a new course. We, the Prime Minister and his team, are
keeping faith with that trust by listening to what Canadians told
us last year.
The recent budget was an important step, an early step, a big
step, but just one step in making our agenda a reality. That
budget reflects clearly the input we received from Canadians as
do the measures in this legislation. That is why I am hopeful that
members on all sides of the House will see fit to want to identify
with what I believe are a handful of good initiatives, not the
whole nine yards. We are not there yet. If we, through the
infrastructure program, the youth corps and otherwise can see
the jobs generated that we have projected, we will create just a
little less misery for people out there, including young people.
(1320)
If we are going to achieve our goals in terms of deficit
reduction to get it under $40 billion, to have these $13 billion in
savings over the next couple of years, that will go a long way to
reducing the drain on our capacity, the drain we are paying out in
interest charges, and be able to take that and redirect it to more
job creation, to more social program underwriting.
4645
Third, if we can, over the next couple of years, reform the
social safety net in a way that does it credit to Canadians, in a
way that meets the needs of those who are in need, while at the
same time crafting it in a way that is affordable for us as a
country with severe financial restraint facing us everywhere we
turn.
Nobody in this Chamber, whatever their partisan platform
during the election past, whatever their particular political
ideology, can be against putting those young people back to
work, putting people of all ages into productive labour activity.
Nobody can argue with our goal of bringing down the deficit to
free up dollars for use elsewhere. Nobody can disagree with
what this party has said and stood by for many decades, that
there is a group of people out there who have need for social
programs through disability, through age, through other
circumstance, through no fault of their own particularly, have
need for those programs.
There but for the grace of God go I, go you. Again I repeat I
am proud to live in a country that has that kind of social safety
net for people in those circumstances.
For all of those reasons I hope members of the House would
find it in their hearts to support with a heart and a half Bill C-17.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the member could assist us a little bit in
understanding the relationship between these UI changes that
are taking place in this bill and the plans that the government has
for social security reform.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend
from Windsor-St. Clair for her question.
The important thing to keep in mind is that what we are doing
here, and I wanted to emphasize this during my remarks, is but a
first step, an important and integrated first step.
I take my hat off to my friend the Minister of Finance. If
anybody ever came well qualified for this job it has to be him,
not only in terms of his paper credentials and his commitment to
public life but in terms of the preparation that he did, the leg
work he did across the country in the two or three years leading
up to the election.
He together with the Prime Minister have such an amazing
grasp of the problem, it is no surprise that his first budget and
Bill C-17 which flows from it give us the beginnings of a
coherent, sensible is the term, approach to addressing some of
the problems we face.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask my colleague who is more experienced in
the House than I-he has been here at least one term
longer-whether he could comment on some of the major points
that the official opposition is making. Yesterday I indicated that
in spite of the fact that they had condemned the omnibus bill,
they had concentrated almost specifically on unemployment
insurance.
(1325)
At the same time, I wonder if he would be kind enough to give
some commentary with respect to the major points that have
been made by the Reform Party. I said yesterday, and I repeat it
again today, that if Canadians believe some of the reductions
that have taken place with regard to unemployment are severe, if
the Reform Party had been initiating those they would have been
Draconian and dramatic and hurt a great deal.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my friend from St. Boniface is at
his very best when he decides to put the cat among the pigeons.
He did that so well at one point early in the election. I heard
him one morning early as I was driving out to begin my
campaign schedule for that particular day. It was just a week into
the campaign I recall. I felt so good about what he said that I sent
off to him a missile, which I am sure he will remember. I think I
guaranteed I will be in his memoirs one day. It is not the first
time he has put the cat among the pigeons.
I have never been shy in telling my friends in the Reform
Party on what points we disagree and on what points we agree. I
wanted to have a moment ago a nice positive sounding speech
because I wanted to appeal to the better judgment of people like
my friends from Elk Island, Surrey North and Wetaskiwin and so
on. I wanted to appeal to their better judgment that whatever the
partisan differences here, this bill is a good bill.
Now that my friend has put the cat among the pigeons, now
that he has called my bluff as it were, I have to say directly what
I said by inference. Those who think that you can put job
creation aside until we solve the deficit problem are smoking
something different than I am smoking. They are dreaming in
Technicolor. You cannot put the country on hold. You cannot say
to those people, as the former Prime Minister, the lady from
Vancouver Centre at the time, said in the opening gaff of her
campaign last October: ``We're going to wait until the year 2000
to deal with job creation''. You remember that famous
statement. We cannot do that.
I say to my friends in the Reform Party and to the Bloc and any
people in this party who happen to be of that particular view that
we cannot, as a government, as a group of people's
representative, say to people: ``Put your aspirations on hold, run
up your grocery bill for 10 years until we get the deficit under
control''.
By the same token we cannot say: ``Let's have all jobs, jobs,
jobs and ignore the deficit''. That is why I have said there has to
be a balanced approach. Often I hear the simplistic rhetoric that
says: ``What are you doing about the deficit today?'' The answer
is: ``About the same as we are doing about the job creation
today''. We are doing it hand in hand. The day you find us doing
more about the deficit than job creation, more about the deficit
4646
than the social security net, is a day you have the formula out of
balance.
To answer my friend from St. Boniface, if I disagree with
some of the people in the Reform Party, since he mentioned
them, it is on that question of balance. I know the member does
not want to hear this, but he is going to hear it anyway, and I am
going to do it very quickly because my time is up. I say to them,
if you talk to them as really free voters rather than as part of a
monolithic host which they like to pretend sometimes, you will
find that in their heart of hearts-yes, they all have hearts, Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you that-they really like those people, those
Canadians, to have some work. They are not really as
Scrooge-like as they sound from time to time.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House to offer a few comments on Bill C-17, confining my
remarks mostly to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
My colleague from Lethbridge spoke eloquently on the
measures we support in Bill C-17 and outlined the steps we
would take to put our country's economic house in order.
(1330 )
It has been said countless times in this House since January
and it bears repeating, that Canada has a spending problem and
not a revenue problem. Canada's debt is rising and will continue
to rise at a significant rate as long as federal governments keep
trying to push through omnibus bills like Bill C-17, the budget
implementation act. By this time next year Canada's debt load
will be approaching $550 billion. The debt is growing by $1,473
per second. That means every man, woman and child in this
country is in hock for over $20,000.
The fact that this federal government is pushing through
omnibus Bill C-17 which includes authorizing the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation to borrow money shows its lack of
regard for the taxpayers of this country. I submit that the CBC is
an ill-run crown corporation and should undergo a thorough
review. It is a bottomless money pit. Taxpayers are sick and tired
of having to support what seems to be a planned to lose failure.
Bill C-17 will give the CBC the authority to borrow
$25 million so it can operate with more businesslike flexibility.
This is akin to not only letting the fox into the chicken house but
also to locking the door and throwing away the key.
I am very sceptical when the government assumes that
borrowing $25 million would achieve more efficient
management practices. Companies are in the business to offer
services, sell products and to make money, not to borrow to go
even deeper into the red. The Canadian taxpayer is already on
the hook for $1.1 billion per year for the operation of the CBC. If
this crown corporation cannot achieve more businesslike
flexibility with $1.1 billion in appropriations from Canadian
taxpayers, what possible good will come of another $25 million
of borrowed money?
The track record of crown corporations is not good. They are
endless black holes where the money goes in rarely to be seen
again. The federal government should not be competing with the
private sector, especially when the private sector is doing the
job. Recent history is littered with examples of defunct, broken
down crown corporations.
Peter Foster, who penned the book Self-serve: How Petrocan
Pumped Canadians Dry, has followed the Petro-Canada fiasco
very closely. He calculates that Petro-Canada has amassed a
total debt of over $15 billion which of course is on the backs of
the Canadian taxpayer.
Another debacle of the federal government is its involvement
in the Hibernia project. Admittedly Hibernia was initiated by
the former government, but it was a former Liberal government
that caused the Petro-Canada fiasco. The government has an 8.5
per cent stake in the Hibernia project which has cost taxpayers
about $3 billion in loans and grants. Just last week it was
confirmed that Hibernia has a cost overrun of $1 billion.
When will the meddling stop? When will the federal
government learn that crown corporations are generally a
detriment to the Canadian taxpayer? It seems few lessons have
been learned for the near future.
Like most crown corporations the CBC is not like a private
sector business and is incapable of acting as such. The CBC has
no shareholders or customers in the normal sense to answer to.
There is little will to strive for efficiency because there is no
bottom line to meet. Bill C-17 will further ensure that the CBC
will be able to operate without worrying about such minor things
as turning a profit and generating revenue.
Government members keep harping about their red book:
``Read the red book. It is in the red book. We are keeping our
promises''. That is often the type of rhetoric we hear from across
the floor, but it appears the federal government has not quite
been keeping its promises. The red book states that the Liberals
will ``exercise unwavering discipline in controlling federal
spending and will re-order current spending priorities to make
sure that maximum return is obtained on each investment''.
(1335)
Bill C-17 goes against what the Liberals promised to
Canadians via the red book. There is no unwavering discipline in
controlling federal spending. In fact, the portion of Bill C-17
dealing with the CBC states that the CBC may be allowed to
borrow an amount even greater than $25 million, with
parliamentary approval. What is to stop the government
allowing to lend $50 million, $150 million, or even more to the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If the CBC is to become a
viable enterprise it must stop trying to borrow its way to
prosperity.
4647
A recent estimate places the CBC at a $180 million shortfall
over the next four years. The CBC currently has a $45 million
deficit and an operating budget of over $1 billion. Any private
business facing this kind of debt with the intent of borrowing
more money would most certainly be out of business. However,
it seems crown corporations act on a different philosophy, a
philosophy of spending with no regard for how great the cost.
Allowing a company to accumulate further indebtedness at
public expense from the overburdened taxpayers' point of view
is just not right. This type of action is not conducive to cost
effectiveness and is taking us down an ill-fated road.
Arguments have emanated from across the floor that the CBC
is a tradition chock full of Canadian heritage and culture. That
argument rings somewhat hollow, especially if we consider how
many Canadians appear to be interested in tuning into the CBC.
CRTC chairman Keith Spicer recently scolded CBC
executives for ignoring viewers, politicians and pundits who
feel the CBC has lost touch with its audience. Mr. Spicer told the
CBC executives at a licence renewal hearing that: ``You're just
going to batten down the hatches and bulldog forward and do
what you damn well please''. Spicer continued: ``It's not just
good enough to blindly defend every last brick, every single
amplifier, every last job, or every last budget dollar for its own
sake to refuse to admit that CBC can and must change''.
Perhaps the change referred to is to begin privatizing the
CBC. Fewer and fewer Canadians are tuning in to CBC
programming which proves that the CBC must change. Only 15
per cent of television viewers watched the CBC's English
network for some part of the day in the 1990-91 season. Two
years later only 13.5 per cent were tuning in. Between the hours
of seven and eleven, known as prime time, which is any
network's bread and butter, only 15.8 per cent of viewers were
watching CBC in the 1990-91 season. The percentage dropped
to 13.6 per cent two years later.
These facts beg the question why are Canadian taxpayers
forced to pay for something which is obviously of little interest
to the majority of Canadians? The spend, spend, spend mentality
of this government must stop.
Last week during the debate of Bill C-17 a government
member stated that the $25 million borrowing authority this bill
would grant the CBC is a relatively small amount. Canadians are
tired of hearing such rhetoric from their elected representatives.
The reason our national debt will approach the $550 billion
next year is because previous governments and now the present
government continue to look at $25 million as a drop in the
bucket. Well $25 million is not a drop in the bucket and until the
government realizes this Canada's debt problem will in all
eventuality continue to grow and grow at an alarming rate.
(1340 )
The $1.1 billion subsidy to the CBC cannot continue. To begin
allowing the CBC to borrow huge amounts of money is
something we cannot support. We are supporting four of the five
sections into which we have broken down Bill C-17, but we do
not support the CBC borrowing authority.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my allotted time with another
member from my caucus.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of short comments and then a question for the hon.
member.
I listened to his comments quite closely with respect to the
CBC. It brings a lot of things home to me because I spent many
years at the corporation.
Implicit in his remarks is the privatization of the CBC. In
suggesting that, the hon. member really does not understand
what public broadcasting is all about. The private networks are
not interested in a lot of the things done by the CBC. The CBC
carries programs like ``Man Alive'', ``Marketplace'', ``The
Fifth Estate'' and ``Meeting Place'' which is the religious
broadcast on television on Sundays. There is also its entire radio
service.
Private broadcasters are not interested in programs of that
kind for two reasons. One is that they are not that cost effective
for commercial organizations. They do not draw the kinds of
audiences that programs with all the violence and sex do. It is
not fair to public broadcasting or Canadians to lump public
broadcasting in with commercial broadcasting. They are very,
very different. It is like comparing a bakery with a farm
machinery company; they just do not match.
It is unfair to CBC employees when the hon. member suggests
there is no bottom line at the CBC. If the hon. member had made
those remarks in 1970, the year I joined the CBC, I think he
would have been pretty well right. The CBC could be accused of
some very serious profligate spending in 1970 but that is not the
case now. Sure, you are going to find some fat, but there is no
comparison to 20 or 25 years ago. Therefore, to suggest there is
no bottom line is just not true.
My question has to do with the borrowing aspect of Bill C-17.
Maybe $25 million is a lot of money, maybe it is not. But as long
as the borrowing is consistent with the means, that is the budget
the CBC has, I do not see the concern, as long as it fits in with the
budget. Why is that concern there? It is not adding to the budget;
it is just one more expense item with respect to the budget.
4648
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for his observations.
It has to be a concern because even the projection down the
road is that the CBC does not have the capacity to balance its
budget. To lend it more money exacerbates the problem and
certainly does nothing to resolve it.
This country's private network runs pretty close to the
taxpayer subsidized CBC. They both have newscasts, long
newscasts. Both have public affairs programs. They both have
Canadian content and all kinds of other content. There is not too
much difference in how they are run, except one is on the backs
of the taxpayers and the other is on the free enterprise system.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, before my main comments, I would like to say to the
absent hon. member for Yellowhead and members of his caucus
that none of them were in Windsor, Ontario in December 1990
when our CBC station went dark and 10,000 people went out
onto the streets to protest this action by the CBC.
(1345 )
The CBC is the only cultural instrument in Canada with the
capability to unify us and to inform people from the great city of
Windsor in southwestern Ontario, the greatest city in the
southwest, about people from for instance Yellowhead, a place
that I am sure many people had never heard of. Certainly I was
not aware of it until I came to the House.
In December 1990, 10,000 people streamed out on to the
banks of the Detroit River and looked at a most incredible
skyline, a skyline that imposed itself on us every day and
reminded us of the American presence, a skyline that clearly
reminded us that our specifically Canadian culture in Windsor
was always in danger of being overshadowed by that tremendous
country right there where we can almost touch it.
That country is so close we can go there for lunch and still
make it back in an hour. With that country standing there with all
its cultural instruments ready to bring to bear upon us and with
people in the House starting to talk about doing things that
would devastate the CBC, the single greatest unifying cultural
instrument in this country, I say there is something wrong.
If members of the party opposite had been elected in Windsor
and were talking in the House on behalf of the constituents of
Windsor, they would have to go against their party line. The
people of Windsor, Ontario, the people of southwestern Ontario
in general, do not want to see the wings of the CBC clipped any
more. They do not want to see any further erosion of our cultural
institutions.
I remind members of the House that there is a hidden agenda
over there. That hidden agenda, in my view and in the view of
many people on this side of the House, is that members opposite
want to rid this country, by arguing the bottom line, of our
wonderful cultural institutions, our arts, our great writers and
things like CBC radio and television that unify us and make us
different from the people over the river, as we say in Windsor.
I am not here to talk about that today; I just felt the urge. I am
actually here to talk about changes to the unemployment
insurance scheme announced in the February 22, 1994 budget,
specifically in contrast to unemployment insurance changes that
were brought in under the previous government. I do not need to
tell any of us here that the government's first priority is to get
Canadians back to work. Changes to the unemployment
insurance program are but one of our urgent pledges to create
jobs.
As a result of the unemployment insurance measures
introduced under Bill C-17, the 1995 unemployment insurance
premium rate will be lowered by 30 cents. This is 30 cents lower
than would have been the case without these changes. In 1996
the budget measures I am talking about will mean premium
relief of at least 25 cents.
In comparison, when the last major changes to the
unemployment insurance program under Bill C-21 were put in
place in 1990, the unemployment insurance premium rate had
just been increased by 30 cents. That was not the last premium
rate increase. Since 1989 premium payments by both employers
and workers have doubled. For example, the maximum amount
of employee contributions increased from $614 a year to $1,245.
The maximum amount of employer contributions increased
from $859 a year to over $1,700.
The measures introduced in the budget were necessary to
reverse the trend of continually escalating premium costs for
both employers and workers. The premium rollback means that
there will be 40,000 more jobs in the economy than would have
existed if the premium had been allowed to rise, that is 40,000
more Canadians contributing to the prosperity of our country
and, incidentally, paying taxes.
(1350 )
In terms of premium payers the rollback means an employer
with 100 employees will see a reduction in payroll taxes of up to
$30,000 over the next two years. Over the same period
employees will benefit by saving up to $235. Since the reduction
in payroll taxes will result in a lower cost to employers to
employ people, it will have the added benefit of lowering
Canadian production costs, encouraging exports and making
domestic products more competitive.
4649
Premium rollbacks will also create an environment for
employment growth, but premium reduction alone is not enough
to give us an effective UI program for the 1990s. That is why we
are proposing other measures to create a new climate which
gives greater recognition to long term work records.
We know that almost half of the Canadians claiming benefits
have worked for 40 weeks or longer before making a claim. We
know that they have a long and a strong attachment to the
economy through the workplace. In keeping with this reality the
proposed changes strengthen the link between work history and
unemployment insurance eligibility.
The provisions call for raising the minimum length of time an
employee would have to work to be eligible for unemployment
insurance benefit only from 10 weeks to 12 weeks. We are also
proposing a new formula to calculate benefits, a formula that
takes greater account of the amount of weeks worked while still
being sensitive to regional rates of unemployment.
I am certain my hon. colleagues do not need to be reminded of
the regional differences that persist in employment
opportunities. With those differences in mind, we are proposing
a formula that continues to link extra benefits to the level of
unemployment in a claimant's particular region. The
unemployed in high unemployment areas will be eligible for up
to 20 more weeks of benefits than claimants with similar work
histories in the most robust regional economies in Canada. In
fact the Atlantic provinces as a whole will receive $970 in
unemployment insurance per capita and Quebec will receive
$730 per capita compared to $675 per capita for all of Canada.
Another proposal would find greater unemployment
insurance benefits to claimants who have low incomes and
dependants. Under current rules people who claim
unemployment insurancereceive a benefit rate of 57 per cent no
matter what their circumstances. The proposed changes would
mean that the benefit rate would be increased to 60 per cent for
unemployed workers who had low incomes equal to or less than
$390 per week and were supporting dependants: children, an
aged parent or other dependant. The benefit rate for all
claimants would be 55 per cent.
This is an important change since Canada, one of the
wealthiest industrialized nations, has about 1.2 million children
living in poverty. The proposal for greater assistance to low
income UI claimants with dependants will help these children,
those most in need and their mothers, many of whom are raising
children in poverty as single parents.
Approximately 240,000 claimants will gain from the
enhanced benefit rate. Most UI recipients go from
unemployment insurance to a job. Two-thirds of all
unemployment insurance recipients will not be affected by the
reduction in the duration of benefits. Under the current schedule
of benefits three-quarters of all recipients do not use all the
benefits to which they are entitled.
We cannot overlook the fact that the proposed changes to the
unemployment insurance system will have an impact on some
Canadians. The government has taken that impact into account.
It has been addressed through other job creation initiatives such
as the infrastructure program, the youth services corps and the
youth internship program. I hasten to point out that all these
programs have been launched. They are already creating jobs
not just in Windsor but elsewhere in the country.
When people lose their jobs programs such as claimant
re-employment services help unemployment insurance
claimants to return to stable, long term work as soon as possible.
Our department is currently preparing to provide assistance to
those most affected by the changes in Bill C-17.
The budget also included $18 million in new funds for
strategic initiatives. While these are not unemployment
insurance moneys, the funds coming from the consolidated
revenue fund, the strategic initiatives will allow the government
to work with provinces in dealing with some of the impacts of
the unemployment insurance changes.
(1355 )
Joint strategic initiatives with provinces and territories and
private and non-governmental organizations will be a key part
of the social security reform process. These funds represent
investments in people that will continue to pay off over the years
to come. The strategic initiatives offer a means of finding more
effective ways of dealing with some of the problems faced by the
current system. Initiatives which assisted the unemployed will
in turn help to reduce the deficit in the unemployment insurance
account and to maintain its fiscal integrity.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, together with the
human resources department, is assisting Atlantic Canadians to
deal with the collapse of the groundfish industry through the
$1.9 billion Atlantic groundfish strategy. We are offering help to
those who want new careers outside the fishing industry.
Instead of continuing passive income support, the groundfish
strategy offers a broad range of career development programs
and services to address adjustments facing fishers and fish plant
workers. These include financial and employment counselling,
education and training in trades for those under 25 years of age,
assistance in relocating to a new job, self-employment
incentives, employment training for workers 25 to 49 years of
age, work experience in green projects, job creation and
community
4650
service for those close to retirement as well as those who wish to
accept early retirement options if they are over the age of
55 years.
It is estimated that about 30,000 persons in the Atlantic
provinces and Quebec, 13,000 fisherpersons and 17,000 plant
workers, will be initially eligible for assistance under the new
strategy. All individuals meeting the criteria will be entitled to a
minimum of two years of assistance. Depending on the
individual's length of time in the fishery they could receive up to
five years of assistance.
Following the passage of Bill C-113 Canadians expressed
concern about the fairness of some measures in the
Unemployment Insurance Act. The government listened to
those concerns, and the proposals in Bill C-17 correct the
inequities of the voluntary quit and misconduct provisions. For
example, we propose that a period of suspension not be treated
as loss of employment due to misconduct. That means that time
worked prior to a suspension would still count if the claimant
applies for unemployment insurance benefits at some time
following the suspension.
Similarly, a leave of absence would no longer be considered a
voluntary separation from work. A worker returning to work
would not at some later date be penalized for the leave of
absence and would still be eligible for unemployment insurance
benefits.
We are also proposing that eligibility rules be made more
flexible for workers who leave a job that was about to be
terminated anyway. When a claimant quits employment for just
cause, the claimant will always receive the benefit of the doubt
when the information from the employer and employee is
balanced. We propose the legislation be amended to give the
claimant the benefit of the doubt regarding just cause.
Bill C-17 also enables the testing of new approaches to the
operation of the unemployment insurance program to ease the
administrative burdens currently imposed on employers,
claimants and the government.
An example of such a pilot project would be measures to
reduce the information requirements of the record of
employment for employers. The complexity of the record of
employment has long been a bone of contention for employers.
Changes to the procedure would lead to improved equity,
increased accuracy in payments and better service.
A second example of a potential administrative pilot project
is electronic filing of claims by employers or claimants. The
pilot project will examine the possible service and cost benefits
of filing electronically.
In summary, these proposed changes are an important first
step in the overall reform of our system. The changes to the UI
program are interim in the sense that UI is only one part of the
process of comprehensive reform of the social security system
already under way. In the meantime, however, these changes
will move us toward revitalized programs to deal with the
changing labour market, programs that help people to find
sustainable employment while at the same time support those
unable to work.
The Speaker: Order. It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by
Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
4650
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to inform the House that in the very near future nine
members of the Elgin Regiment will be headed to the former
Yugoslavia for peacekeeping duties in this most unfortunate part
of the world.
It should be remembered that these nine young men are part of
Canada's volunteer, part time militia. As such they interrupt
their jobs and family lives in order to serve their country at great
risk to themselves. They will be following in the tradition of the
Elgin Regiment that goes back for more than 125 years.
I am sure all members in this House wish all our members of
the armed forces serving in former Yugoslavia the best of luck
and safety while carrying out their important humanitarian
duties.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, on May
18, Quebec and the people of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans lost a man of great merit.
Raymond Gravel, former MNA for the Parti Québécois in
Limoilou-Beauport from 1976 to 1984, died of cancer on that
day. Mr. Gravel was unassuming and always ready to listen to
his constituents. Born to a working-class family, through
dedication and hard work he became a prominent member of the
Quebec National Assembly in the first sovereigntist government
in Quebec.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois and the people of Quebec, we
wish to extend our sincere condolences to his wife Juliette and
the family. We can assure them that the political struggle for the
sovereignty of Quebec, of which Mr. Gravel was a part, will
continue. Goodbye, Raymond!
4651
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, on May 15 of
this year Walter Dufek, a resident of Etobicoke, Ontario, passed
away after a valiant fight with cancer. Mr. Dufek was a fighter in
every sense of the word, having fought against the Nazis in
World War II and after the war against communist control of
Czechoslovakia.
His efforts were recognized in many ways. He received the
Polish Gold Cross of Merit; a letter of special award from the
Unity of Canada; and he was recognized by Friends of the Simon
Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies.
In his final months he was deeply concerned that the freedom
we enjoy in Canada, the country he immigrated to in 1951, must
be guarded and not taken for granted.
Mr. Dufek said we must be alert, even in a democracy, of
coercive governments that use the tyranny of taxation and the
liberalization of the criminal just system to give too many rights
to criminals while ignoring the victims.
In memory of Colonel Walter Dufek, a true patriot, an
outstanding Canadian.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Mr. Speaker, in 1990
Zacharias Kunuk, Paul Qulitak and Norman Cohn founded
Igloolik Isuma Productions, Canada's first Inuit owned
independent video production company.
Only four years old, the company won this year's Bell Canada
award for outstanding achievement in video art. It won this
award for its Nunavut series, 13 programs depicting Inuit life in
Igloolik in 1945.
The actors are local people, real people doing real things in
real life. The series shows Inuit history and culture as told and
lived by Inuit, and therein lies its power.
I was in Igloolik last summer for part of the filming and spent
some time talking to Zacharias. He is a young man of
extraordinary vision and talent. His professionalism and
dedication are something to be admired.
I congratulate Igloolik Isuma on its tremendous achievement
and wish it continued success.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
Liberal delegates at the Ottawa convention earlier this month
who approved all resolutions boosting ethanol production. It is
great to see grassroot Liberals showing this leadership, but it
should come as no surprise.
In 1991 the leader of the opposition and now our Prime
Minister called on the Conservative government to introduce
legislation supporting ethanol.
The historic ethanol plant announced for southern Ontario,
the eighth largest in North America, will add $2.7 billion to
Ontario's economy over 12 years. Even the city of Sarnia bid on
the plant.
The U.S. is already planning 49 new ethanol plants.
Tens of thousands of area residents have signed petitions and
written letters to our Prime Minister urging federal involvement
in the Ontario plant.
Grassroot Canadians and Liberal delegates alike know we
have a government for the people, not for the bureaucrats. The
people are for ethanol.
* * *
(1405 )
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair): Mr.
Speaker, today is the last day of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness
Month.
An estimated 50,000 Canadians suffer from MS. It is the most
common disease of the central nervous system affecting young
adults in their prime. Twice as many women as men suffer from
MS. It is usually progressive and leads to numbness, loss of
balance, tremors and even paralysis.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada was founded in
1948 to help those affected by the disease. Today it has a
Canada-wide membership of approximately 26,000. The
society promotes and supports MS research and services for
people with MS as well as their families. This is accomplished
through charitable donations to the society and fund raising
events such as the Carnation Campaign which took place this
past month.
I wish to congratulate the volunteers and staff of the Multiple
Sclerosis Society of Canada for a successful month and to
encourage all Canadians to lend support to Multiple Sclerosis
Month and to the Carnation Campaign.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, as part of National Access Awareness Week, today
we wish to draw the attention of the House to the twenty-fifth
anniversary of AQEPA, the Association du Québec pour enfants
avec problèmes auditifs.
4652
Founded in 1969 by André and Louise Rochette, the
association now has more than 1,000 members. I also would like
to draw the attention of the House to the exceptional work done
within this organization by Denis Lazure, ex-minister of the
Parti québécois, who also sponsored the bill to create the Office
des personnes handicapées.
Over the years, AQEPA has managed to regroup parents of
hearing-impaired children, to teach them and the other parties
concerned, to promote the integration of children in the school
environment, to raise funds and to increase public awareness.
We can be proud of these initiatives which our society needs
very badly, and we believe it is important to encourage
organizations that are dedicated to improving the quality of life
of the disabled.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday marked the beginning of the seventh annual National
Access Awareness Week. This week is important in raising
awareness and making Canadians more sensitive to disability
issues. This year's theme is ``Choices and Challenges''.
In celebration of National Access Awareness Week it is
imperative that we provide individuals with disabilities equality
of opportunity. This means governments must rethink the way
we provide benefits to the disabled. Presently persons with
disabilities find themselves in a catch-22 position. Many want
to work and yet once they find employment we remove the
support that allowed them to get a job in the first place.
If we want to ensure that persons with disabilities are net
contributors to our society we must remove the barriers that
impede their abilities.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board is western Canada's single
desk selling agency for the export sale of wheat and barley.
The Canadian Wheat Board has served the interests of western
Canadian farmers superbly over the years and continues to do
so.
In addition, it provides an unparalleled level of customer
service to all the millers and bakers and noodle makers around
the world who are the ultimate consumers of our product.
The Canadian Wheat Board is one of the great Canadian
success stories in international trade.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are proud their government announced its largest
ever anti-smoking drive on the eve of World No Tobacco Day.
If current trends are not reversed smoking will claim the lives
of 10 million citizens of the world each year within three
decades. In Canada alone 38,000 citizens die each year from
smoking related illnesses, the equivalent of a third of most MPs
ridings' population.
The challenge to the world is to create a smoke free society.
Harmonization of cigarette prices by means of taxation should
be part of an international anti-smoking strategy.
Canada has long been a world leader in this area of public
health policy. Effective public policy begins with the will of
individual citizens.
For non-smokers this day is an opportunity to reaffirm their
will not to smoke. For smokers this day is an opportunity for a
new beginning to free themselves from the prison of addiction.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, in October
past Canadians elected this government with a mandate to create
employment. Infrastructure announcements are now flowing
steadily. This is helping create employment, a promise we made
to Canadians.
I would like to thank the minister for his hard work in
ensuring the success of this program.
There are, however, other indicators that we are on the road to
recovery. A recent survey by an employment agency indicates
that unemployed individuals have a better opportunity of
finding employment this summer than they have had in the past
four years. This agency also states that one-quarter of Canadian
companies plan on increasing staff in the next three months.
I am very encouraged that this will not only help in large
urban centres but will have a significant influence on
employment in smaller cities such as Peterborough.
This is encouraging news for many Canadians who have been
waiting desperately to rejoin the workforce and contribute their
work skills to this great nation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to correct what was said by the Deputy Prime Minister, who
stated in the House yesterday that the Bloc Quebecois had voted
4653
against equal rights for the francophone and anglophone
communities of New Brunswick. As usual, the Deputy Prime
Minister distorts reality instead of answering questions.
Here are the facts: on December 11, 1992, the Bloc Quebecois
asked the unanimous consent of the House for a motion
acknowledging those rights to be voted on in a dignified manner,
not rushed through to avoid making waves. We suggested having
the vote the same day and publicly reaffirmed our support, but
we did not obtain the requisite unanimous consent.
On February 1, 1993, when there was an official vote on this
motion, the eight members of the Bloc who were present all
voted for the motion.
Mr. Speaker, the truth must be told.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, physicians and
other scientists in Canada are very concerned about the
government's proposed legislation, Bill C-7.
Criminal law must be very clear and concise because of the
serious penalties for breaking the law. However, this legislation
is vague and broad. Through provisions for as yet unnamed
substances to be added to the schedule of controlled drugs,
health professionals dealing with innovative active chemical
ingredients may be liable to serious legal penalties which are not
clarified in the act.
Furthermore, by intertwining criminal law with regulatory
law, regulatory inspectors effectively acquire criminal search
and seizure powers.
Physicians and other scientists support attempts to better
control the non-medical use of drugs. I call on the government
to put forward serious amendments to Bill C-7. We must ensure
that physicians are not hamstrung by bad legislation in their
attempts to provide quality health care to Canadians.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, on
Sunday, May 29 I had the privilege of attending, along with my
colleague from Ottawa South who was the guest of honour, an
event that was truly a tribute to our country's commitment to
creating opportunities for people in the developing world.
Sixty thousand Canadians in 10 cities across this country
participated in the 10th anniversary of Partnership Walk as
sponsors and walkers in a tremendous show of support for all the
people of our global village. Partnership Walk is an initiative of
the Aga Khan Foundation to create an understanding about
development and show the world that Canadians do indeed care
about improving the lives of those in developing countries.
This year's project was especially interesting, being about
women in development. Women for as little as $5 or $10 loans
are starting businesses and raising themselves and their children
out of poverty.
My congratulations to all the volunteers who helped make this
year's Partnership Walk happen.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, today is
World No Tobacco Day.
This annual event is sponsored by the World Health
Organization to focus attention on the devastating consequences
of tobacco use. Smoking is responsible for some three million
deaths each year around the world, 40,000 deaths in Canada
alone.
This year's theme is ``The Media and Tobacco: Getting the
Message Across''. The Canadian media has been responsible for
alerting and educating the public to the health hazards of
tobacco.
I congratulate it and urge it to continue its role as advocate. I
would like to urge those Canadians who smoke to think about
stopping.
Health Canada in partnership with the National
Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health has compiled an
inventory of smoking cessation programs. I would be prepared
to provide a copy of this resource to anyone who feels they need
assistance in quitting or the groups active in this field.
(1415)
Today is the day to say no to tobacco.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I regret to say it
now appears that a war between Canada and the United States
over Pacific coast salmon stocks is inevitable unless immediate
action is taken.
Negotiations have been made impossible. While Canada has a
clear position regarding the renewal of the Pacific salmon
treaty, the United States seems to have an Alaska position, a
Washington State position, an Oregon position, a California
position, a commercial fishery position, a native fishery
position, a sports fishery position. In other words, Americans
simply do not have their act together.
While negotiators blame each other for the impasse and the
federal and provincial ministers hurl threats at their American
counterparts, the reality is the Pacific coast salmon stocks are
now at risk.
4654
Planned retaliation by both Canadian and United States
fishing fleets means disastrous overfishing of the salmon stocks
and the possible repeat of what has happened with the east coast
fishery.
We cannot sit back and watch this fishery disaster unfold. It is
time our Prime Minister called on the President of the United
States to intervene in this crisis if a full scale salmon war is to be
averted.
_____________________________________________
ORAL QUESTIONS PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, a Canadian Press dispatch reports that a lobby group
representing the interests of wealthy Canadian families, the
Canadian Association for Family Enterprise, apparently
persuaded the former government last year to extend family
trusts, a form of tax shelter.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Having left family
trusts untouched in his budget, can the minister tell us if he too
caved in to the pressure from these same lobbyists, after having
strongly condemned himself the Conservatives' decision in
1993 to extend this form of abuse which allows wealthy families
to shelter hundreds of millions of dollars from taxes each year?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we stated very clearly in
our budget that the issue of family trusts was one of considerable
concern to us and, in order for information to be made truly
public, it was our intention-and it still is-to refer the matter to
the finance committee, which is what we intend to do.
Regarding this lobby group which put pressure on the
government, I must admit that I know nothing about it because it
did not put any pressure on us. Their target was the previous
government, at a time when the Leader of the Opposition was a
member of Cabinet.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, just a technical reminder, but I resigned from the
Conservative cabinet in May 1990 and this decision was made in
1993.
I get the feeling that many Canadian and Quebec taxpayers are
fed up with the evasive answers of the minister, who seems
content to refer the matter to a committee. While the committees
sit, the wealthy line their pockets and the poor pay!
Can the Minister of Finance confirm if the figures published
today by Canadian Press and showing that his decision to
maintain these trusts allows a wealthy Canadian family to save
an average of $10 million each year are indeed correct, and how
can he allow them to continue enjoying this kind of perk when,
at the same time, he is imposing heavy burdens on the
unemployed and on the disadvantaged?
[English]
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, when we took office, having opposed
the previous government and the way it was treating family
trusts, we found that the information we were being provided
was inadequate.
As a result of that and because we really wanted this to be a
public debate we referred it to the finance committee in order
that Canadians have an opportunity to have that debate.
I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that in 1987
he was a member of the previous cabinet. In 1987 the previous
government was going to do something about it and that is when
it began to react to lobbyists, when he was a member of that
cabinet.
(1420)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, for the sake of this discussion, it should be pointed out
that we have the Liberals to thank for this marvellous tax shelter
which they introduced in 1972 for a period of 21 years. It was
slated to expire in 1993 and it was the Conservatives who
extended it. What the wealthy families wanted was time, and
they got plenty of it thanks to the Minister of Finance who came
to their defence.
How can the Minister of Finance expect to be a credible
defender of family trusts when on April 19, 1993, he rose in this
House to vote against the Conservatives' decision to extend the
perks enjoyed by wealthy families? What possible reason can
the minister give for his complete about-face which will deprive
the government of hundreds of millions of dollars each year in
tax revenues?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the best way to stop
abuse is by being open. Why is the Leader of the Opposition
afraid of a public debate before the finance committee on which
his party will be represented? We are not afraid of a debate. We
are not afraid of providing the Canadian public with information
and I can only wonder why the Leader of the Opposition
continues to say that we are dodging this issue. What about his
record as a minister in the Mulroney government when it caved
in to pressure from lobbyists?
4655
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
a study published yesterday by the C.D. Howe Institute
concludes after a thorough analysis that the Liberals' budget
strategy is inadequate for reaching their goal of lowering the
federal deficit to 3 per cent of GDP.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How does the
Minister of Finance react to this study, which totally calls into
question his budgetary and fiscal objectives and again singles
out his inability to properly control the government's finances?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I
have not had time to read the report which just came out this
morning. I have read summaries.
It says that it is dangerous to let the deficit and debt go out of
control and we agree. That is why our goal is to reduce it to 3 per
cent of the gross domestic product in three years. It says that
public-sector salaries must be controlled and we agree. That is
why, under the leadership of the Minister responsible for Public
Service Renewal, we are really examining all government
spending. Although I have not read the report, I must say that we
fully agree with the conclusions on the effects of the debt and the
deficit.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
the institute's report indeed says that the measures in the finance
minister's budget are all totally inadequate and totally
ineffective for reducing the deficit.
I ask the Minister of Finance if, instead of taking a
wait-and-see attitude to the disastrous situation of the Canadian
government's finances, he does not agree that he must urgently
eliminate duplication and inefficiency and immediately
eliminate outrageous tax evasions such as family trusts. It is not
social programs that should be attacked in the cowardly way you
are attacking them.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, one reason we referred
the whole issue of family trusts to the finance committee is that
the Bloc Quebecois's finance critic suggested it. Unfortunately,
we followed his advice.
[English]
I would say something else. It is quite interesting that the Bloc
Quebecois which claims to have some degree of compassion-it
has not demonstrated it so far-cites the C.D. Howe report
which came out this morning but has not cited the report that
came out on the tremendous causes of the relationship between
unemployment and the deficit that came out last week, the study
by Diane Bellemare.
Why is it that the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to talk about
deficit but refuses to talk about unemployment?
* * *
(1425 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
An hon. member: Oh, new tie, new haircut, new suit.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Calgary
Southwest.
Mr. Manning: Yesterday in Montreal the Prime Minister
acknowledged that uncertainty concerning Canada's future is
having adverse effects on the economy. In addition to growing
uncertainty about the government's ability to manage the deficit
and the debt, there is this increasing uncertainty caused by the
debate over Quebec sovereignty.
Rather than just acknowledging or complaining about this
uncertainty, does the government have any vigorous new
initiatives to propose to reduce these uncertainties concerning
Canada's future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the most suitable reply-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): -is to ask the leader of the
Reform Party to help this Parliament to be a good Parliament, to
offer a good government.
The people of Quebec know very well, as they read last
weekend as we all did with joy, that of all the countries in the
world the United Nations said that the best place to live is
Canada. That is the best argument.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question.
Yesterday the Prime Minister also said that if the Quebec
people were asked a clear question on separation in a
referendum, using words and terms which clearly speak of
separation, they would not support the separatist option.
Does the Prime Minister have in mind the wording of the
question which he would like the Quebec people to answer?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I would point out the question is
hypothetical. Perhaps the hon. member could rephrase his
question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, I am simply referring to words
that the Prime Minister used yesterday in Montreal. He said that
the wording of the question was all important. If the question is
worded right, Quebecers would make the right decision. Could
he tell us in his judgment-
4656
Some hon. members: No, no.
The Speaker: Order. I thank hon. members for the advice
they are giving me, but I will make up my mind. The question is
hypothetical. Perhaps the hon. member could go on to his final
supplementary.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the only way to ensure that any
question on Quebec sovereignty is put to Quebec electors in the
form that the Prime Minister desires is for a federalist
government to put the question.
Is the Prime Minister therefore suggesting that his
government or the current Quebec government should put the
question, Canada or separation, to Quebecers in a referendum
perhaps in conjunction with the next provincial election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): I think, Mr.
Speaker, this question is a bit more suitable than the previous
one.
The best way for Quebecers to have economic stability and to
make sure that the rest of the country does not pay a price for
political instability, is for the Quebec people to vote for the
Liberal Party in the next provincial election so that we will
dispose of the problem. This is the best option.
(1430 )
As for Mr. Parizeau, I hope he will never form a government.
However, if he were to form a government, he should take the
advice of the Leader of the Opposition and not try to cheat but be
very honest and tell Quebecers, as the Leader of the Opposition
said to the people in Washington, that they are separatists. If
they say so, the Quebec people will remain in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, work was
continuing this morning in ``The Pines'' in Oka, in spite of the
fact that this action had been declared illegal by Minister Sirros
of the Quebec government. Tension has just risen one notch in
Oka.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government has
instructed lawyer Michel Robert to make the stopping of illegal
work in The Pines a precondition to any negotiations?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, if
indeed work is continuing at this time, I think Minister Sirros
stated clearly the law was to be enforced and that is also our
position.
As for lawyer Michel Robert and Justice Paul, they have been
instructed to undertake negotiations as soon as possible. Only,
for negotiations to be held, all the parties must be at the table.
And I hope that everyone will agree that it is in the interest of all
concerned to sit around the table and look for a solution to this
problem.
In any case, the Oka territory is not a reserve under federal
jurisdiction; it falls under provincial jurisdiction. If the law is
broken, it is up to the Attorney General and the provincial police
to take the necessary steps.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, Chief Jerry
Peltier made payment of the $3 million demanded from the
government by his group in December 1993 a precondition of
any discussion with the government's negotiator.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the government
intend to respond positively to this demand for $3 million, since
its negotiator has referred the matter directly to it?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. What we have on
the table is the expansion of the cemetery, approximately
doubling the size. We have agreed to do this with the town of
Oka.
We have people in there now working with Mr. Peltier on
restructuring the debt. He inherited $600,000 to $700,000 of
legal bills through different hearings of cases that took place in
the past. Some he incurred but I think he inherited the bulk.
We have agreed on the seigniory, that we would discuss a
structure, the solution to which would not be implemented until
long after we are gone from the House of Commons because it is
a long process. We are talking about housing north of 344, not
south of 344. That is independent and I expressed that to my
friend over there this morning.
We are talking about a committee to work on housing with
four from the membership, three appointed by the council, and
some money for renovations. We are definitely not prepared to
put up $3 million. I said that in the scrum this morning and I will
say that today. That is not on the table.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister responsible for Infrastructure.
On May 11 the minister said there was no money remaining
for the highway 416 expansion. Yet two days later he reversed
his position and committed approximately $60 million to the
project.
While most would agree with improving highway 416, all
infrastructure funds have already been allocated in Ontario.
Where is the additional $60 million coming from?
4657
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there is not within the allocations that have been made sufficient
takeup to take all the money. I expect there will be other
opportunities for reallocation. In that situation we certainly are
committed to proceeding with the highway 416 project. It will
be up to the province to bring forward a proposal within the
Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program to do so.
(1435)
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
The Canada-Ontario infrastructure program specifically
states that all programs are to be initiated by the municipalities
and, moreover, that all projects are to be financed equally by the
municipality, the province and the federal government.
Why has the minister committed funding to a project that is
clearly outside the restrictions of his own program in the case of
highway 416?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
there are different agreements in each province. There are many
projects in different provinces initiated by the provinces. We did
allow for that possibility, not entirely the municipalities.
It would take an amendment to the agreement which the
Ontario government would have to propose in order to provide
this. It would be completely in accordance with the goals, the
objectives and the criteria of the infrastructure works program
which is quite successful right across the country. If the Ontario
government wants to do it, we are prepared to be there with it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister, who claimed that the
National Forum on Health would give us the opportunity to
discuss the precarious situation of the health-care system and
enable us to find solutions to the existing problems. We have
learned that the forum might be postponed.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that the National Forum on
Health will be postponed as a result of the criticisms expressed
by the provinces, which were excluded from this consultation
process, although they are mainly responsible for health care?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we had many consultations. The Minister of Health had
consultations with the provinces and, at one point, the ministers
even established a committee of five ministers to make
suggestions to her. She received these suggestions and included
them in her proposal for next month.
All of a sudden, the provinces came up with other
suggestions. Since we are a very flexible government, we said
that we would look at their other suggestions. If, unfortunately,
a few extra weeks are needed before we hold the conference, we
are ready to delay it because we were elected for five years and
we will not complain about another five weeks.
However, I would like to point out that the Minister of Health
held consultations. She received a report prepared by five
ministers. I think she accepted all of their requests, and they
then asked for other things. Of course, we will look at what they
want, but I am not ready to blame the Minister of Health. On the
contrary, I wish to commend her for listening to the provinces
and including their studies in her proposal. All of a sudden, they
found her too flexible and asked for more concessions. I am
certain that she will study their requests and, if they are
reasonable, she will accept them.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
Prime Minister confirm that the federal government, whose goal
is to centralize, directly harms the provinces by trying to impose
national standards while withdrawing financially?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
frankly, it is a word I have been hearing in this House since
1963. Every time members want to speak against the federal
government, they say it wants to centralize, when there has been
such a major decentralization that Canada has become one of the
most decentralized countries, like Switzerland. But we are still
willing to look at suggestions. We have a national health act
passed by this Parliament, which requires us to offer free,
universal and publicly administered health-care services so that
we do not have hospitals for the rich and other hospitals for the
poor. That is the goal we will continue to pursue with the
conference on health that I will chair.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General.
I have in my possession lists of prisoners in federal
penitentiaries that are receiving old age security, Canada
pension plan and GST rebates. Among these lists are murderers,
rapists and thieves that get room and board, education and
recreational facilities in addition to old age security.
These are better benefits than many senior citizens are
receiving. Could the Solicitor General explain to Canadians, in
particular the senior citizens of our country, why in the world the
government treats criminals better than our senior citizens?
4658
(1440)
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
this issue is one that I am looking at in the context of updating
and improving our parole and correctional system.
In the meantime, contrary to the suggestions of the Reform
Party, I do not think our senior citizens would like to be put in
prison.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say that one stupid answer deserves another stupid
question, but I will not do that.
The Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his
supplementary question.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, in the
investigation and research the Solicitor General is doing I would
like to ask if the Solicitor General would act and stand in the
House today to eliminate this entitlement, or at least charge
them for the meals they receive, their racquetball usage, the
swimming pool or tennis court usage, or their room usage.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
again I repeat this is an issue I am looking at in connection with
the tightening up of the parole and correctional system.
I also want to say the hon. member has proven that while I do
not attempt to give stupid answers it does not prevent me from
receiving stupid questions.
The Speaker: Perhaps hon. members could refrain from
using adjectives which might inflame one another.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the
Deputy Prime Minister justified the decision of the Kingston
city council to block the construction of a French-language high
school by stating, and I quote:
-city council decided to oppose the relocation of the school. The proposed
site was only steps away from a dangerous toxic waste treatment site-
Yet, a verification reveals that this dangerous toxic waste
treatment site simply does not exist.
Does the Prime Minister endorse the statement made by the
Deputy Prime Minister, who justified the decision of the
Kingston city council by using reasons which, as we now know,
do not exist?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the Kingston Roman Catholic Separate School Board
unanimously supported the idea of building a school in an
appropriate location, but the proposed site is deemed inadequate
by the municipality.
Based on the information I received, that location is used as a
dump.
An hon. member: That is not true!
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Listen. I am
saying that the school board is in favour of building a
French-language school. They want to find the best possible
site. They are considering two or three locations. This is an issue
which concerns Kingston city officials and the Department of
Education in Toronto. It is not a federal issue.
I want to emphasize that I asked if there was any objection to
building a French-language school in Kingston. I was told:
Absolutely not! We want such a school as soon as possible and in
the best possible location.
I was given the assurance that a site would be found very soon.
(1445)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, the site already exists, but they want to change the
zoning to allow a company to build a treatment plant, instead of
the school. Those are the facts which should have been told to
the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, francophones have paid $4.2
million; yes, $4.2 million!
Will the Prime Minister personally take action to ensure that
francophones in this country are treated fairly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
am deeply moved to see Bloc Quebecois members care about
francophones outside Quebec, considering that they want to
isolate them completely by promoting Quebec's separation.
I am prepared to pledge that a French-language school will
soon be built in Kingston.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Just two weeks ago in a rare expression of unanimity, this
House passed legislation enabling Canada to take enforcement
action against flags of convenience and stateless vessels
pilfering our fish stocks just outside the 200-mile limit.
4659
On Friday cabinet approved regulations that are in effect
today which give force to this law. Does the Prime Minister
believe these measures will be effective in dealing with this
problem? When does the government intend to use these powers
to rid our continental shelf of these high seas pirates?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the regulations were proclaimed and are in force today.
After a quick check all ships under flags of convenience or
pirate ships have left the area because they do not want to face
the wrath of my excellent minister of fisheries.
* * *
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Over the weekend, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce held its
annual meeting in Red Deer. One of the proposals put forward at
that meeting was that the Alberta and federal governments
should refrain from making any new grants or loan guarantees to
business. This proposal should really come as no surprise to
anyone who has followed the pathetic tales of Gainers or
NovoTel, to name just two examples of public money gone bad
in Alberta.
Is the minister prepared to accept the Alberta Chamber of
Commerce's suggestion to refrain from making any new grants
or loan guarantees to business?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-
Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows the entire question
of grants and subsidies to business is under review. We have
severely cut back already. A number of the regional agencies
have gone to loans and no more grants.
The member however will also recognize that the way the
federal government carries its accounts a number of matters
appear under grants or subsidies to business which of course
involve agriculture and transportation or certain corporations
having to do with access to foreign markets.
The basic concept that the government should get out of the
way and let business do its job, which is to create jobs, provided
this country essentially has a structure that will let them do so is
one we share.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's answer.
I would suggest that the minister grab on the suggestion from
the Alberta Chamber of Commerce strongly. Chamber members
themselves have stated they want a level playing field and
government handouts often distort competition rather than help
business. I would like the minister to guarantee that he will look
at the suggestion from the Alberta Chamber of Commerce.
(1450 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we most certainly will
look at the suggestion from the Alberta Chamber of Commerce.
We have already met. As the minister for western diversification
can say, he has already brought in a great deal of that philosophy
for example in terms of the way he is dealing with small
business.
I do share that philosophy. However I would simply ask the
member to understand when he talks about a level playing field,
that level playing field we have to establish is not one which
simply exists within Canada but one which exists in Canada
vis-à-vis the rest of the world. We want to make sure Canadian
companies are not penalized when they compete with the
markets in the rest of the world. We are going to make sure that
happens.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Health.
We have repeatedly asked the minister in the House whether
she intends to act responsibly and make arrangements to inform
people infected with Hepatitis C of their condition and the risk
of transmitting the disease to others. The minister tends to evade
the issue while the lives of thousands of Canadians are in danger.
Has the minister finally realized that her first duty is to inform
people who may have been infected in order to slow down the
development of the disease and stop its transmission?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
always take my responsibilities very seriously, but the
government has several partners. I have to work with the Red
Cross and the provincial governments, and we each have to do
our share.
Regarding the hon. member's question, this issue is mainly a
matter of provincial jurisdiction. Does the hon. member for the
Bloc Quebecois really want me to take the responsibility for
telling the provinces what they should do? On all other issues,
the Bloc québécois says: ``Do not interfere in matters that come
under provincial jurisdiction, and we even intend to leave this
country to make sure that will not happen''.
That being said, I will continue to work with all the parties
concerned.
4660
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, the minister
lets the provinces take the blame, and meanwhile, the lives of
thousands of people are at stake.
When will the minister realize that the problem is at this level,
that it must be solved at this level and that she is responsible for
doing so?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
they change their tune when it suits them.
I can inform the House that hepatitis has been found in the
blood supply since the 1940s. In 1990, a way was found to test
blood for Hepatitis C. Since that time, all prospective donors are
tested. Although many people give blood, it was found that, in a
given year, the number of people who tested positive for
Hepatitis C was 0.3 per cent.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
It would appear we are poised on the brink of a salmon war on
Canada's west coast. I would like to know what steps the
government has taken to ensure that Canada's salmon stocks are
not decimated by this action.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Delta for his question and his
concern and that of the hon. member for Kamloops who spoke
earlier on this subject.
(1455 )
I want to assure the House that Canada is not poised on the
edge of a salmon war. We will not conduct a fishery as a free for
all nor will we pursue a catch and kill policy. We will fish
unilaterally and only because we are not able to make a bilateral
arrangement with the United States.
We do not doubt the will or the intent of the U.S.
administration to make an arrangement with us, but we doubt the
ability of the U.S. administration to pull Alaska, Washington,
Oregon and California together around one sound game plan.
Our choices in those circumstances are to acquiesce and have
Washington run our fishery, or to stand up and be counted in the
interest of Canadian fishermen and that is what we will do.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, unilateral action
by Canada and unilateral action by the United States equals a
fish war and a fish war is the ultimate step.
What happens if Canada's fish stocks are being decimated by
this action and where do we go from there? How will we advance
Canada's position on this issue?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I must say again there is no intent, nor will there be a
wanton decimation of Canada's fish stocks.
Indeed all parties in the British Columbia legislature, the New
Democratic Party, the Reform Party, the Liberal Party and the
Socred Party as well, have unanimously passed a motion
supporting the position of the Government of Canada vis-à-vis
the United States. There is sound and very solid support
throughout the industry in British Columbia for the tough
posture we are taking.
We are not going to throw away or destroy our own resource
but equally we are not going to throw away or destroy our own
fishermen and our own industry. Canada will fish aggressively
but we remain ready, willing and able, indeed anxious at any
time to sign a sensible and sound conservation based bilateral
fish arrangement.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
The federal government has jurisdiction with respect to
gaming on the Great Lakes. American authorities have recently
approved such activity on certain Great Lakes cruise ships.
Will the minister encourage Canadian tourism and job
creation by allowing gambling on Great Lakes cruise ships
operating in Canadian waters?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows
the Criminal Code of Canada deals with gambling by providing
for blanket prohibition and then allowing it by exceptions
specifically in relation to the provinces.
The provinces are allowed to operate lottery schemes. They
are allowed to be the operators of casinos with table games and
slot machines. There is no provision in the Criminal Code at
present to allow the federal government to operate or to licence
casinos directly for gambling.
I must tell the hon. member there is no plan at present to
amend the gambling provisions of the code to provide for
additional exceptions, such as the private operation of casinos as
he suggests. In order to do such a thing at least two requirements
would have to be met. First we would have to negotiate with the
provinces for an agreement to that effect. Second, we would
have to deal with the provisions of the coasting trade act which
has regulations that would pertain to any such arrangement.
If the hon. member cared to pursue in detail any aspect of this
question, I would be happy to meet with him for that purpose.
4661
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The government is about to launch a $185 million program
over three years to combat tobacco product use. Out of this
amount, $55 million will be spent on an anti-smoking ad blitz.
Can the Minister of Health confirm that the government intends
to spend $55 million on an anti-smoking ad campaign, when
studies have clearly shown that previous campaigns have only
had a minimum impact on cigarette use, especially among
teenagers?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to stand today and speak to the tobacco reduction
strategy.
The numbers that have been presented have been a tentative
outline of some of the things we might consider. We are and
continue to work with anti-smoking groups, groups such as the
cancer society, and provincial governments to ensure that these
dollars are effectively used and that they do stamp out smoking.
One of the particularly good things about this strategy is that it is
being funded by a surtax on the profits of large tobacco
manufacturers.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Solicitor General.
Rod Stamler, a former assistant commissioner of the RCMP
has alleged that the Mulroney government interfered with
RCMP investigations into political corruption within the federal
government.
Mr. Stamler has detailed these and other serious allegations in
a recently published book and during public appearances on
radio and television.
What action is the Solicitor General taking to look into these
very serious allegations?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I am going to read the book that the allegations are
based on which have been reported in the press.
In the meantime if anyone has any direct evidence of
wrongdoing on which the police should act I think it should be
brought to the attention of the proper authorities.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I have notice of two points of
order today. Before I take these points of order I want to make a
ruling on a matter that came up.
Earlier today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons raised a point of order
regarding the decision not to print in Votes and Proceedings the
full text of the Senate amendments to Bill C-18, an act to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act.
The hon. member raised a valid point in explaining the
difficulties in obtaining the text of these amendments from
sources other than House of Commons publications.
Procedural Services may have interpreted too broadly a recent
decision of the Board of Internal Economy and the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to no longer print in
Votes and Proceedings the text that daily appears in other
parliamentary publications.
While the reason behind this decision was to realize
reductions in printing costs and eliminate the duplication of
printing, after due consideration it would seem appropriate to
return to the previous practice of printing the full text in Votes
and Proceedings of Senate messages, including those
concerning amendments to bills.
[Translation]
Perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs should review this practice as part of its on-going
mandate. Accordingly, the full text of the Senate amendments to
Bill C-18 will be printed as a corrigendum in today's Votes and
Proceedings.
[English]
I will now hear a point of order from the member for Calgary
Southeast.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to correct the record. During the debate on Bill C-26 on
Friday, May 27, 1994 I said that I would bring forward a motion
to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to reduce the
National Library's appropriation by the amount that the director
general of corporate policy and planning stated the bill would
save the Library.
The figure that I mentioned was $300,000. The correct figure
is approximately $100,000.
The Speaker: It is on the record but it is not a point of order. It
would be a point of information to the House and it could be
done by other means.
I will listen to a point of order from the member for Frontenac.
4662
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday afternoon, around this time, the member for
Davenport, who chairs the Standing Committee on the
Environment and Sustainable Development, tabled our report
which contained a dissenting report by the Bloc Quebecois.
I rose, pursuant to Standing Order 35(2), to present the Bloc's
opinion, but the Deputy Chairman, who was busy doing
something else, did not recognize me. Mr. Speaker, if you allow
me, I would be very pleased to do so this afternoon.
The Speaker: It seems to me that what the member is
requesting is acceptable to the Speaker and the House. He may
now make his point.
(1505)
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, over the past few
weeks, I have heard numerous testimonies from various
individuals and groups while serving as the vice-chairman of
the committee on the environment and sustainable development.
Following debate which was quite lively at times, it became
apparent that the positions of the Bloc Quebecois and Liberal
Party were irreconcilable. Opinions differed not on the wording
or the terms and conditions, but rather on the very substance of
the matter.
The report which the committee tabled yesterday calls for the
appointment of a new authority, whereas we advocate the use of
a structure that is already in place and has proven its worth.
In our view, it would be more appropriate to broaden the
mandate of the Auditor General's Office and grant it the
required resources to deal with environmental issues in a proper,
thorough manner.
To all those who would loudly denounce this alternative as
reactive and not in keeping with sustainable development, our
answer would be that the proposed solution is nothing but an
attempt to impress.
An appointed official has no business making policy. Our
democratic system allows Canadians and Quebecers to elect
representatives to govern the country and lead it ably on the path
to sustainable development. It would be too easy to have an
additional authority, a whipping boy, which would be made
responsible for all decisions.
In this instance, the mandate of the commissioner of the
environment will in many ways overlap the mandates of other
authorities, notably the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act, certain Green Plan programs and even Environment
Canada.
We are not opposed to virtue and we acknowledge the
importance of protecting the environment in any way possible.
However, we felt the honest thing to do was to criticize this
proposed new position which would merely provide another way
out for a government unwilling to carry out the responsibilities
entrusted to it by its citizens.
_____________________________________________
4662
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1510)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth
time I rise in this House to speak on cuts to the unemployment
insurance program. The first time was immediately following
the budget speech. Then I spoke again at second reading and at
report stage and finally, today, at third reading.
By my count, Bloc Quebecois members have made 60
speeches on UI cuts in this House, that is to say over half of all
speeches made on the subject. How come?
On the government side, efforts were made to wrap up these
UI cuts in an omnibus bill, a catchall bill which contains
interesting measures on the whole, but hides these cuts that
signal further cuts to social programs affecting the less
fortunate.
As the hon. member for Mercier said this morning, this is a
very sad day indeed, because the less fortunate segment of the
population is being attacked. But what did we just hear during
Question Period? Answers that were, for the most part,
disturbing. The government, which has saved $1.3 billion in
unemployment insurance, did not dare attack, in this budget,
family trusts which benefit the wealthiest members of our
society.
This means that people who already enjoy the best lifestyle in
this country will continue to do so while, in an effort to reduce
the deficit, the government will ask the less affluent to make a
$1.3 billion sacrifice. I would like to point out that $1.3 billion
is $300 million over the projected cost of the infrastructure
program which was announced by this government, is under way
and involves the three levels of government.
If the Bloc Quebecois members, the official opposition
members, have spoken on this issue as often as they have, it was
to show they had tried everything. Today is the last day. By
moving amendments and having as many of our members as
possible speak to this bill, we tried to make the government
realize a change of attitude concerning the less affluent was in
order. We have also recalled at every opportunity the positions
government members had held when in opposition.
4663
Just last year, the former Conservative government
introduced two bills respecting unemployment insurance. The
first one was Bill C-105, and you will remember that there was
so much controversy about this bill tabled by the then minister
of employment that he had to table an all new one, namely Bill
C-113, in which the number of instances where the benefit of the
doubt was given to the unemployed instead of the commission
was reduced. It also provided for a reduction in unemployment
insurance rates.
(1515)
I will read, as it is worthwhile remembering, some of the
statements that were made at the time by members of the current
Liberal government, in particular the hon. member for York
South who, coincidentally, is Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development. He had this to say
about Bill C-113: ``Reaction has been so strong because the
changes to the unemployment insurance program contained in
Bill C-113 threaten every Canadian who has a job. By reducing
the benefit rate from 60 per cent to 57 per cent of insurable
earnings, the government is going to be taking money out of the
pockets of some families. It may only be $80 a month, but for
some households, that represents the hydro and phone bills or a
weekly order of groceries''.
For the vast majority of Canadians who live pay cheque to pay
cheque, losing an extra $80 a month can be a major set-back.
What about today? There is another 2 per cent reduction, which
amounts to some $50 a month. We can now repeat the arguments
that the parliamentary secretary put forward at the time and ask
how come he cannot influence the minister he is so close to.
What happened in the past year that caused the parliamentary
secretary to do such an about-face on the benefit rate reduction?
We wonder.
He read a letter-I am certain that the situation has not
changed-that had been sent to one of his colleagues. The letter
was addressed to the Minister of Employment with a copy to his
colleague. It was from an expectant mother who was distressed
to learn that UI benefits she would receive during maternity
leave were going to be reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent.
And I could go on for several more pages because the
Parliamentary Secretary to the current Minister of Human
Resources Development has been, I must admit, one of the most
prolific in this regard, especially when young people are
concerned. He waxed indignant against the previous
government's attempts to cut unemployment insurance, saying,
among other things, that young people and women were perhaps
the two social groups that were the most threatened by UI cuts
because their jobs, as everyone knows, are the most precarious.
Thirty per cent of precarious jobs are held by young people and
even more, nearly 50 per cent, by women.
I find it hard to understand. I am asking people whom I know
have social convictions, who are now on the government side,
why, now that they are in office, they continue to support a bill
now at the last stage of the adoption process which will take, let
me remind you, $1.3 billion out of the pockets of unemployed
Canadians.
I will now read an excerpt from a speech delivered on March
24, 1993 by the current Chairman of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development when he was a member of the
opposition. He said: ``Once again the Tories have chosen to ask
those that are the main victims of the recession, the
unemployed, to bear the burden of expenditure restraint, while
at the same time, they enact other measures that allow the
wealthy to continue to escape paying their fair share of taxation
and contributing to deficit reduction''.
(1520)
Today our leader asked a question about family trusts. Why
did you not stop them? Why did you not do something so that
people who hold considerable fortunes in family trusts pay more
tax? Despite a negative answer, the bill that will be passed in a
few hours talks about cuts to unemployment insurance. Not just
anyone is saying that; it comes from the current chairman of the
human resources development committee, of which I am a
member.
What could have happened in a year to make this member,
who was then in opposition, do an about-face, turn around 180
degrees and agree to have his government pass a bill that will
again cut payments to the poorest people.
Now the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce made a
long speech on it. He said: ``When more than a million
Canadians are without work and struggling to feed their
children, pay the rent and meet their families' basic needs, the
government cuts their benefits from 60 to 57 per cent of their
insurable earnings for two years, saying that it hopes to restore
them to 60 per cent when the economy is better''. Listen to this:
``This measure is unacceptable and we will continue to fight it''.
He did not continue much longer. A year later, the same member
is on the government side; his government is proposing not only
to go back to the previous measure but to take off another 2 per
cent for 85 per cent of those unemployed people.
What has happened to this member in a year? Nevertheless,
the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce is very experienced and
is surely used to the idea that an opposition member may one day
quote what he said in Hansard. What has happened to make this
member remain silent today?
If it were only backbenchers! Now here is a question from the
present Minister of Human Resources Development. It is
vaguer, but we still see which way he was going then. He said:
``Yesterday, the Minister of Employment made what we could
call an outrageous speech to the Empire Club in Toronto. Once
again, he attacked the unemployed and unemployment
insurance. He said that Canada's social programs were like a net
to
4664
catch fish. It is not a very flattering comparison for the
thousands of Canadians who are without work''.
This minister was a Liberal opposition member last year and I
could quote many more who spoke out then against the
Conservative government's desire to amend the Unemployment
Insurance Act. It seemed to be the apple of his eye. What has
happened? What is going on? That was a year ago. As far as I
know, there was no indication in the red book that the
government would be cutting UI. On the contrary, I heard hon.
members and now government ministers repeat dozens of times
to anyone willing to listen that they certainly would not cut
social programs.
And what are they doing now? Even before completing his
consultation for a social program reform, as soon as the budget
is passed, the minister will cut $1.3 billion from the UI. What
happened to the minister during the year? He has some
experience, having served as minister of employment in a
previous Liberal government. He was familiar with the job. He
cannot be blamed for improvising a position just like that.
If it were only one minister, I would keep quiet, but I made a
brief search, and here is a question asked by the current Prime
Minister. At the time, he said the following: ``Mr. Speaker, I
would like to know if the Conservative Prime Minister thinks
that the approach used by the minister, which is to call all
opponents of the bill separatists, is unacceptable to the people in
Canada. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians throughout the
country feel that some measures in that bill'', referring to Bill
C-113, ``are totally unacceptable''.
(1525)
What happened a year later? The Prime Minister, who was
then in opposition, now leads a government which, far from
reversing the trend to cut UI, is reinforcing it. What happened?
One has to wonder.
I could quote other MPs, but people sometimes say: ``Ah,
these Bloc Quebecois members and their opinions''. So, instead
I will quote the opinion of journalists published in La Presse,
last April 15, in an article under the following headline:
``819,000 people will go on welfare and 44,000 will become
ineligible for UI benefits following amendments proposed in
Bill C-17''. The article referred to July 3. This is important,
because people are not always aware of that date. Some are,
because they were affected by measures which came into effect
on April 3, but those who will only be affected on July 3 have not
noticed the change, because that change is yet to come.
The article went on to say: ``According to the February 22
budget, as of July 3, people will need 12 weeks of insurable
employment, instead of ten, to be eligible for UI benefits. It is
estimated that 44,000 recipients will not be able to meet this
requirement in 1994-95''.
The article then dealt with another measure, this one in effect
since April 3. It stated: ``The duration of benefits is reduced
according to the regional unemployment rate. In some regions,
it will only be 35 weeks''. In the good old days, back in 1989,
that period could last up to 52 weeks. This is a major change.
The article continued: ``Together, these changes will result in
19,000 new welfare cases across Canada'', for a mere two extra
weeks of insurable employment. In total, as I said earlier,
819,000 people will have to go on welfare. What does that
mean?
It means that people will lose UI benefits sooner, but will still
be without a job. This will result in additional costs to provincial
governments. Even though the federal government finances half
of the costs of social assistance, it is leaving the bill to
provinces.
In the case of an amount of $1.3 billion, this transfer
represents a sum estimated at $735 million per year by
economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal. That is a
lot of money. Seven hundred and thirty five million dollars per
year. This means, of course, that the federal government is
amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to save money, but
more than half of those savings, 60 per cent to be precise, are
made by transferring this expenditure to the provinces. I wonder
how people would react if a person unable to pay off his debts
simply changed address and left his neighbour stuck with the
bills. Nobody would put up with that. Yet, when the provinces
complain about that situation, what does the federal government
tell them? It tells them that it is a whim of theirs.
(1530)
But $735 million is a significant amount of money. In the end,
there is only one taxpayer. The men and women who look into
this situation must find this total lack of foresight from the
government absolutely incredible.
If there were, at least, some jobs available, but unemployment
is high. With 1,000,622 jobless people in April, and 467,000
Quebecers out of work, what we need is jobs.
But what do these people get as an answer? That there are no
jobs available, because it is not true that the infrastructure
program will create enough jobs to put all of these people back
to work. In conclusion, I know we are an hour and a half away
from the passing of this bill, but I would once again ask
members of the previous Parliament to refer to their notes and
recall what was their former position about cuts to
unemployment insurance. I urge them to maintain their previous
position, to come back to their old policy and to let the
underprivileged benefit from the current situation until the
government has the guts to deal with the issue of family trusts.
4665
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member who just spoke mentioned the whole question of
the family trust, something which also came up in question
period today. It is the absence of anything dealing with that
particular issue in the bill that is relevant to the debate before us.
The member also spoke about advising people to stick by their
initial positions. The member should be aware that the leader of
his party, in spite of what he said earlier today, was a member of
a government that was responsible for greatly increasing the
unfairness of the tax system between the rich and the poor.
I remember Michael Wilson in his first budget saying that the
problem with the country was that we did not have enough rich
people. He set out to create more rich people and he succeeded.
One of the ways he succeeded was by being harder on the poor
and by reducing the number of middle class Canadians that
existed. He did so through the tax system after 1988, with the
compliance of the now Leader of the Opposition.
Also on the same issue-and I invite the member to respond to
this after I am finished-we saw the Liberal government of
today claiming a certain innocence with respect to it. I was here.
I remember that when I was attacking the extension of the
exemption for the family trust at second reading the Liberal
critic at that time, now the Minister of Health, got up and agreed
with the Minister of Finance that I was on the wrong track. It was
only after testimony in committee that the Liberals changed
their minds. On second reading they were very much with the
government on the particular issue.
I want to ask the member a question. Perhaps he would want to
reflect. It seems to me we have something that speaks volumes
about the priorities of this government and previous
governments. We have the lack of any action on the extended
exemption, thanks to the Conservatives, for the family trust and
at the same time an attack on the unemployed.
The unemployed, people without any income, are being told
that they will have to go longer and that they will have reduced
benefits: a massive bill in order to do that to them. At the same
time we have no action on the part of the government for people
who have income, in fact billions of dollars of income from
those assets, the deemed disposition on those assets and the
capital gains. They have been able to plead with the previous
government, and now it appears with this government, that it
would be hard on them, that it would be oh so hard on them.
We see from the release of letters that at one point there was
correspondence between the Minister of Finance and the
committee for family enterprise saying how difficult it would be
if they would finally have to pay the tax on all the millions of
dollars they have tied up in real estate and other assets that they
were expecting to pay for 21 years.
(1535)
Here we have, it seems to me, a perfect example of what is
wrong with our value system. We can say to the unemployed:
``You are unemployed. You do not have any income. Tough. We
are going to make it tougher on you''.
Yet at the same time and by the same governments, whether
they be Conservative or now Liberal, we say to the very rich in
the country that we understand it will be tough for them to have
to pay that deemed disposition and those taxes that they have
known since 1972 they were going to have to pay in 1993.
Perhaps the member would like to comment on that.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Dubé, I thank my colleague for his comments
because I think that is what they were. I agree with him, but I
want to make a correction. He cannot attribute to the Leader of
the Official Opposition actions in which he was not involved in
any way. Let us not forget that he resigned from the
Conservative government on May 22, 1990.
When we talk about C-113 and C-105, those bills came after
our leader's resignation. I can confirm, since I checked the date
myself, that the present Leader of the Opposition left the
Conservative Party on May 22, 1990.
As for the other comments regarding family trusts, the hon.
member gives me an opportunity to find the explanation that I
was looking for earlier as to what may have happened over the
last year for people to change their mind. We saw what happened
in the case of Pearson airport. We can feel the influence of
lobbyists or people who represent powerful financial interests,
including the rich families, and there are not that many of them
in Quebec nor in Canada. It is something worth looking into, but
I will not draw that conclusion myself, giving the government
the benefit of the doubt.
However, regarding the hon. member's comments about the
Leader of the Opposition and his involvement with Bill C-113
or C-105, the member cannot accuse him of having supported
these bills because, according to the information I have, he
voted against these measures and was no longer a member of the
Conservative government at the time.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
what the member for Lévis said on Bill C-17. I spoke on this
subject myself and I would like to ask the member for Lévis a
question.
My first question is-
4666
[English]
Mr. Blaikie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to
sound like an old timer but I was around when we wrote the rules
for the question and comment period.
The idea written into the recommendation and accepted by the
government was that the question and comment period was first
and foremost for members of parties other than the party of the
person who had just spoken. It was only in the absence of
members of other parties that members of the same party were to
be recognized on questions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): If I go back to the
conclusion of the intervention by the hon. member for Lévis, at
the beginning of question and comment period both the member
for Lotbinière and the member for Winnipeg Transcona rose at
the same time.
I gave the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona,
and following the reply of the member I gave the floor to the
hon. member for Lotbinière.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: Mr. Speaker, as I was getting ready to speak, I
listened carefully to what the member for Lévis said about Bill
C-17. I would like to ask him a question. Did he or his party do
something about Bill C-17 with the government? Did they try to
find a solution to this problem?
Let us make no secret about it, some people, Canadians and
Quebeckers, will be hurt by this law. Let us not forget that even
those who are working today do not know if they will be out of a
job tomorrow.
It is very important and I would like the member for Lévis to
tell us if the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development, on which he sits, offered a concrete solution to
this problem.
(1540)
My second question is: How will we announce these cuts to
Canadians? Will the member invite all Canadians and
Quebecers to rally against this law? What does he intend to do?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Lotbinière is acquiring some experience, as are all his
colleagues from both sides of the House. Considering the short
time that we have left, I hope that the hon. member for Lévis will
be able to answer both questions.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, what have we done and what do we
intend to do? Well, in the Committee on Human Resources
Development, of course, this project was not discussed as such,
but the administration of the unemployment insurance fund was.
We met the Minister of Human Resources Development and
asked him some questions. We also approached officials who are
implementing this system. I wish to tell those who are listening
to us that the bill was tabled by the finance minister, so it was
considered in the committee of finance. And the Official
Opposition invited witnesses from all parts of the country to
give their opinions and would have liked to hear other people,
because many wanted to be heard.
What can we do to stir up public opinion? I think that it is not
the role of a member of Parliament as such to do that. Anyway,
that will not be necessary, since on May 1st, on Workers' Day,
and the days that followed, you will recall that there were major
demonstrations throughout Canada, and particularly in Quebec.
And there are many people within organizations, action groups
on unemployment and community groups who are concerned
and asking for information. Our group of members of
Parliament, of course, is trying to provide all the information
available on that issue. Several members have taken the
initiative to get together once a month, in public meetings, with
their constituents. From the contacts that I had with my
colleagues, this issue is the most often raised.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in the House about
the government's commitment to an unemployment insurance
program that provides adequate and fair protection for
Canadians who have lost their jobs and are seeking work.
[Translation]
We are living in unusual times with many upheavals to our
economic and social systems. This is not a time when we can be
complacent. That is why this government is committed to
ensuring that our social security system is brought up-to-date
so that it can meet the needs of Canadians now and in the future.
The unemployment insurance program is an integral part of
this system. It will be a key element in our reform of the social
safety net and in the development of an economic policy that
will guide Canadians into the 21st century.
[English]
In introducing these changes to the unemployment insurance
program we have carefully weighed the needs of business, of the
unemployed and of working Canadians. We wanted a program
that would create and protect jobs but also one that would ensure
adequate resources for low income families with dependants.
Let me for a moment examine these changes. Payroll taxes
such as unemployment insurance premiums play an important
role in job creation and, conversely, in discouraging the creation
of new jobs. When businesses know that payroll taxes are going
up they cannot stabilize their costs. Naturally they have
concerns about future profitability. They may not be able to
create new jobs or even sustain the jobs that already exist.
4667
[Translation]
Our government wants to create a climate of stability that will
enable business to create and maintain jobs in this country.
Therefore, we intend to rollback the statutory rise in the
unemployment insurance premium rate and to finance the
shortfall in revenues through the amendments to the
unemployment insurance program being discussed in this
House.
(1545)
The large accumulated deficit in the UI account means that
the UI premiums should be rising to $3.30 next year. It is now
$3.07, and the economy cannot afford such a big hike in payroll
taxes.
[English]
Therefore we propose to reduce the premium rate to $3 an
hour for 1995 and 1996, and if possible in 1996 the rate could be
lower if the financial and economic state of the country and the
unemployment insurance program in particular permit such a
reduction.
Our second proposed change is to establish a stronger link
between work history and UI benefits while remaining
responsive to the needs of Canadians in different parts of the
country.
[Translation]
We know working people face many different problems and
challenges in different regions of the country. We want our
unemployment insurance program to remain sensitive to the
realities of seasonal work and the needs of people in areas of
high unemployment. Therefore, our new proposal continues to
include a formula that links extra benefits to the level of
unemployment in a claimant's region of the country.
[English]
We have had to make difficult trade-offs between creating
jobs on the one hand and maintaining benefit levels for
unemployed Canadians on the other.
We believe that this proposal with its regional unemployment
component is the fairest way possible to ensure that those people
who need benefits actually get them. We know that most UI
recipients go directly from UI to a job, and fully three-quarters
of the people who receive unemployment insurance do not make
full use of the maximum number of weeks of benefits to which
they might be entitled.
Canadians want to work and the government wants to make
sure that as far as possible they can.
[Translation]
The third change we propose to the unemployment insurance
program is to provide greater benefits to Canadians with modest
incomes who support children, an aged parent or other
dependants. This is not an unprecedented move.
During the first 30 years of the unemployment insurance
program's history, benefits were calculated based on family
status and economic circumstances.
[English]
Many households today are under financial stress even though
most families today have two wage earners. The reasons for this
are many: increased part time employment which often pays less
money than full time employment and provides fewer benefits; a
higher general level of unemployment; an increase in one parent
families; incomes have not grown in real terms since the
mid-70s; and slow growth in individual earnings.
These trends have been particularly difficult for Canadian
women and children. Women now represent 45 per cent of the
Canadian workforce but unfortunately most of these women are
working for low wages. On average a Canadian woman working
full time today earns approximately three-quarters of that of a
Canadian male. Many of these women are single parents bearing
the full responsibility for their children.
Our proposal is to provide greater unemployment insurance
assistance to those low income Canadians with dependants. This
will have an immediate impact on women and children of our
country who are most in need.
(1550)
Under the current rules people who claim unemployment
receive a benefit rate of 57 per cent no matter what their
circumstances. Under our proposed changes there would be a
two part benefit rate: 60 per cent for low income people with
dependants and 55 per cent for others. With fewer
unemployment insurance dollars to go around we believe it is
only equitable and fair to ensure that the dollars we have go to
those who have the greatest need.
The government estimates that this would improve benefits
for 15 per cent of unemployment insurance claimants or about a
quarter of a million Canadians and their families.
[Translation]
For these reasons-reducing premiums to create jobs,
ensuring responsiveness to regional needs, and protecting low
income earners-this Government proposes these changes to UI
and rejects the Hounourable members' motion.
4668
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, the
minister was right when he said that Canadians want to work.
This is quite true, and the same applies to Quebecers.
In Matapédia-Matane, the rural riding which I represent, my
constituents want to work, and there are no ifs or buts about it.
They are prepared to work for hours and do anything at all to put
bread and butter on the table for their children.
I have a question for the minister. But first, an example. In our
area farmers cannot start sowing because there is still snow in
some places, although it is quite warm here. In the forestry
industry, working 12 weeks instead of 10 is almost impossible in
some places. That means these people will go on welfare.
There is another point I would like to make. The BDCs which
help small businesses create jobs seldom invest in venture
capital. My question is this: Even if everybody wants to work,
and I must say I agree with the minister, would it be possible to
take a different approach in a rural riding like mine? Could we
not give more power to the BDCs so they could help people in
small businesses create jobs and provide work by investing
more venture capital?
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke
mentioned the need for a strategy that goes beyond
unemployment insurance to include other measures to promote
small and medium-sized businesses and bigger companies as
well. We must create jobs. This is very important, not only for
Canadians who are out of work but also for other Canadians who
are always in danger of becoming unemployed.
It is also very important for the economy in general to have a
lower unemployment rate and to get the unemployment rate
down as soon as possible.
I do not know at what level unemployment is acceptable, but it
certainly is not at the level we have now, which is about 11 per
cent. I hope that, in the years to come, we will manage to bring
unemployment down to less than 5 per cent. I hope we can, but
even that may not be enough. However, it is possible to reduce
the unemployment rate.
All I want to say right now in response to the hon. member's
question, and I thank him for his question, is that there is a
strategy with several components. Unemployment insurance
certainly cannot create jobs.
(1555)
This bill contains some major changes in general strategy in
order to get money from the government to support education,
training and other ways to help people find jobs.
In this debate we do not have all the other measures that are or
will be before the House, but I can assure you that job creation is
the cornerstone of the Liberal platform and the government's
policy. Every day, in speech after speech, the Prime Minister
keeps repeating that the government's objective continues to be
to create jobs in order to give Canadians the dignity of work so
that they can put bread and butter on the table for their families.
I can assure the hon. member that the sentiments reflected in
his speech will also be reflected in a number of other measures,
and meanwhile, the government is pursuing a major goal.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the
member's remarks and I have a very short question for him.
During the election campaign, seven months and a few days
ago, the Liberals told Canadians and Quebecers that they would
not touch social programs. Could he explain why, after seven
months and a few days, they have decided to cut those programs
when they probably could have cut elsewhere and not harm the
most vulnerable members of our society? I would like to know
what he has to say about that.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for a responsible
government and a responsible party to promise that there will be
no changes to economic and social programs, or in other areas.
In order to have a modern economy, you have to make
changes. During the election campaign, the Liberal Party never
said that it would not make changes to the social programs, the
unemployment insurance system or elsewhere. It never
campaigned on that.
In the red book, there are several indications that the
government was going to make changes. I can assure the hon.
member that, if he reads the Liberal Party's holy book, he will
see that the changes that are happening now had been planned
during the election campaign.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
spoke to Bill C-17 on April 14 during second reading and again
in the report stage. I am pleased to be given so many
opportunities to talk about the reforms to unemployment
insurance and our income security programs.
In my previous speeches I summarized the changes to the
unemployment insurance program. Of the six major changes
proposed by the government the Reform Party supports five.
We used these previous occasions to encourage the
government to go even further. I would like to use an illustration
as to how we feel at this time.
If I went out to buy a horse, looked at it and it looked fine, and
I began to examine it, I would start with the mouth. I would
check its teeth to see how old it is and I would walk around it and
check its feet. If I came to the back and I found a leg missing I
probably would not accept it. I would not want to buy that horse.
That is how we feel about a lot of these changes to the
unemployment insurance system. It looks good but there are
some flaws in it.
4669
I listened to the complaints about changes to the
unemployment insurance by the Official Opposition. Its
concerns show us just how off track the unemployment
insurance program is. It proves that unemployment insurance is
perceived as a way for social engineers to redistribute income. It
proves that unemployment insurance is no longer a true
insurance program but a glorified welfare program. The Reform
Party would like to change all that. The Reform Party wants to
return unemployment insurance to a true insurance program, not
a welfare program. We want to get this standing on all four feet,
sound and well supported.
(1600)
Reformers take great pride in getting the principles right
before us, starting right at the beginning in reforming the
program. The government has launched a two year process to
reform our social programs and not once has the minister
described the principles on which the government's reforms are
based. We find this appalling that no principles have been put
forth which this program would stand on. Canadians deserve
better.
I challenge the minister and the Official Opposition to ask
their constituents some hard questions about the future of our
social programs and the future of our unemployment insurance
program. I did not describe unemployment insurance as a social
program because it is not, it is an insurance program.
If we are going to truly reform the system, then we have to
start with two fundamental principles, two fundamental
questions. First, why is the government in the unemployment
insurance business? Second, why is unemployment insurance
compulsory?
Reformers do not think that the government is qualified to
answer these questions, but know that the Canadian taxpayer
and the workers and the employers who pay the bills are.
Reformers have been asking Canadians what they think for years
now and we believe it is time the government started asking the
same people what should be done.
If the government has the courage to ask ordinary Canadians
what they think, it will be surprised by the answers. Here are
some of the questions, and I want to spend most of my time
outlining the questions that the government should be asking.
First, would taxpayers like to have social programs designed
so that they eliminate all duplication between the federal
government and other levels of government? Would they like
programs designed that way?
Many Canadians see unemployment insurance and welfare as
basically providing similar support for the same people. They
see little reason for two large bureaucracies, one federal, one
provincial, doing essentially the same thing.
It is time to make clear distinctions between income
supplements and income insurance and to clarify exactly which
level of government is responsible for delivering those services.
I also believe that the level of government that is closest to the
people is most often in the best position to effectively
administer these types of programs.
Second, would taxpayers like to have social programs
structured to lessen the dependency on the system and
encourage clients to become economically productive? This is
the question the government should be asking.
Third, would taxpayers agree that our social programs should
be designed in such a way as to encourage administrators to
achieve the stated goals of the program, for example lower
unemployment?
Fourth, would taxpayers like to have social programs that are
financially sustainable? In particular, should the unemployment
insurance program be self-financing? I wonder what the answer
would be if we asked taxpayers those questions.
Fifth, if the government is going to initiate large scale reforms
to our income security system and unemployment insurance
programs, should the government hold a national referendum to
ask for the approval of the majority of Canadians? If we make all
these changes, should they not be given some say in the final
outcome?
Six, would taxpayers prefer to have the UI program operate
like a true insurance program, meaning that workers who make
repeated claims on the system and employers who repeatedly lay
off workers would have to pay higher premiums for the higher
risk that they represent?
(1605 )
Seven, would taxpayers like to make our income security and
unemployment insurance programs truly accountable? Would
Canadians like to receive annual statements indicating how
much they paid into each program and how much they received
in benefits?
Eight, do taxpayers think that income security programs
should be targeted to those who need them most?
Nine, would taxpayers prefer to have income security
programs and the unemployment insurance program treat all
Canadians equally regardless of the area in the country in which
they reside? Should they be treated equal no matter where they
are? While reformers believe that Canadians have a right to live
anywhere they want in this great country we also believe that no
one has a right to become a permanent ward of the state.
The next question is would taxpayers agree that the goal of the
unemployment insurance program be to minimize and if
possible eliminate all abuse to the system? I am sure that people
would agree.
4670
Eleven, do taxpayers think that the unemployment insurance
program should be administered by the workers and the
employers who pay the premiums? Further, let us ask if workers
had a choice would they ask the government to administer the UI
program for them? Would they hand over the reins? I think not.
Twelve, do taxpayers, workers and employers think that the
unemployment insurance program should be completely
voluntary, or should it be compulsory as it is now? That would
be a very interesting question to ask.
Thirteen, would workers rather have a choice about where
they invest their UI premiums? Would workers get a better
return on their investment than the UI program offers them?
Reformers asked the government how many jobs would be
created if workers were investing their UI premiums for
themselves rather than sending the $8.3 billion to the
government to redistribute. If they had that money to invest I
wonder if there would not be more jobs created in this country
than at present.
Fourteen, would unions not be able to provide unemployment
insurance for their members if the workers they represent chose
to contribute their premiums to the union rather than send them
to the government? Would that not be a very interesting question
to put to the workers and see what their answer would be?
Fifteen, would employers like to have the choice about where
they would invest the $11.7 billion in UI premiums? Would they
like to have some choice as to where to put that money?
Employers pay more UI premiums than their workers. This is
a cost of labour for the employer and is really money coming out
of the pockets of the workers. How many jobs would be created
if employers were allowed to invest that $11.7 billion that is
spent on UI premiums if they could invest them back in their
company? What if they could put that money into training
programs, into research, into development, into export and
market development, capital improvements and expansion? The
changes would be phenomenal if they had a choice as to what to
do with that money.
On February 23 the Minister of Human Resources
Development said in this House that reducing UI premiums will
create 40,000 new jobs in this country. The Canadian Labour
Congress in a brief to the standing committee on human
resources development stated if seven cents off UI premiums
resulted in 40,000 jobs created then reducing premiums $2.80
would create 1.6 million jobs, and we would have arrived at full
employment.
(1610 )
That is what I call a real job creation program. What would
employment be in this country? It would be zero if we created
1.6 million jobs. To be fair, the CLC is sceptical that if we
reduced premiums that far it would create that many jobs.
Reformers are not that sceptical.
Reformers believe that $1 left in the hands of workers or
employers for them to invest is worth $5 in the hands of
government, a ratio of one to five. Reformers have a much
different vision about income security and income insurance
programs. Reformers believe in asking Canadians what they
think. Reformers believe in giving Canadians a choice.
Reformers believe that changes as big as the ones proposed by
the Minister of Human Resources Development should be
ratified by the people in a binding national referendum.
These are huge decisions that we are making. That department
alone administers $69 billion. The people know better than the
government what needs to be done, and we ought to give them
that choice.
For years now the polls show us that in many cases our
government is doing the exact opposite to what the majority of
Canadians want, whether it is on capital punishment, going easy
on criminals, failing to cut government spending or on the
unemployment insurance program. It is time to not only listen to
the people but to act on what grassroots Canadians are telling us.
Reformers trust the people to make the right choices for this
country. Reformers believe that democracy is not something
that we practice once every four or five years in the voting
booth. Reformers believe that democracy is something that has
to be worked at and each and every day we serve our constituents
as members of Parliament.
I have told the constituents of Yorkton-Melville that I am
their voice in the House. I sincerely hope that each and every
member has the courage to ask the tough questions and to
represent their constituents' wishes in the House as Reformers
do every day.
Let us get our UI program on a solid foundation. We would not
buy a horse with three legs. We would make sure that horse is
solid and firm. That is what we have to do. We have to get
principles in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, I listened
earlier to the speech made by my colleague and there is one thing
that I would like to add first, namely that the way they are going
now, if they cut where they would like to, he would not even be
able to afford an artificial leg for his three-legged horse.
But the tenth point he made was about eliminating all abuses
to the UI system and I would like to comment on that. You know,
we all agree that people should not be abusing this program.
However, I would like him to tell me first what percentage of
claimants abuse the system and second, since unemployment
insurance is financed by the men and women of Canada, of
Quebec, are we going to penalize all the members of a family
with ten children, let us say, when only one is guilty? I have a
logical answer to that and I would like him to clarify the tenth
point he made, when he said that we must put an end to all
abuses of the system. Does it mean that it is necessary to
penalize all the people of Canada and Quebec?
4671
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the comments but I cannot agree with the analysis
here. If one had a horse missing one leg of course one would not
buy a wooden leg or prosthesis for it. That is not going to fix it
but that is what this government is trying to do. It is tinkering
with the system.
It is making little changes here and there. It is like putting a
wooden leg on a horse. It is not going to win any races and that is
the same with the programs that it is trying to tinker with, trying
to change. It is just like putting a wooden leg on a horse. We
cannot do it that way. We have to establish some sound
principles. We have to decide what is important. Is this an
insurance program or is it a welfare program? That is the basis
on which we should put our UI program.
(1615)
I do not believe in penalizing people and hurting them. We
have a welfare system in place. It has a certain job to do. Let us
make sure it is doing the job and let us make sure the UI
insurance program is doing its job.
I quoted the numbers. I do not see how anyone can argue with
them. Employees contribute over $8 billion to this program.
Employers contribute over $11 billion. Just think what we could
do with that money if we left it in their hands and let them
administer these things. We would not have the problems we
have now. However, when government gets involved it takes
$5 to do what someone in the private sector would only take $1
to do. That is the key thing we have to remember in all this. We
can argue all these fine little details but we need to make some
wholesale changes.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, let me start by
addressing the comments made by the previous speaker from the
Reform Party.
Part of his comments were that municipal governments, local
governments are closest to the people and they are best able to
make choices in how we might run the country. The inference
was to let them have more say in how federal government
moneys are spent and let us try to do more to co-ordinate.
I have absolutely no problem with having that take place. I
think co-ordination of effort by all parts of government is
something that would be very cost effective and it would serve
the people and all local governments very well, as well as the
provinces.
Let me draw a little more on my municipal experience. I spent
eight years with the regional municipality of Waterloo and the
city of Waterloo. Somehow there was a better focus on debate.
There was a better focus on trying to do what was best for the
citizens of the community in a lot less partisan fashion that
happens in this House.
Being in the House today and listening to some of the debate
on Bill C-17, as well as having been through question period,
the amount of sanctimony coming from the opposition as well as
the non-official parties is bothersome.
I heard references that go back to the 1972 Liberal
government. I am part of the class of 1993. In 1972 I was not
involved in partisan politics. I know what happened in 1972 but
some of the programs that government came out with in 1972 are
really not applicable today.
Let me read something for members. I am going to quote very
briefly from a presentation made to the Conference Board of
Canada by the chief administrative officer of the city of
Waterloo, Mr. Bob Byron, with whom I had the pleasure of
working. I found him to be a new breed of civil servant, a new
breed of manager. I can say that Gerry Thompson, who was the
chief administrative officer at the region of Waterloo, is also of
the same mould.
He talks about governments and how municipal governments
are experiencing severe reductions in sources of revenue. He
states: ``To compensate Waterloo has significantly reduced its
workforce and actively pursued lesser cost activities. However,
these are short term measures and further effort is required to
achieve long term permanent savings.
(1620)
Traditionally local government has looked first at its
expenditure requirements and then at where the revenue would
come from to support the expenditures.
What needs to be done is to look at what revenues are
available and then decide how expenditures can be controlled to
fit the resources available.
I believe that simply raising taxes is counterproductive and
serves only to create additional hardships on businesses and
individuals faced with prospects of little or no growth in their
revenue potential. Reduction in service or service level which
tends to alienate the taxpayer is not a solution. The solution lies
in productivity gain and lowering of costs''.
Certainly from the municipal perspective in Ontario that is a
very good and prudent approach.
One thing that the municipal government does not have to do
in our system in the Waterloo region is to offset the cost of high
unemployment. The municipal government in our jurisdiction
does not pay for social assistance. The regional government
does. It has a different approach. Because regional governments
have to pay 20 per cent of the welfare costs, when their budgets
4672
get tight they cut back on expenditures on hard services such as
sewage, roads and what have you.
I mention this because at those two levels of government you
have different mandates. The regional government has no
option. It has to provide 20 per cent of the welfare costs. The
municipal government does not have to do it so it can plan much
better within the terms of its fiscal realities.
Debates at the local level tend to bring together the collective
wisdom from different frames of reference in an non-partisan
fashion on to the issue. We really try to accomplish what we
believe is the best for the ratepayers of our municipalities.
I do not find the same level of co-operation in the House. It
seems to me that the job of the governing party, of which I am a
member, is to put forward programs and the job of the
opposition is to oppose it. Whether it is consistent in its
opposition really does not matter very much.
I can talk about some parts of the debate where arguments
came from every different angle. We have had the Bloc say that
the government should not be looking at social programs, it
should not be looking at health care programs, let us keep the
status quo because somehow it has served us well.
The Bloc even went further and said that we did not talk about
the reform of social programs or the reform of the health care
system prior to the election. We did. We talked about reforming
health care and there were very good reasons for it. The reasons
are the way our health care expenditures have been going. We
cannot just keep throwing money at a very necessary service but
one that needs to undergo fundamental reform.
If you can practise preventive health care you are going to
save billions and billions of dollars in terms of providing the
level of service to the Canadian public that they have come to
expect.
Another nice thing about it is that by doing preventive health
care we also have the opportunity of having a healthier public.
One of the problems we have had in the health care system is that
it has been sort of a crisis care, when you get sick you go to the
doctor. If you look at the mortality rate over the last 100 years,
the reality is that it was not the medical profession that cut it
back so drastically. It was the civil engineer who was able to
provide safe, wholesome water. It has been our ability to handle
waste that has made the greatest impact on health care, as well as
the medical officers of health. They have been the ones who
have been working on health care in the preventive sense.
(1625)
Now we are looking to see if something better can be done to
make better use of the dollars we have. I think that is very
important. We know social services have become very
expensive and that is the reason we are having the social
services review.
One thing I would stress when we examine the whole issue of
social services is that the Canadian public wants a safety net to
catch people at a time when they might be totally disabled and
we expect to support them for the long term. Certainly if they
become unemployed they want us to support them in a new
emerging economy where training, retraining and education
become very strong components and pillars of our whole
economic system.
The expectations are in the long term that no longer can
people work for one company for 25, 30, 35, 40 or 50 years. The
chances are they are going to be moving on to a number of
different jobs. As firms get smaller they are getting smarter.
They are better at responding to economic conditions. Those are
going to be the major employers and the creators of new jobs.
The budget recognizes this and deals with it when it says that
85 per cent of the new jobs are going to be created by small and
medium sized businesses.
When I talk about small and medium sized businesses I speak
for the federal riding of Waterloo which is really one of the
leaders in the new economy that has emerged. It is exciting but it
also takes a lot of work trying to keep up with the changes that
are taking place and watching the new emerging technologies.
Sunday evening I spoke with a gentleman from Elmira from
Brubacher Technologies whose family for generations has been
involved in shoe repair and building shoes. Now his company is
going to be getting into the high tech production of orthopaedic
shoes. Why is it exciting? It is exciting because at the present
time it might take his company 40 to 60 hours to make one shoe
and now because of high tech he is going to be able to do it in 40
to 60 minutes. His business is a world leader in this area.
Many other companies are leaders in the high tech field. We
recently had a software firm which sold for $100 million. It was
developed by a number of university professors and it had a
number of university students involved with it. That is not a bad
sum of money when you think about it. However, the sad part is
that the new owners are American.
The challenge for us is to somehow create a climate where
those businesses which are on the verge of becoming big
businesses will stay in this country.
I mentioned that I found the debate to be not very consistent
on different levels. When I was looking through my Quorum
today, as I am sure everybody else has, I came up with a story
from the Vancouver Sun authored by Barbara Yaffe. She asks:
``Do we need more MPs? Let's look at the cost''. I know that the
Reform Party is very strong in its opposition to us looking at the
whole question of the boundaries.
4673
(1630 )
I would like to step back a little bit to my municipal mode. It is
interesting that about two weeks ago I was at the electoral
boundaries commission meeting. Of course, I am the Liberal
member of Parliament and my former colleague, Mayor Brian
Turnbull, who is a staunch Conservative supporter, was there to
support me in my quest. We do not want the wholesale
rearrangement of boundaries in the region.
The other interesting thing is that the NDP candidate in the
last election, Scott Piatkowsky, was also there making the same
pitch. A motion from Waterloo city council was also moved
speaking to the point that we do not like how the redistribution
was proposed and we wanted to keep the boundaries intact. That
motion was moved by the former Reform candidate who is now
on the Waterloo city council. Following my presentation, my
colleague from Kitchener made a similar presentation. The
former member for Cambridge from the Conservative Party also
came forward to make a presentation.
The reason I recount this is because it amazed me. I have been
on the Hill for a time and we have partisan politics. Somehow we
are not able to capture that sense of community where party
lines are crossed to preserve the integrity of communities. That
is essentially what we did when we were in Hamilton talking
about the redistribution.
It would be very useful if we could bring that kind of spirit to
the debates in this House. We probably would strengthen the
country. Of course there is no question that the Bloc Quebecois
is not interested in strengthening Canada, certainly not with
Quebec in it. That is what they campaigned on and we all
acknowledge it.
What is bothersome though is at a time when there is fiscal
instability around the world and a lot of our economic
performance depends on the confidence of the fiscal markets, it
is unfortunate that debate is being ignited even more so by the
leader of the Reform Party. I thought it was just the bailiwick of
the Bloc Quebecois but I see the Reform Party is picking it up.
That is too bad because at the beginning of this session in
January the leader of the Reform Party would stand up and say
he did not want the Prime Minister to break his promise not to
discuss the Constitution, that he wanted us to get on with other
business. It is unfortunate he has forgotten those statements.
I raise that because another area where the Reform Party has
been less than helpful is with the fiscal markets. It is forever
trying to say the road we are headed on is going to bankrupt this
country. It has only been six months since the election. During
that time we put our plan forward to the electorate. That plan
was the famous red book. When I was at the committee on
human rights and the disabled today, I was glad to see one of the
Reform Party members quoting from it, which is good.
However we came through with a plan and we are essentially
keeping our promise of doing what we said we were going to do
if we got elected. I do not believe that Reform Party members
would truly expect us to go counter to what we said we were
going to do.
Let me touch on another point before closing. There is no
question in my mind that government, certainly at the federal
and provincial levels, has to get a lot more efficient. I have
raised an issue, as most of my colleagues know, on waste and
move management by the government. I think we can improve
that. I look forward to improving that and I look to the minister
of defence to realize some savings in that area. I am sure all
members could act in that fashion collectively. Let us see to
what extent we can eliminate waste.
(1635)
This government has recognized the fiscal realities we are in.
We said we are going to bring down the deficit to 3 per cent of
the GDP within three years. We recognize the deficit problem
cannot be solved by cutting out programs, the safety net and the
UI benefits which are put in place to assist the people most hurt
by the downturn in the economy.
We recognize that job creation has to be part of the solution.
There is no question in the mind of my government that the best
social program we can have is to make sure there is the
economic climate so that all those people who want to work are
able to work and contribute to society.
I call upon members of the opposition to support that aim.
Ultimately we are talking about developing the Canadian
people. We are talking about developing the country and we are
talking about keeping our country united.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great
interest to the hon. member's speech. I appreciate his sentiments
with respect to working together as opposed to engaging in the
rhetoric of partisan politics. However, I was very disappointed
by his comments with respect to our being in opposition and
therefore always opposing. I do not know how he did not hear
what we have been saying today. The elements of Bill C-17 that
we support were clearly enunciated. We basically support most
of it.
The freezing of salaries makes a lot of sense. The government
proposes it and we agree with it. We are on the same wavelength.
We agree on the capping of the transfer of money through the
Canada assistance plan. On the reduction in transportation
subsidies though it affects us most vigorously in the west, we
agree. In these times of fiscal restraint, those things need to be
done.
4674
I challenge this concept of the previous speaker when he says
we always oppose because we are in opposition. No, we are here
to debate the issues. I am very deeply committed to not reduce
myself to name calling. Let us stay on the issues and if we agree,
then let us say we agree.
On reducing the UIC rates, I really could not agree with the
member more. As was previously stated today, if that reduction
of seven cents is so significant in creating jobs, perhaps we
ought to look at it further.
At the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology where I
worked before, 750 instructors together with the employer
portion contribute an amount of money which would give about
60 people jobs, each at $35,000 a year. That is from 750
instructors at NAIT.
Clearly that money left in the hands of the individual would be
very useful in creating real ongoing jobs. Someone could then
afford to have their leaking roof fixed instead of just paying
their taxes and UIC premiums and getting nothing for it. The
individual would have a job instead of the benefit of UIC.
I appreciate very much those members in the Bloc who are
saying that we are threatening the very poorest among us, but
that is very narrow thinking. That is saying that all we can do to
help poor people is to give them a handout in the form of UIC or
welfare. The most significant thing we can do for them is, as the
hon. member just said in his speech, to provide an economic
climate in which there is prosperity. That is done by reducing
government spending and allowing the marketplace to be
strong.
I appreciate the member's speech. He has said a lot of good
things, but I would encourage him to listen more carefully
before he jumps to the conclusion that we are always opposing.
We are not.
(1640 )
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to that. I will expect
Reform Party members to support us whenever we say we are
going to have a reduction but the feeling I always get from them
is that we have not cut enough. There is not that sense that we
have a balance in how much we have cut. I listened to the hon.
member and the only thing missing was his saying that if we
were to cut more his party would have supported it more. I am
calling on that recognition to find a balance.
In the debate on the infrastructure program Reform Party
members opposed it in general, as a party and as individuals. I
can only point out that is part of the balanced approach and
investing in the infrastructure of this country will give us the
opportunity to have growth. That is a role for government in the
expenditure of public funds. Private enterprise is not in the
business of building public facilities such as roads, sewage
treatment plants, and what have you.
I remind Reform members to be a little more balanced in
terms of the cuts and to recognize that cuts alone without control
are not going to solve our economic woes. We have to have a
much more constrained level of spending. We have to be much
more fiscally prudent. At the same time we also have
investments to make which we as a government believe we have
to do.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, I
direct my question to the hon. member for Waterloo.
In relation to the opposition, his statement was that
government proposes programs and the opposition opposes
programs. As my colleague has pointed out, our role in
opposition is not to carte blanche oppose programs. It is to
identify possible weaknesses or omissions and to offer
constructive criticism and possible alternative solutions.
The final decision still rests with the party in power. Its role is
to make those decisions possibly based on other considerations.
Our possible options may appear as not being constructive but
on the other hand the decision is there for the government to
make.
I am extremely pleased the member is as aware of Reform
policy as he is of his red book. He reminded me of a lot of
Reform policy today in his speech.
The hon. member made reference to the fact that 85 per cent of
jobs are provided by small business and he also made reference
to high tech coming into small business. I would like to hear his
comments in relation to high tech possibly eliminating a number
of jobs in small businesses and it is the small businesses that are
being hit by taxes and low wages, et cetera.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a
historical role to official opposition parties and third parties and
other oppositions that are not official.
What I saw when I walked into this House today is something
we see every day. Canadians come from across this country.
They take pictures and have great respect for this institution of
ours. It amazes me that if I were to listen to the debate in this
House long enough I would get the impression we were a third
world country and we were going to be bankrupt next week and
the whole country was going to fall to pieces. We know that is
not the case. I was looking forward to a kinder and gentler
House. We started off talking about that but somehow the
rhetoric since the start of this 35th Parliament has not followed
that up.
Certainly on the second point the member says she is glad I
am aware of Reform policies. The point that needs to be made is
that most members of the House are new. The class of '93 has a
different perspective from that of previous Parliaments.
4675
(1645)
I dare say the thinking of most parliamentarians who returned
and have been here for a number of years-some have been here
for a number of decades-has changed in terms of current
realities. I like to think of myself as a small r reformer. I have
been one ever since I have been involved in municipal politics
and in community activity preceding that. I will continue to be a
reformer a long time after I am gone from this place. In terms of
high tech hurting small business, I guess in the new, changing
economy we as a country have to make sure we are playing a
major role.
I refer to my experience in the federal riding of Waterloo. It is
the home of the University of Waterloo, an excellent technical
university. It also has a good arts program. Sir Wilfrid Laurier
University is down the street and is very strong in business. In
our community we are very much players in the new economy.
We are seeing the creation of thousands and thousands of jobs. I
can only say that it is working for us. We have the lowest
unemployment figures in Canada at 7.1 per cent. Of course
many of our firms are exporting. It is amazing how many of our
export firms are bringing hundreds of millions of dollars into the
Canadian economy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. 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 Mercier-Fisheries; the hon.
member for Yukon-Employment.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad you allow me this new opportunity to talk about Bill
C-17.
Ever since the finance committee formed a sub-committee to
study Bill C-17, a measure implementing the largest reform of
the unemployment insurance program ever undertaken by a
federal government and freezing the salary of public servants,
among other things, I have closely followed this matter, as a
member of the committee and as an opposition member
provided with limited means. I have tried to do a little more than
my Liberal friends, I have tried to make democracy speak.
You know that, despite the fact that this bill is the largest
reform ever done of social programs in general and
unemployment insurance in particular, the Liberal government
had planned on only two days of hearings, including one with
senior officials who were to explain to sub-committee members
the provisions and technical interpretations of Bill C-17.
Without the intervention of the Bloc Quebecois which
demanded that we make a more thorough study of such a
fundamental piece of legislation for social programs and for the
future of many communities in Quebec and Canada, we would
not have had, like we did, the equivalent of a week and a half to
hear witnesses.
I can understand why, this morning, when the secretary to the
minister of industry, trade and commerce rose to speak on Bill
C-17, he did not dare speak about it, because he was ashamed of
that bill. Selling Bill C-17 is an impossible task.
(1650)
That is why he naively spoke about his recent trip to China.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that they are proposing a
$5.5 billion cut in the UI system over the next three years. It is
all about the despair of the many individuals who must endure
the evils of unemployment, the plague of unemployment, in
Quebec and in Canada, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry would rather tell us about his trip to China.
I was outraged when I heard him. I controlled myself, since
control is still the best attitude, but I want to say now to my
Liberal colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Industry, that the way he is dealing with this bill is
outrageous.
You were here this morning, Mr. Speaker, so you heard as well
this same member, and others around him from the Liberal Party
of Canada, shouting down duly elected members of the Bloc
quebecois and tarnishing their reputation. Not only according to
Quebecers who elected us, but also to Canadians in general, on
basic issues such as the future of social programs, the economic
policy, the disgraceful benefits enjoyed by the richest
Canadians-family trusts-the Bloc Quebecois is the real
Official Opposition.
Without us, many more objectionable measures like the ones
implemented since the February 23 budget and measures that are
unpopular and harmful to ordinary citizens, to taxpayers, would
have been adopted by the government since it took power.
When a bill or government measure is indefensible, it is
normal that members opposite resort rapidly to insults since it is
the only weapon they have to sell a plan that is rotten from the
start as far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, did this
morning, I would like to point out that close to 60 per cent of the
planned cuts in unemployment insurance for 1995-96 will hit
two regions: first, the Atlantic, and second, Quebec. It is 60 per
cent even though these two regions have only one third of
Canada's population.
Indeed, in 1995-96, the Atlantic provinces, with only 8.5 per
cent of the population, will lose $630 million, bearing 26 per
cent of the cuts for that year. The same thing will happen in
Quebec, where the federal government will cut $735 million in
unemployment insurance benefits, or 33 per cent of the total for
4676
that year, when the province has only 24 per cent of the Canadian
population.
From the beginning, there was an East-West split in the
decision to dip into the UI fund. In 1990, in Quebec, we had the
report titled Deux Québec dans un. Some of my colleagues
remember very well that that report identified two Quebecs: one
that was participating in and benefitings from economic
development, and the other, rural Quebec, that was excluded.
The measure proposed by the federal government also
identifies two regions where unemployment and
underemployment are most widespread. There is more
widespread unemployment and underemployment in these
regions than any measure contained in the red book can ever
solve, despite the fact that those people have shouted
themselves hoarse, some to the point of losing their voices,
waving the red book and claiming that jobs were the priority of
the Liberal governement. In spite of all this, no concrete,
meaningful, structural measures have been put into place in
order to create sustainable employment. Instead, the
government chose to take it out on two regions which do not
deserve that, precisely because they are regions where
underemployment and poverty are the most striking.
(1655)
The measure to increase from 10 to 12 the number of weeks of
insurable employment required to be eligible for unemployment
benefits, which are themselves reduced in terms of percentage
and of the number of weeks covered, has plunged several rural
communities into utter confusion. These communities have
already suffered, in the case of the Maritime Provinces, from the
reduction of the fishing activity, from the reduction of the
farming activity because of low prices and of the international
crisis and from the reduction of forestry activity, all of which are
seasonal.
The measure to increase from 10 to 12 the number of weeks of
insurable employment required to be eligible for unemployment
benefits directly affects the Maritime Provinces and part of
Quebec, in particular the Lower St. Lawrence and the
Matapédia-Matane areas and, in general, the Gaspé Peninsula.
In these regions, where the activities are concentrated in one
industry or are seasonal, many already had difficulty gathering
the 10 weeks of insurable employment previously required.
I was flabbergasted when I realized that 60 per cent of
unemployment insurance cutbacks would be made in the
Maritimes and Quebec, particularly because the Maritimes were
really hit in a horrible way. I was shocked when I thought that
the current Prime Minister was once the member for Beauséjour
and that, while he knew about the social and economic realities
of that riding, he had accepted, as leader of the government, that
such disastrous measures for rural communities be put in place.
I was even more flabbergasted when I heard the Prime
Minister allude recently to the people of Beauséjour and said
that the unemployed were beer drinkers. I understood then that
our Prime Minister, when treating the unemployed this way, the
most disadvantaged people of our society, when saying things
like that, was not a head of state because a head of state has to
show respect for the people who elected him and allowed him to
be the member for that riding for four years and to come back
into politics. I found that to be really shocking, coming from a
Prime Minister.
Besides, what we heard from the Prime Minister and what I
saw in the committee which examined Bill C-17 are very much
similar to systematic cynicism. I also had to live for two weeks
with sarcastic remarks from my Liberal colleagues. I am still
calling them my colleagues even though I am deeply
disappointed with the attitude of the Liberal members on the
finance sub-committee.
We had witnesses, mainly from remote areas in Quebec, such
as the Lower St. Lawrence, the riding of my colleague from
Matapédia-Matane, and also from Gaspé. People came before
the finance sub-committee from Newfoundland and Labrador
where, at times, unemployment reaches 85 per cent. These
people do not know where to turn to. They had pinned their
hopes on this new government which talked about creating jobs,
as well as restructuring and diversifying regional economies.
They believed in the government. So, now that it has hit them
with those measures, they do not know where to turn to
anymore.
We had people from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and
from both Acadian and anglophone communities in New
Brunswick.
(1700)
I will quote from a short newspaper article to illustrate the
cynicism and the sarcasm shown by the Prime Minister who
attended these sub-committee hearings. This article was
entitled ``New Brunswickers appearing before a sub-committee
on unemployment insurance reform are kicked out after barely
an hour''. They kicked out people who came all the way from
New Brunswick, even before their allotted time had expired.
If you allow me, I will quote Mrs. Mathilda Blanchard, who
has been a union activist for the past 40 years. She said: ``I have
never been treated that way in my 40 years as a trade unionist''.
And you can read further that: ``After coming to Ottawa, all the
way from New Brunswick, to discuss the impact of
unemployment insurance reform on her area, she and another
group were cut short after only 30 minutes. The two other groups
from New Brunswick that came after her were treated the same
way''.
In conclusion, the parliamentary committee which was
reviewing Bill C-17 and certain budget provisions summoned to
4677
Ottawa four Acadian groups but gave them only a total of 60
minutes to explain the consequences of the reform, when they
were entitled to twice that time.
However, a number of business representatives, friends of the
party who benefit from what we call tax loopholes and tax
conventions, did voice their support for the government's
measures. These individuals also receive preferential treatment
from this government and contribute to the Liberal Party's
coffers. This one group alone was allowed to testify for
47 minutes, whereas normally they would have been entitled to
30 minutes. However, because they were voicing their support
for such hateful measures as cuts to unemployment insurance
and because they spoke the same language as the government,
viewing the jobless as lazy, they were allotted 50 per cent more
time than they would normally have had.
I am flabbergasted to see that, in politics, there are people
who behave this way toward Quebecers and Canadians, and
dismiss offhand the lives of others, people who have no sense of
fair play, the fair play which the members opposite claim to
have, the same members who profess to be great Canadian
democrats who listen to all Canadians. When we see things like
this happen, we have some very serious doubts about the honesty
of these individuals.
I would also point out that when the witnesses from the
Maritimes testified, no Reform members were on hand because,
despite what they say about being great Canadians from coast to
coast, each time an issue arises which affects that part of the
country east of Manitoba where they have no representation,
then they become a little less Canadian. I find this rather sad.
Thursday evening, on the last day of hearings, there was one
Bloc member on hand and no Liberal members, except for the
chairman, and no Reform members. Perhaps they prefer to go
out and dine in a good restaurant on Thursdays. In any case, the
scheduled witnesses were from Newfoundland. When they
showed up, they were astounded and scandalized. That evening,
we were quite pleased when we were told that there was only one
party in the House of Commons willing to defend
Newfoundlanders and Maritimers, and that party was the Bloc
Quebecois. How very cynical of this government. The other
party is also blatantly guilty of not taking matters seriously.
(1705)
In view of all this, of the cynicism displayed by this
government in spite of its positive bias for employment, in view
also of the proposed cuts to the UI program and the way the
people who are the hardest hit by unemployment are being
treated, I cannot help but compare their treatment to the
coddling treatment of Canada's wealthiest families.
This morning and again this afternoon, family trusts were
discussed. We were reminded that, year after year, the
government deliberately forfeits between $350 million and $1
billion in revenue, owing to a policy put in place by Pierre
Elliott Trudeau in 1972 and commonly known as family trusts. I
cannot help but contrast the preferential treatment given to the
wealthiest families in Canada against these cuts to the
unemployment insurance program and their destabilizing effect
on rural communities in Quebec and the Maritimes.
I cannot help either, since the two bills were debated one after
the other, but think about the tax treaties in Bill S-2 and how
major Canadian corporations have managed to dodge taxation
and pocket hundreds of millions of dollars every year. I cannot
help but notice that this government will cut $5 billion in social
programs, and in the unemployment insurance program in
particular, over the next three years, and in that it treats ordinary
citizens the way I just described.
I would have liked to speak longer, but you are signalling that
I have only one minute remaining. I will say this. I urge the
government to reconsider its position on Bill C-17, in particular
regarding the proposed cuts to unemployment insurance,
because these measures will completely destabilize several
communities in the Maritimes and in Quebec.
I would also request, with respect to another measure
contained in this bill, namely wage freeze, to return to a better
frame of mind. Twice in the matter of four years action had to be
taken by the International Labour Office to remind the Canadian
government it is required to abide by international conventions
concerning free collective bargaining. When in opposition, the
Liberals denounced the freezes imposed by the Conservative
government, but they are now following their lead.
I am calling for a return to a better frame of mind because the
government cannot go on like this, treating the people of Quebec
and Canada with the kind of arrogance, sarcasm, cynicism and
brutality they have demonstrated over the past few months. I
hope for a return to a better frame of mind.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Speaker, I too serve on
the Standing Committee on Finance and I am very disappointed
in listening to the previous member's comments. It seems to me
that he has a different version of the facts than I have. I was there
and heard some of the comments and some of the explanations
given.
With respect to the people he had invited who were kicked out
and went to the media after, it was quite clear that some of the
parties did not have an invitation or arrived unexpectedly and
were allowed to present their cases. Both of them agreed that
they would present their cases within a half an hour. The
chairman of the standing committee gave permission for that
4678
and co-operated so that both parties could be heard, and this is
the appreciation they get. The grandstanding and the criticism
in the press came after that.
I was present, I heard the explanation to that and that is a
different set of facts. I am just saying what I saw and what I
heard differs from what the hon. member just said.
His decision to put on a flair that he is the person now
representing all of Canada because he has such an interest and
such a caring heart for the unemployed is adverse to reality.
Everybody cares about the unemployed, but we also have a
concern about the deficit and the debt. We also have a concern
about how to approach it.
For a member who quite clearly wants to separate from the
rest of Canada to state and argue and present a case that we are
not for Canada borders on double talk or contradiction of terms.
He is talking about a member of the Reform Party being
present or not being present at these committees. I was not the
individual named to the subcommittee that examined Bill C-17.
I am sure there were problems getting people together. I am sure
it was hard to co-ordinate it all because there are only 100 things
that you have to do within an hour around this place.
(1710)
If he truly were interested in representing his point of view,
representing his argument, I suggest that he would go a lot
further in accomplishing those goals if he pointed out the
problems of Bill C-17 as we have, pointed out the constructive
alternatives to Bill C-17 as we have, and then let the House
decide which way to vote instead of going around and basically
distorting the way events actually occurred.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I will start with the hon. member's
last remark because it makes me a little angry. He said that,
instead of criticizing as I do, I should point out the problems of
Bill C-17 and propose solutions. Mr. Speaker, we just went
through second reading of Bill C-17 and Reform members were
too lazy to do anything other than delete clauses. They also
voted against their own amendments and they are now telling
Bloc members who put forward constructive amendments
meeting the concerns of Quebecers and Canadians to make
constructive suggestions. So why did they make all these
deletions?
In any case, even colleagues with more experience than me
had never seen anyone propose such amendments and vote
against their own amendments. If they call this being
constructive, we also call it wasting our time. If they think the
way they acted during the second reading debate is constructive,
we have a problem. We, on the other hand, proposed real
amendments. We also did some serious work in committee.
In answer to the second point raised by the hon. member when
he said that Reform members were present the night the New
Brunswickers were thrown out, I would ask him to refer to an
article published in the May 11, 1994 issue of Le Droit, where
the journalist noticed the same thing I did in the finance
committee, namely that no Reform member was present. It is
there in black and white. There is a problem somewhere.
In the third point he made, he said that Bloc members felt deep
compassion for the people of the Maritimes. Indeed, even
sovereigntists can be humanistic and feel compassion for
suffering people but we do not feel as compassionate toward
those who make them suffer.
Do not forget that the sovereignty plan is open to the world
and that we have been reaching out for 25 years to our friends in
Canada, the United States and the world to build a better society,
a society where measures such as the UI proposal that break the
backs of those who do not deserve such treatment will be
opposed by sovereigntists. We will fight against that our whole
lives because the sovereignty plan is strongly humanistic. You
tarnished that term and our plan. Because people like Pierre
Elliott Trudeau fought against this plan for 25 years, we must
work very hard to restore the true foundations of this plan, which
is open to the world, compassionate and humanistic.
Mr. Speaker, that takes care of the three questions raised by
the hon. members.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's): Mr. Speaker, I guess we
can conclude that the member opposite is not happy with the
bill.
I was chair of the subcommittee on C-17 and I want to
congratulate all members of the subcommittee from all political
parties in this House for their work and the time they spent
hearing innumerable witnesses, almost some 60 witnesses
representing hundreds of thousands of employed and
unemployed Canadians. Members of the subcommittee spent
many hours listening to Canadians and their views both for and
against the changes contained in Bill C-17.
The fact remains that the changes proposed will preserve the
viability of this system. The changes proposed will build
flexibility. The changes proposed make sense at this time for
people on the system.
(1715)
While the member opposite may wrap himself in all the
indignation in the world, the fact is that he did not like the bill
from the beginning. He was not prepared to hear anybody who
was in favour of it. I will not get into discussions in the House
about what took place in committee. I will not discuss that out of
committee except to say that people on all sides of the issue were
given a full and fair hearing.
4679
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 3, 1994, it is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and to put all questions necessary to
dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
[English]
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 48)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Anawak
Anderson
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellemare
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-137
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
White (Fraser Valley West)
Williams-91
4680
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Bergeron
Copps
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Jacob
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Marchi
Marleau
Paré
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Stewart (Northumberland)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.47 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4680
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should withdraw the
measure to reduce the age credit that it introduced in its most recent budget, and
retain the Old Age Security Program and the Canada Pension Plan in their
present forms.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion M-289 which I am presenting in
this House today brings out the expectations of seniors
throughout the country. Groups of seniors from Vanier, Les
Saules, Limoilou, Neufchâtel, Ancienne-Lorette and Duberger
in my riding told me about their concerns for the future and I
fully share these concerns in light of recent events.
The present Liberal government displays a serious lack of
social equity and economic justice. Instead of reducing its
shameless waste and administrative duplication or even
requiring the 90,000 corporations that do not pay tax to
contribute their fair share, the government is attacking the poor,
the middle class, the disadvantaged, the unemployed and the
elderly.
On the pretext of reducing its deficit, the Liberal government
is attacking defenceless groups in society which are already in a
precarious financial situation, because these Liberals are a
heartless government.
In the last budget, we saw how $5.5 billion was taken from the
unemployed in unemployment insurance programs. We just
voted on this measure in this House.
As for seniors, the first thing the government did in this same
budget was to reduce the age credit. I say the first thing the
government did because other equally harmful measures were
introduced and are still to come from the Liberal government.
The age credit reduced federal income tax by about $610 a year
for all taxable seniors. The amendment reduces this credit by
15 per cent for all seniors whose taxable income exceeds
$25,921 and it is totally eliminated for incomes over $49,100.
Thus the Liberal government intends to save $490 million by
1997 on the backs of seniors. Across the country, 800,000
seniors will be affected by this measure. Does the Liberal
government consider that an elderly person with an annual
income of $25,000 is a rich taxpayer? Does it consider that with
such an amount, which is barely above the poverty level, that
person must still give money to the government, after having
paid taxes throughout his life and working hard to be able to
enjoy a modest income in his retirement years?
The federal government did not stop there as regards cuts
made at the expense of seniors. Its latest idea is to set up a
centralized answering machine system using voice boxes to
answer queries from seniors. This dehumanization of services to
the elderly is simply pitiful!
The idea is simple. Offices serving seniors in Val d'Or,
Chicoutimi, Gatineau, Rimouski, Sherbrooke, Drummondville,
Trois-Rivières and Sept-Îles will be closed. The number of
agents in Quebec City will be considerably reduced, since at
least 123 of the current 347 positions across the province will be
abolished.
In fact, the number of jobs eliminated could reach 50 per cent
of the current strength and all these positions will be replaced by
a single telephone exchange in Montreal, a recorded
questionnaire for touch-tone telephones for seniors across the
province.
(1755)
From now on, the elderly will talk to a pre-recorded voice.
They will talk to a machine to get the information they need. To
make things worse, if the lines are overloaded at the Montreal
exchange, the calls will be transferred to another province. Is
this not a perfect example of how the government holds our
elderly in contempt? We can easily imagine the numerous
problems which they will encounter with this new system.
Indeed, problems related to hearing, eyesight and dexterity are
common occurrences in that age group. Talking to a machine
will create unavoidable difficulties for seniors. How will they be
able to ask that machine to explain something they do not
understand? How will they be able to explain particular
circumstances? How can the machine understand all the
subtleties of a case and know in which category to find the
information required by the person?
Such recordings are already being used in several locations
and they never provide the information required. I myself have a
lot of problems with the touch-tone system requiring you to
press one for English, two for French, three for general informa-
4681
tion, and four for specific information. The question we want to
ask never falls in the proposed categories.
This is not to mention the fact that many elderly do not even
have a touch-tone telephone. These people, and those who will
not have managed to get an answer, will be able to talk to an
agent. But how long will they have to wait? The staff of people
manning the phones has been cut by nearly 50 per cent. And do
you think the government bothered to consult senior citizens,
the group concerned here, or their associations or federations?
Certainly not! They did not consult seniors to find out whether
the system met their needs.
Liberal members will tell us that the system will provide
faster and more efficient service. We know that the new system
will get on a lot of people's nerves. Using speed and efficiency
as an excuse, the Liberal government will manage to cut down
on the amount of money paid to seniors, since many seniors will
give up trying to claim what they are entitled to, because it is so
hard to get the information they need.
Misinformation of its senior clients as a result of a
dehumanized system will help the Liberals save money at the
expense of seniors, who did not file the requisite applications or
were unable to use this so-called speedy and effective system
correctly. Effective for whom?
Many pensioners will forgo their right to the guaranteed
income supplement, for instance, because of lack of a
information. The Liberal government prefers to dehumanize the
system and not inform to its senior clients, so that seniors
themselves will give up on the service. I think this is sufficient
proof that the Liberal government is ruthless. Instead of
attacking seniors, instead of reducing their tax credit or
changing the way they receive services, the government should
pull up its socks and cut where cuts are really necessary.
Family trusts, for instance. We talked about these in the
House today during Question Period, to show how the Liberals
caved in to pressure by lobbyists who wanted to maintain family
trusts. These family trusts make it possible for rich families to
put billions of dollars in a tax shelter. We know these trusts
contain at least $100 billion, and we know who benefits.
(1800)
Is cutting money for seniors and the unemployed and
maintaining family trusts the kind of equity the Liberals had in
mind? A tax of only 20 per cent on the $100 billion in family
trusts would mean $20 billion, and that kind of measure is
worthwhile, to reduce the deficit.
Abolishing the many tax shelters and loopholes in corporate
tax would also give the government a chance to show it is
serious about attacking the deficit. Meanwhile, cutting fat in the
public service and getting rid of duplication would raise several
more billion.
We should also get rid of historic institutions that are
symbolic and have become too costly for a country like Canada,
such as the Senate, on which the government wastes $500
million annually, and the Governor General, the
Lieutenant-Governors and the Queen. We also have 90,000
Canadian corporations that do not pay a cent of income tax, and
hundreds of millionaires who paid less than $100 in taxes last
year. They should also contribute towards putting Canada's
finances back on track, instead of leaving this to our seniors and
unemployed.
There are many other measures I could suggest, if I had more
time. To paraphrase the Bible: The government giveth and the
government taketh away. It takes money from us all and gives
only to a chosen few.
Before we make cuts in the Old Age Security Program or the
Canada Pension Plan, we have to remember that the government
made some moral commitments when it created these two
programs. The OAS Program was built with the sweat of our
senior citizens. In 1952, when this program was introduced, a
majority of 81 per cent of MPs decided that this program would
be universal, that is to say that it would be paid to everyone
reaching the age of eligibility, regardless of their income.
When it started, 41 years ago, the OAS Program was being
financed by a special tax called Old Age Security Tax. The
government collected this tax with the personal income tax, the
corporate income tax and the sales tax. The revenues were
transferred to a special account, the Old Age Security Fund.
In 1972, as part of a fiscal reform, the Old Age Security Tax
was integrated with the general tax. In 1975, the Old Age
Security Fund was transferred to the Consolidated Revenue
Fund. Since then, we have all forgotten that people had paid all
their lives into this program, hoping to receive payments in their
older years. They planned their retirement with that money in
mind and, despite the heartless people across the floor, private
pension plans negotiated with employers took this into
consideration. The rate of taxation for this program which was 2
per cent in 1952 had risen to 4 per cent in 1972 and, according to
established taxation policies, higher income earners have paid
proportionally more into the plan.
This is why the decision taken in 1989 to tax-back the OAS
payments of senior citizens having an income over $50,000
outraged those who had contributed to the program, in good
faith, for almost 40 years.
(1805)
Taxpayers who have been paying and are still paying specific
and visible taxes in preparation for their retirement feel that
they are entitled to get them back. Old age pension is not a
privilege nor a handout, it is the repayment of a debt society
owes them.
People over 65 are far from being a privileged and rich group.
Forty per cent of them are eligible to receive the guaranteed
income supplement which keeps them at the poverty level. For
72 per cent of female seniors and 50 per cent of male seniors,
4682
old age pension benefits and the guaranteed income supplement
become an essential source of income.
I will say for the benefit of members opposite that, in 1991,
47 per cent of women over 65 and 18 per cent of men in that
same age group had an income of less than $10,000. Since the
poverty line is set at $17,000, one must conclude that nearly half
the female seniors in this beautiful country live below the
poverty line. Only 5 per cent of senior citizens make over
$50,000 a year.
It is time to dispel the myth that senior citizens are rich and
have a grandiose and opulent lifestyle. Only a very happy few
can afford it. For the vast majority of seniors, old age pension
and the guaranteed income supplement are the only source of
income they have.
Thanks to such support measures, the quality of life and the
situation of senior citizens have been greatly improved, even
though they are far from perfect. Year after year, senior citizens
are making up an increasingly larger portion of the population.
It is estimated that the elderly population will increase by 40 per
cent in the next 15 years. The government would be better off
focusing on the health and welfare of our seniors, instead of
shunting them aside, as this Liberal government seems to want
to do.
Such a move would prove costly to society. By cutting
assistance to seniors, the government will only ensure that
hospitals fill up faster and that health care costs increase. The
government must respect senior citizens and recognize their
contributions to our society.
Instead of seeing them as an ideal scapegoat for its deficit
reduction aims, the Liberal government should view them as an
untouchable group.
Forty years ago, the government signed a social contract,
agreeing to redistribute the moneys collected from contributors
once they reached 65 years of age. Now this Liberal government
is trying to get out of this contract by channelling the funds
elsewhere, all because it has mismanaged its own affairs.
Seniors worked hard all their lives, secure in the knowledge
that part of their income was being set aside for their golden
years. Senior citizens are the pioneers who built our country,
who made sacrifices and who suffered to give us what we now
enjoy today.
Quebec owes its system of caisses populaires, one of the best
in the world, to its seniors who were there from the very
beginning and who believed and participated in this venture. We
owe a great deal to these courageous people who were also
visionaries. Our seniors were the ones who raised the children
who now, as adults, are running our businesses. They are the
ones who fought the battles, and won the victories on which we
can build today for the future.
(1810)
Canada owes a lot to seniors for their efforts. The least the
Liberal government should do is respect them and maintain the
benefits they have earned.
That is why I tabled so far in this House petitions signed by
almost 3,000 seniors from the Quebec City region who strongly
deplore the recent measures taken by the Liberal government. I
ask, as stated in Motion No. 289 that I presented today, that the
government withdraw the measure to reduce the age credit that it
introduced in its most recent budget, and retain the Old Age
Security Program and the Canada Pension Plan in their present
forms.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity on behalf of the government to clarify the measure
proposed in our February budget regarding the old age credit.
This is an issue deserves better than partisan politics, sacred
cow logic and misinformation because the challenge of an aging
population is very real for every region of this country.
The hon. member's motion states quite bluntly that we plan to
reduce this credit and he implies that the old age security
program and Canada pension plan are being altered. Let us deal
with the facts.
To start, the budget contained no changes to old age security
and the CPP. Here the member's motion is no more than
unfortunate fearmongering. Next, simply put, budget action on
the age credit means there is no reduction for three-quarters of
seniors, about three million people with incomes under $25,921.
[Translation]
I want to be very clear on this. This budget measure will have
no effect on the majority of low-income seniors. However, some
seniors will indeed be affected by this measure.
I would like to remind the House of what the finance minister
announced in his last budget. The current age credit provides
special tax relief for all Canadians subject to tax 65 years of age
and older, regardless of their income. This includes 200,000
seniors with personal incomes over $50,000. I am talking about
personal and not family income.
If we want to preserve a social safety net that protects those
who really need it while reducing the deficit and debt burden
that translates into ever increasing taxes for all Canadians, we
cannot continue to subsidize the wealthiest in our society.
That is why the budget provides for a gradual reduction of the
age credit for taxpayers with net personal incomes over $25,921.
4683
[English]
As a result the credit which reduces federal taxes for a senior
by just over $600 a year will be reduced for some 800,000 people
with incomes over the set mark. Of this group the credit will be
eliminated for some 200,000 seniors, 5 per cent of the total with
yearly incomes over $50,000.
It is true that the budget announced a policy paper will be
released this year that will examine the challenges and
opportunities posed by our aging society. The government
indicated that this paper among other things would examine
what changes are required to the national pension system to
make it financially sustainable.
I find it ironic and insulting to all Canadians, especially
seniors, that here we have a member dedicated to the dissolution
of our country with all the chaos and cost that would entail and
that same member has sanctimoniously advanced a motion
demanding the preservation of key elements of that country's
social safety net. Obviously some status quos are more equal
than others.
I cannot prejudge what will be in the government's policy
paper on an aging society but it is absurd to demand today that
something so important as old age security be retained ever
more unchanged when the pressures of an aging society are
themselves changing at a rapid clip.
Let me remind the member of some more of those basic facts
that no Canadian dare overlook. Because people are on average
living longer and having fewer children, our population is aging.
The proportion of people over age 65 will almost double over the
next 40 years from 12 per cent today to 23 per cent in the year
2030. This will have real fiscal consequences. It is estimated
that this evolution will demand that the contribution rate under
CPP be pushed up from 5.2 per cent of eligible income to 13 per
cent by the year 2030. That is almost a triple increase in the
burden on employers and working age Canadians, a prospective
increase that will compound a tax burden most people already
feel is excessive.
(1815)
Given this outlook I again see this motion as being absurd in
trying to bind the government's hands by demanding that we
retain the existing system that would prevent any action to
improve and preserve the old age security system and the
Canada pension plan.
That is not surprising. I doubt if the hon. member wants to see
anything that would improve things for all Canadians, including
seniors who have spent their lives, building a country that the
United Nations has again identified as the best place to live in
the world.
I passionately believe that one of the most sacred
responsibilities any nation has, any government has, is to the
senior citizens who have built and shaped that nation. Those
facing economic hardship have a priority call on the best support
that we can afford. However this respect and responsibility
means that we must do what is needed to ensure that we can
deliver this support consistently and securely in the years ahead.
Those years will be years when the number of seniors grow
dramatically.
The only way to resolve these dual demands for appropriate
assistance today and to ensure that government can provide
assistance tomorrow, this government-the government of a
united Canada-has to ensure that our fiscal house is put in
order. The budget did that by wide ranging action to set the
deficit on a path down to just 3 per cent of GDP. Beyond that we
are committed to balancing the books in the medium term.
Income testing of the old age credit is one part of that fiscal
action. It reflects the fact that our $500 billion public debt is a
national problem and that the solution demands actions that will
touch on many Canadians in all regions. Again let me remind the
House that for every dollar of fiscal improvement on the tax
side, our budget took five dollars out of action on the spending
side. Our actions, like those affecting some seniors, were
carefully balanced to ensure we do everything possible to
protect those in real need.
In conclusion, I see this motion as nothing more than an
attempt to play cheap politics with Canada's senior citizens. It
misrepresents government action and it fearmongers, and that is
a shame. It supports a status quo without recognizing the shifts
that are taking place in society. For all these reasons it merits our
dismissal.
Canadians, senior citizens as well as those not yet facing the
exigencies of retirement age, are willing to pay certain prices to
ensure that this country remains the best place on earth to live.
With this government at the helm it will.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, that
last speech was so emotional it almost brought tears to my eyes.
In particular, hearing the government is going to get its fiscal
house in order I think the tears were at the humour.
During the last election the Liberal candidates said those bad
Reformers are going to make two classes of seniors by
determining what their income is and then provide benefits
based on that determination. Means testing they called it.
Here we are after the election looking at the Liberal
government providing a means test for seniors by developing a
formula for determining an individual's age tax credit. I wonder
when Canadians will hear the truth from the traditional parties
during an election. During an election on the one hand they say
one thing; on the other hand after the election they do what they
want to do. Such is the case once again.
4684
Reformers at least were up front with the senior citizens
indicating that we would preserve the benefits of
non-contributory social programs, like old age security, for
Canadians whose household income is below the average
Canadian family income of $54,000 a year. We also committed
to reduce and eliminate old age security benefits for households
above the Canadian average income of $54,000 a year.
(1820)
Crazy, said the Liberals. Foul, said the Liberals. Unfair, said
the Liberals. Here we are on the last day of May 1994 and the
Liberals propose the following. For the 1995 and subsequent
taxation years, they are going to reduce the individual's age tax
credit by 15 per cent of the amount, if any, by which the
individual's income for the year exceeds $25,921. That is a
means test.
For the 1994 taxation year by the lesser of $1,741 or 7.5 per
cent of the amount, if any, by which the individual's income for
the year exceeds $25,921. That is a means test.
The only word I can think of that applies to those who say one
thing and do another is hypocrisy, and it does sound familiar.
That being said, this reduction or change is somewhat
progressive and administered in a similar fashion to other tax
credits such as the child tax benefit. The measure will not affect
75 per cent of seniors who have incomes below the $25,921
threshold. Seniors with incomes between $25,000 and $49,000
will lose a portion of their credit and those with incomes above
$49,134 will lose it completely.
Means testing is very much in line with Reform principles.
These types of measures should be supported because they are a
step toward better fiscal management. The idea behind this
measure is similar to our clawback recommendations for seniors
collecting old age security while having incomes above the
average national family income.
The tax credit is mostly used by seniors who have substantial
savings in RRIFs, RRSPs and other investments that yield
dividends. There is no reason other than political to provide
further preferential treatment via tax credits. Rather than simply
using personal income as the base for reducing the tax credit, the
government should implement family income as the measure,
especially since this tax credit is transferable to a spouse.
Further, many low income seniors live within a high income
household. It is time that the federal government started
distributing benefits based on need.
That reminds me of what happened in the House today as we
disclosed in question period that this government is providing
old age security and the supplement, Canada pension and GST
refunds to people while they are in prison.
If you want to look at means testing, if you want to look at why
we distribute benefits to people, I question very much a
government that would provide to killers, to people who have
raped our women, old age security in addition to their housing,
their food, their recreation, their training, and yet expect seniors
of our country to live only on old age security. Maybe the
government should have a look at their own policies again and
distribute benefits based on need.
Currently $1.7 billion goes to seniors via old age security who
have personal incomes over $50,000. If we considered
household income this number would be $2.6 billion a year.
Seniors in this income range also receive $3.5 billion in Canada
pension by household. Clearly the tax credit can be reduced.
Most people would agree that seniors with high incomes
should not be getting these payments when they could be better
used to help the truly in need or used toward debt reduction or
tax relief.
The ``old'' old age security and Canada pension exemplifies
the problem that is inherent in our political system today.
Resources are not distributed on the basis of merit or need but on
political preference. How unfortunate for Canada.
In summation, we agree with the means test, not the one
proposed, but we are getting there. Therefore we are not in
favour of this motion.
(1825 )
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion
presented by the hon. member for Québec-Est in which, among
other things, it demands that the old age security program and
the Canada pension plan be maintained in their present forms.
To begin, let me assure the House that the government has
absolutely no intention of reducing old age security pensions for
current seniors. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Human Resources Development have stated this clearly on
numerous occasions.
As well it is important to remember that the February budget
included annual increases in old age security expenditures. The
total expenditures for 1993-94 were in the order of
$19.9 billion. In 1995-96 these will grow to approximately
$21.4 billion.
I should add that the government understands very well the
importance of these programs to Canada's seniors, especially
given the fact that in 1991 approximately 40 per cent of the
income of seniors was made up of old age security and
Canada-Quebec pension plan benefits. To suggest that the
government might somehow sacrifice the standard of living of
seniors by massive cuts strikes me as extremely irresponsible.
4685
At the same time society does change and so do the needs
which our social programs must address. One trend likely to
impact on social programs is our aging population.
Over the next 40 years the proportion of people in our country
over the age of 65 will double as well as the proportion of those
age 65 and over will increase even more quickly, doubling by the
year 2011. By 2031 the number of people over 65 compared with
the number of working age Canadians will fall from one in five
to one in three.
Clearly these realities must be addressed. To this end the
government is studying these issues and will shortly release a
paper on the challenges and opportunities posed by our aging
society.
This paper will address the full range of issues relating to our
aging population and will examine what must be done by
governments, employers, working age individuals and families
to plan for their future. It will examine the changing roles and
needs of our seniors as Canadians live longer and healthier lives.
It will look at services and labour market issues and whether
changes are required to the public pension system to ensure it
remains sustainable. It will also examine the current tax
treatment of private savings for retirement.
We all know that planning for an aging society cannot be done
overnight. We simply cannot engage in short term thinking to
such long term issues. With this in mind the government has
committed itself to examining these long term trends so as to
ensure that future generations of Canadians will have the same
level of security currently enjoyed by our seniors.
To do this it will be necessary to define a set of efficient and
compassionate programs to meet our future needs. The release
of the discussion paper in the coming months will be the first
step.
Of course, any future programs must continue to be fiscally
responsible and fully sustainable. These are fundamental issues
and to ensure success the government will need the active and
informed participation of all Canadians as it seeks to arrive at a
consensus on the direction that policies and programs should
take.
(1830)
For instance, older Canadians have declared that they want to
be involved in developing solutions. Their voices must be heard
as must those of other concerned Canadians. As we move
forward with this review, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we
have a great deal to be proud of. Our current programs are rooted
in a great tradition which is the basis of the caring society
Canada has become today.
Today seniors are financially more secure than those of any
previous generation. With the planned development of Canada's
income security system over the past few decades there has been
a substantial decrease in the incidence of poverty among older
Canadians. For example, between 1980 and 1992 the incidence
of low income among seniors fell from one-third to less than
21 per cent. While single elderly women continue to have a
much higher incidence of low income, 53 per cent in 1992, this
figure was down significantly from 70 per cent in 1980.
The situation is by no means perfect. Overall seniors incomes
are still modest. In a recent survey on aging and independence
more than 60 per cent of those between ages of 65 and 69 years
named government pensions as their main source of personal
income. Still all Canadians can be proud of the network of
government programs that have helped to improve the standard
of living of seniors in Canada. For instance, the basic OAS
pension together with the guaranteed income supplement and
spousal allowance ensure financial security, especially for the
poorest Canadians as they approach and enter retirement.
The Canada pension plan together with its sister program, the
Quebec pension plan, is the social insurance program to which
working Canadians contribute. It provides not only retirement
income but a measure of income protection against disability
and death. The Canada-wide portable coverage these programs
give is a great example of what federal and provincial
governments can achieve by working together.
Together these programs have made a significant contribution
to the economic security of Canada's seniors. Although there is
an increasing number of people living well beyond age 65 years,
fewer are living in poverty. Proof of the success of this network
of programs becomes clear every month as millions of people
receive their pension benefits from the government reliably and
on time.
In Canada in the late 20th century we can be proud of the
initiative and the planning which almost 30 years ago laid the
groundwork for the satisfying life of retirement which more and
more Canadians are enjoying.
This is not to say that our retirement income system does not
need examination, review and revision. In the past we have
regularly examined our income security programs, reviewed
them in light of changes in our society, and revised them to
respond to those changes. We must be prepared to consider
changes as they become necessary. We must maintain a sound
system based on the foundations of the past and responsive to
the needs of the future.
I conclude by urging all members of the House to be active
participants in this process of examining our current system,
deciding what we as a society want and putting in place a
strategy for tomorrow.
4686
(1835 )
By working together we will ensure that a great tradition, our
heritage and our commitment as a caring society, will continue
into the 21st century.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague from Québec-Est has put before this House a
motion which reflects the opinion held by seniors in my riding,
in Quebec and in Canada. By reducing the age credit, the federal
government is attacking the most vulnerable members of our
society, because the majority of seniors have very modest
incomes.
As spokesperson for seniors associations and organizations, I
fully support my colleague's motion against the reduction of the
age credit. The budget proposal is to reduce the age credit for
individuals with net incomes exceeding $25,921. The age credit
will be reduced at a rate of 15 per cent of an individual's net
income exceeding $25,921. Senior with incomes over $49,134
will no longer receive any age credit.
According to the Department of Finance, this measure will
affect 800,000 seniors out of 2.6 million. This group includes
600,000 seniors with incomes between $25,921 and $49,134,
and 200,000 seniors with incomes over $49,134. Are we to
understand from this measure that the government considers
seniors with incomes of $25,000 as rich? Whatever little efforts
are made to reduce government spending are made on the backs
of the disadvantaged.
The federal and provincial governments have a mandate to
provide services to protect and promote the well-being of all
Canadians. The governments must also work together with
consumers and representatives from the non-profit sector, the
industry and the business community to develop policies and
programs. They must project a positive and realistic image of
seniors.
The Income Security Programs Branch is responsible for the
administration of old age security, the Canada Pension Plan and
the child tax benefit. The branch employees are presently
working in regional data processing control stations to approve
requisitions for payment and keep the files of seniors and
families who receive children benefits up to date.
In Le Droit of Ottawa-Hull for Thursday, February 24, 1994,
the Association de défense des droits des retraités expressed
outrage about the federal budget, which abolished the personal
income tax exemption for seniors earning between $25,000 and
$49,000 a year. Yvette Brunet, president of that association
which defends pensioners' rights, said that it was odious and
scandalous. Coming after election promises of tax fairness, the
budget shows that this government does not really want change.
The wealthiest people are still spared by the tax department.
Remember the tax shelters. Furthermore, the government is also
trying hard to reduce services for seniors.
On May 10, I asked the minister responsible for seniors a
question about the plan to install voice mail to answer inquiries
from seniors. The minister simply told us about the speed of the
proposed service. I explained that many seniors are reluctant to
use such a service and they have expressed this opinion clearly
through the representative of the Federation of Senior Citizens.
(1840)
On May 11, 1994, I was at it again. I asked the following
question in the House:
-Why does the federal government insist on attacking senior citizens,
considering that most of them find it very difficult to deal with a system that is so
impersonal?
The answer from the Minister of Human Resources
Development was disarming and unacceptable. He said that this
program would be more efficient and more personalized and
give seniors better service.
A centralized telephone answering system using voice mail to
answer all seniors' inquiries about government programs will
have a huge impact on the quality of services provided to
seniors.
EDS Limited, which never consulted the public, was hired by
the government at a cost of $220 million to make this change.
EDS Limited intends to reduce services to clients who want to
speak directly to an officer. Seniors will have to deal with an
answering machine. The required listening and communication
skills will no longer be available.
The few representatives working in the region will become
inaccessible and permanent offices will disappear. Employees
working for income security programs receive calls from
seniors asking them to phone, on their behalf, the Régie de
l'assurance-maladie du Québec, which uses a touch-tone
recorded questionnaire. These people complain that they do not
get the information they need.
EDS Limited itself admits that this service will reduce direct
communications with agents. Because of this, seniors must
increasingly rely on themselves and no one else. These people
have good reasons to worry and even to rebel against unfair
treatment. They want to be considered like full-fledged citizens
and they want to be respected in every way, including from a tax
point of view.
Seniors have gained a lifelong experience. They have helped
build this country. They have the right to be informed in a human
way to be able to support themselves. They rely on their savings,
investments, private pensions, public fund transfers, and
sometimes even on the generosity of their relatives. They are
confronted with the rise in the cost of living. Making access to
4687
information more difficult and reducing financial help to
seniors will not improve their quality of life.
The government must ensure that the information on services
and programs for seniors is easily accessible.
A quick reminder: the previous government had targeted the
Canada Pension Plan, but the Prime Minister of the time, Brian
Mulroney, had to revise his position. The Ottawa lady who
became an instant celebrity in 1985 with her famous ``Good bye
Charlie Brown'', when the first Mulroney budget was tabled, is
proof that seniors are not going to be fooled and that they will
not be scapegoats as regards the national debt, while the
government is wasting public money.
Take family trusts for example. What is the government
waiting for to tax these trusts which only benefit rich families?
Why target the poor who have worked hard all their lives? The
government must promote and facilitate independence among
seniors by providing them the support they deserve through
income security and services geared to their specific needs.
Seniors have contributed throughout their lives to a universal
plan.
(1845)
Obviously, they expect all Canadians reaching the required
age to receive those benefits, whatever their income may be.
Right now, 72 per cent of all retired women and 50 per cent of
retired men are receiving OAS benefits or some income
supplement. Only 5 per cent of older Canadians have an income
over $50,000. Life expectancy is increasing. These additional
years must be fulfilling and enjoyable for our elderly.
To efficiently maintain the quality of life for our elderly, we
must provide them with the tools they need to get all the
appropriate information. Finally, I would like to reiterate a
request I made during a speech in the House of Commons, on
February 3, 1994, and which boils down to this: ``Why is there
no secretary of state or department responsible for issues
relating to seniors, like the one we had under the previous
government, since this issue is so vitally important?''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The period provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped
from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4687
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is
deemed to have been moved.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, on May 3,
1994, I put the following question to the Minister of Human
Resources Development, which was preceded by the following
comment: ``Yesterday, this minister clearly indicated to this
House that the Atlantic fishery workers unions had been
consulted about the individual contracts that workers must sign,
thus committing themselves to undergo training or do
community work in order to receive their benefits. We checked
and the unions were never consulted on this''.
My question to the minister was: ``How can the minister
reconcile the statement he made yesterday in the House with the
confirmation that was given to me afterwards by the head of the
fishery workers union, who said he had never been consulted on
the issue of the individual contracts?'' I later met the president
of the fishery workers union who again confirmed that he had
never been consulted about this matter.
My question was: How can the minister reconcile his answer
with my information? I expected an answer that would at least
address the question, but that is like trying to reconcile the
irreconcilable. What I got was a model of political rhetoric, not
from the Minister of Human Resources Development but from
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I therefore want to take this opportunity to draw the attention
of the House to the lack of openness of the government and the
ministers. Some explanations are in order about the issue of
obliging workers who participate in the pilot project to sign a
contract in exchange for the benefits promised by the minister,
something people find disturbing.
If this pilot project leads to further projects, people certainly
had the right to know whether there was any consultation. The
answer was no. This government will have to learn to be more
open, because otherwise, how can it proceed with its reform of
social programs?
(1850)
I have a very good reason for raising this issue again this
evening. There are communities all over Canada where workers,
like the fisheries workers, have lost all hope, except that their
numbers are not as high as in the fisheries industry.
So how can we help those workers? Can we help them only by
making this help compulsory, when in many cases they are older
than average? There is a very large number-24,000-between
the ages of 25 and 49, but many, in fact more than 6,000, are at
least 50 years old. Now workers who are between the ages of
35 and 49 need to know what they will get in the end, because we
cannot pay them a pittance for a few years and oblige them to
take training that is a dead end. We have to ensure that the
community has the resources to create jobs, to help them create
businesses and to attract businesses, so there is some hope for
the future. Compulsory training, clean-up programs and com-
4688
munity assistance programs as such are useless if workers and
their communities are not helped to find real jobs.
My question was: How can the minister reconcile that? There
was no consultation, and that is really too bad.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure the hon. member that extensive consultation took
place in the development of the TAGS program, including the
fishermen, food and allied workers associated with the sectoral
councils.
The people in our region are really looking for hope and
opportunity. It is for this reason that this government has
engaged in what I consider a rational and reasonable approach to
reshaping the economy of that particular region.
Under TAGS there are at least a dozen adjustment measures
that individual participants can use to help themselves adjust to
their circumstances.
Throughout the consultation process it was made clear that
active participation of the fishermen and plant workers affected
by the groundfish crisis would be a requirement for ongoing
income support. However, what we heard from the fishermen
and the plant workers is that they wanted opportunities such as
training from literacy to university levels. We have
opportunities with the participation in green projects involving
working and learning activities within their communities. No
matter which option is chosen, however, participants will be
required to take an active role in helping themselves.
The intent to require participants to be actively involved in
their adjustment was clear from the start. In effect, each person
applying for the benefits of TAGS commits to this process by
signing the application form.
The concern raised by the hon. member for Mercier did not
relate to the principle of expecting participants to actively take
part in the program. Rather the question related to the
administrative means used to ensure that participants continue
to actively pursue their adjustments while receiving income
support.
On May 6, 1994 a special representative of the Minister of
Human Resources Development met with officials of the
organization. These discussions provided a satisfactory
resolution to the concerns raised for all participants. There will
not be an administrative social contract which individual
participants will be required to sign. The signed application
form will suffice.
(1855 )
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, on May 25
I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to take
the $1 million, indeed over a million dollars, that his department
plans to spend on promoting and advertisements in relation to
the social policy review and redirect it to those young Canadians
who are living in poverty, those young families that are clearly
in need now.
The minister's response did not address the real issue and that
is what will this government do to help those most in need?
There is a crisis in our country, a crisis of poverty that is
undermining the fabric of our society and, alas, that is
increasing. Those Canadians most in need of assistance from
this government are young people, young families and women.
On May 25, the same day that I posed this question to the
minister, a report entitled The Outsiders was released. It was
very disturbing. It indicated that the rising divorce rate has led
to further complications among young families as one in four
metro Toronto families is headed by a single parent. The report
also notes that single parent families have the lowest levels of
social assistance. Even among those single parents who work
poverty rates are twice as high as those of two parent families
with a single earner. I want to ask what the government will do to
help these single parent families.
Recently a report from the United Nations development
program gives Canada high marks for education. It says that
Canada is the number one place to live, and we are all proud of
that. However, when human development by the United Nations
is measured separately for males and females Canada drops
from first spot to ninth spot largely because of the wide income
disparity. The report indicates that the adjusted real income rate
for Canadian women is 51.5 per cent of that for men.
I want to ask this government will it leave people behind?
There is the over $1 million proposed to be spent on advertising;
more recently, $55 million to be spent on advertising dedicated
to help Canadians to stop smoking. While we would like to see
Canadians stop smoking the proof is very fragile in terms of
what that advertising budget will do.
This government was elected on the faith that it would create
jobs for Canadians. It has created jobs for Canadians, in
particular those Canadians who are in the advertising industry.
The infrastructure program is a good program but is largely
directed to jobs for men.
I want to ask the member responding for the minister what this
government is prepared to do besides advertising, creating jobs
for advertisers. What is it prepared to do for those young
families living in poverty, the single women who are raising
families, a large majority living in poverty? Why not act? Why
just advertise?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank the hon. member for her intervention and I
look forward to answering her question.
There are too many people living in poverty today, far too
many people with the proper skills in Canada to make us
competitive, far too many young people facing the problems and
challenges associated with transition from school to work, the
1.2 million children who live in poverty in Canada.
4689
This is precisely the reason why we as a government have
taken on the challenge to modernize and restructure Canada's
social security system, a challenge that past governments have
run away from.
On January 31 of this year the Minister of Human Resources
Development introduced a three stage process to the House that
would result in new a new social security system for Canada
which would address the labour market strategy challenges that
we face and would address the concerns cited by the hon.
member.
We are taking interim measures to address the issue of
unemployment. That is why as a result of the SEED program this
summer 60,000 young people will be employed. That is why we
are reducing the UI premiums, so that small business can
generate more jobs, so that we can generate more jobs.
We were elected on a mandate to create jobs. We are well on
our way to doing that. Not only that, we are taking on the very
important challenge to modernize and restructure Canada's
social security system so that fewer Canadians are faced with
the challenges and the plight of living in poverty.
We have only been in government for approximately six
months. Our record to date on the measures we have taken so far
show that this government truly cares about the lives of
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 7 p.m., this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)