CONTENTS
Friday, December 8, 1995
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17429
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 17434
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17434
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 17436
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17437
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17437
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17437
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 17438
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 17438
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17439
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17439
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17440
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17440
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17443
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 17444
Consideration resumed of motion 17446
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17447
Bill C-323. Motion for second reading 17457
17425
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, December 8, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
That this House denounce the government for its massive cuts to the
unemployment insurance system that limit access to the program and hit young
people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of pride and with the
greatest determination that I table this motion this morning. The
official opposition is outraged by the fact that women, seasonal
workers, newcomers, any person who is not already on the labour
market and all those who are forced to look for work on what is
called the new job market are dealt a direct blow by this UI reform,
which was so long in coming and which the government did not see
fit to make public before the Quebec referendum. In short, it hits
anyone who does not have a secure job that pays reasonably well.
We know that such jobs are becoming increasingly rare.
That makes a lot of people. One thing is sure, within just a few
years, hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Quebecers will be
affected. For the hon. members' information, I should mention
that, each year, one third of the workforce in Quebec relies on one
form or another of UI assistance. Now this inequitable reform hits
directly anyone who is not already a player in the system, any new
player who might need the kind of collective support provided by a
real UI program, as opposed to a bogus program.
From now on, the first time someone apply for UI benefits, he or
she will be required to have worked 26 weeks, 35 hours a week,
over the previous 52 weeks to be eligible. Anyone who knows
anything about the labour market knows how hard it is to meet
these requirements. Anyone who has a child, brother, sister, mother
or friend who is a newcomer knows how terribly difficult it is to
meet these requirements in the world we live in.
Seventy per cent of all part time jobs are held by women. And 40
per cent of them are held by young men and women. In the future,
910 hours of work will be required to qualify, or 26 thirty-five hour
weeks, instead of 20 fifteen hour weeks. Let us look at what 910
hours of work mean.
Someone who works part time 15 hours a week can quite simply
not meet the requirement over the year. It would take this person 60
weeks, but there are only 52 in a year. On the other hand, if
someone works part time 17.5 hours a week, by the end of the year,
he or she could qualify. These figures show the scope of the
change. This is a major change.
In fact, as I said earlier, many women, young people and
newcomers will be excluded. The government boasts that an
additional 500,000 people will be covered by the UI system. This is
a reference to all the workers who, until now, did not pay premiums
and consequently were not eligible to UI benefits, because they did
not work more than 15 hours per week.
The truth is that, given the prerequisite, this measure, which, in
other times, might have been an improvement, will in fact force
these people to pay premiums, without actually being eligible to UI
benefits.
From now on, there will be two groups: those in the system and
those out of it. This will create yet another obstacle for those who
are excluded and who will often have to fall back on social
assistance. Eligibility for UI benefits, when one is in the system,
will also be based on a number of weeks of employment, which
will vary from region to region. The minimum required will be 12
weeks in regions with a high rate of unemployment. In Montreal, it
is currently 14 weeks. So, under the new system, a Montrealer will
have to work 14 thirty-five hour weeks, instead of 14 fifteen hour
weeks.
(1010)
What does this mean in the case of all the new short term
positions and part time jobs? It means that it will take these
workers longer to qualify. It also means reduced benefits, since it
will take longer to qualify, but the entitlement period will
ultimately be shorter.
Once again, this is somewhat like a sure ticket, not to British
Columbia, but to the welfare rolls. It must be understood, by the
way, that the fact that this reform was carried out without any
consideration whatsoever of the social assistance or other programs
17426
already in place has resulted in a system that is not better adjusted
and co-ordinated than before, but in some ways worse than before.
For those who do not have jobs as stable as the hon. members
here-relatively stable at least, for five years-we need to realize
that life is not easy. Finding a real job is extremely difficult. This is
the case whether a person has an education or not. I know
numerous teachers with two master's degrees and a Ph. D. who are
still muddling along as best they can, and have had to be on
unemployment insurance temporarily in the past. Now they will no
longer be eligible.
The same is true for all those who are term employees. New jobs,
even in the technology field, jobs with the Internet, in the graphics
field and so on, are contracts for X weeks, often not very many. The
person may make good money, but after that it dries up and another
job is hard to find. That is how the job market is structured.
These measures before us, however, instead of being tailored to
the new job market, do nothing more than to take unemployment
insurance back to the days when a person had a good job and a good
boss, but expected a cycle of layoffs from time to time. Then
unemployment insurance was around to fill the gap.
This reform reintroduces, in another disguise, the two tier
unemployment insurance scheme that had all of Canada up in arms
during consultations on the so-called social program reform.
Everyone, including the committee formed by the minister
specifically for this, was against it.
Now, with the penalty for ``frequent users'' as they are termed, a
penalty which creates two types of unemployment ``pay'',
depending on whether a person is one of the lucky ones with stable
jobs-they have put effort into it too, but luck also enters into
it-or one of the unlucky ones who have not managed to have
stable employment, there will be two levels of benefits. Two levels,
when all is said and done: 50 and 55 per cent. That means that there
is constant pressure in favour of decreasing the general level of
benefits, each year heading us closer to the U.S. level of 50 per cent
of the industrial wage.
(1015)
This is a regressive reform, that is to say instead of removing the
limit on contributions so that people with high salaries, or those
who do overtime, may help provide a bridge for those workers who
are less fortunate-there was some suggestion of raising that
ceiling in the other so-called reform of 1994-instead of going
ahead with this, the government is backing away. This is even
contrary to what the minister has said, in claiming it was a
progressive step. The government is bringing the limit for
contributions down to $39,000 per annum. Above that no more is
paid into unemployment insurance.
This has a serious economic effect. Let me tell hon. members
right off that it is anti-employment. How so? This measure will hit
workers and businesses in the so-called labour intensive sector.
There will be a reduction in unemployment insurance premiums
but also in the solidarity that unemployment insurance provides,
since labour intensive businesses which pay high wages will still
have an incentive to make their employees work overtime instead
of hiring additional workers.
That is not the only regressive aspect of this measure. There is
more. Listen to this. The only tax reduction allowed by the
government benefits businesses and employees earning a salary of
more than $39,000. Until now, they had to pay unemployment
insurance premiums but from now on that will no longer be the
case. They stand to benefit from a tax reduction that will cost how
much? $900 million. It will cost the unemployment insurance
account $900 million. So who is going to make up the shortfall?
Workers paying premiums for the first time. I did not say first time
UI recipients but first time contributors. From now on, UI
premiums will be paid on every hour worked.
I explained earlier that this did not mean automatic eligibility.
Far from it. But it does mean they will have to pay, those 500,000
or so who are going to pay starting with the very first hour worked.
Students who could be exempted previously will have to pay
regardless and will not get their money back until they file their
income tax return. People who earn less than $2,000 will get the
money back when they file their return. Yes, it is easier to
administrate but it does not make things easier for Joe Blow.
So a tax reduction for people earning more than $39,000, and for
the others a tax increase that will kick in from the very first dollar
earned. This is a very regressive measure.
And there is more. I did not mention annualization. What that
means? It means that from now on, a young person who has a
two-month design contract worth $10,000 will pay premiums on
the full amount, but if he gets nothing else in that year, he is not
eligible for unemployment insurance, although he paid the full
premium on $10,000. Great. You know how much this will put into
the UI account? One billion dollars. That is what senior officials
came out and told us at our briefing session.
So we can hardly call this reform employment insurance.
Despite the announced employment benefits, it is the kind of
insurance that will ensure that an increasing number of people will
have no other recourse than to go on welfare.
Mr. Nunez: It is poverty insurance.
Mrs. Lalonde: We could call it poverty insurance, and in the
case of first time workers, that may well be the case.
17427
(1020)
Furthermore, in addition to the term employment benefits being
a misnomer, they will merely replace a number of active measures
that were given rather short thrift. They still exist but with a
difference. Instead of being paid out of the general tax account,
benefits will now be paid out of the unemployment insurance
account.
So the additional money that will be taken out of the pockets of
the unemployed and businesses and workers earning less than
$39,000 will be used to pay these new employment benefits but,
instead of coming out of the general account, they will come out of
the unemployment insurance account.
The official opposition will do everything in its power to stop
this reform.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going through difficult
economic times. And that is why people with some economic
imagination ought to know where the cuts should be made. They
should not be made at the expense of the average citizen who is
having enough trouble surviving as it is. There are many people
having trouble keeping their heads above water. Unemployment
insurance is supposed to be a life preserver. However, instead of
helping people to survive-I am not saying the present system is
perfect-the proposed reform is based on the wrong economic
premise: it is anti-employment. It will generate insecurity and
poverty.
As for those described as abusing the system, one thing must be
said-and this is something we learned from the economists long
ago-no system can be set up without this happening, unless
considerable thought is given to the way it will be used. Those who
do not abuse the system will, as we say, get it in the neck.
It is not surprising this measure was not revealed before the
Quebec referendum. I would add, however, that workers in the
Maritimes are also hit hard. I will say one thing, and I will repeat
and repeat it: the approach of this government is to cut the number
of workers in the labour market where jobs are not stable. It has
nothing to do with the workers and everything to do with the labour
market.
Instead of looking for the economic means to transform the
labour market, the government is penalizing people, particularly
those people who live in the Maritimes and Quebec. Quebec is
being further penalized because it has a bigger population. The
announced cuts of $640 million are added on to the $735 million in
cuts to be made this year and next.
Even taking into account the supposed existing active measures,
which will, under this program, this so-called reform, now come
out of the unemployment insurance account, even here there are
cuts of $400 million in addition to the $735 million. This means
more than a billion dollars in cuts for Quebec, not to mention the
billions also cut in the Atlantic provinces.
When the labour market fails to provide a job for everyone,
people are not punished. What suffers is the economy and the
development we are trying to work on.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will stop now, but I promise that, though I
stop now, I will continue to talk about this reform and do
everything I can to block it. It makes no sense for a country like
Quebec and for a country like Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1025)
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was glad to hear the hon. member conclude her remarks by saying
she had a lot more to say. That was certainly my hope because I did
not hear very much that was worth noting.
I have a problem understanding how a member of Parliament
who was a very active member of the human resources
development committee in which witnesses continually stated to us
that they wanted a change to the status quo, could comment to the
House of Commons that she still believes in the status quo. She still
believes in the system which Canadians from coast to coast,
particularly those who are unemployed, have told us is not
working. It is simply unbelievable that at this stage of the debate
the hon. member would not come up with any proposals that would
speak to the modernization and restructuring of the Unemployment
Insurance Act.
It is also quite fascinating how the member and her party have
spent the past two years advocating separatism. They have
advocated the notion that Quebec on its own could actually be a
more functional society but for some reason or other they have not
mentioned that this type of political instability has resulted in job
losses in this country. They do not talk about that because they are
too busy trying to pretend they are the defenders of the less
fortunate in our society.
The hon. member also does not talk about the fact that 100,000
jobs will be created as a result of the employment insurance
changes the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled last
Friday. She does not talk about that because it is good news. She
cannot relate to positive change in people's lives.
There are also some things she omits, such as the family income
supplement where people with dependents will be able to earn up to
80 per cent of average earnings. She does not talk about that
because it speaks to helping people. It speaks to giving greater
income security for people while at the same time providing them
with the tools required to find work.
17428
She also does not talk about the progressive measures that
anyone can access. The five tools of the human resources
investment fund were outlined by the minister. Those who have
had an attachment to unemployment insurance in the past three
years, UI exhaustees who were marginalized and were excluded
by the unemployment insurance program, will now be part of that.
The hon. member does not want to hear the truth. She does not
want to hear that we have worked very hard to build a better
system. Bloc members do not want to hear the good news because
their agenda is that they do not want success in this country. They
want to break up the country. That is the reason.
Canadians need to face the facts. They need to face the truth
about who is sitting in front of us: separatists who are not willing to
accept the fact that the employment insurance bill means positive
change to people's lives; it means people will be given the
opportunities to acquire the skills to re-enter the workforce. Bloc
members do not want to hear that.
In reference to sustaining the unemployment insurance program,
a program that has grown from $8 billion to $18 billion in less than
a decade, any rational human being will say that we simply cannot
sustain the type of skyrocketing costs this program has put on the
taxpayers, the employers and employees of this country. Those are
the facts of life.
It is a real shame that the Bloc Quebecois separatists cannot
come to grips with reality as we get ready for the 21st century.
They do not talk about the premium relief that is being given to
employers and employees. They do not want to talk about that
because it is good news. They do not want this bill. They do not
want the new employment insurance bill to work. That would mean
that Canada works. They have no interest in telling Canadians we
are improving their quality of life. It is a real shame they cannot
intellectually cope with the type of positive changes that are being
implemented.
(1030)
My question is fundamental. Is the hon. member really serious
when she says that the employment insurance bill is completely
flawed? Why did she omit reference to the progressive measures
which exist in the bill? Why did she do that? Is this part and parcel
of the separatist plot?
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would first say that, had the
government tabled its bill on unemployment insurance before the
referendum, you might not have had the displeasure of having to
tell us we are bothering you.
You did not dare, because all the improvements you are talking
about are largely, and I underscore the word, eyewash. Sure, there
are measures, and I mentioned them, but I did not mention the case
of insurance, which is supposed to be unemployment insurance,
which is taking on airs of family policy and is out of touch with
need.
Furthermore, I-
Mr. Bevilacqua: What is your point?
Mrs. Lalonde: Had you read our minority report, you would
have seen that we had a point and you would have understood that,
if the government had removed the ceiling for benefits, it could
have cut contributions further for all business, including small and
medium business, which creates jobs.
Instead, the government chose to go with high salary employees
and business, big business and high tech and capital business. So it
could have helped create jobs, instead of having the imagination
and the courage to create conditions to cut contributions without
reducing the account.
So, instead, it opted for a position that leaves contributions high,
reducing them five cents per $100. Really, for small and medium
business this means nothing and for big business and high salary
employees it means they no longer contribute to the common good.
I conclude by saying that the surplus in the unemployment
insurance account is a hidden tax for those earning less than
$39,000. They will have to pay a tax, which we might call a
``special deficit reduction tax on workers earning under $39,000''.
It would be the truth. This is where the truth lies, in our opinion.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it very interesting that it has taken the hon. member
for North York two years to figure out that there are separatists
sitting in the House. I congratulate him.
Since the change in government in Quebec has unemployment
gone up that drastically? From her speech I take it that it is running
rampant in Quebec under the separatist government.
I have listened to members opposite saying what a good job the
government has done in addressing the unemployment problem.
All the investigations I have done indicate that the greatest
employment has been created through patronage appointments.
There are two different seats of power in the country. I have not
seen much of a difference in the unemployment rates. Young
people in Canada are still searching for jobs. That has not been
addressed. They say this tinkering will help. Since I have been here
in Parliament I have noticed that when the government tinkers with
programs, usually the situation gets worse.
17429
(1035)
My question to you is: What is the unemployment rate now in
Quebec and what was it before the separatist government took
over?
The Deputy Speaker: I ask all hon. members to please address
their remarks through the Chair rather than to each other directly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member
that the unemployment rate has dropped since the separatist
government came to office. I also want to tell my hon. colleague
that the history of poverty in Quebec is one of the main factors that,
in the 1960s, made not-so-young people like myself worry about
the fate of Quebec in Canada.
I know that it would take much more time than I have to respond
to this, but if my hon. colleague is interested, I would be delighted
to show him that, as you saw during the referendum campaign,
there is in Quebec an important consensus among the
disadvantaged, the workers, the social forces that are progressive
but largely in favour of sovereignty, because many people-it went
up to 49.4 per cent, as you saw-feel that the only way they can
improve their lot is by taking control of their own destiny.
We know that the economic situation in Quebec has major
advantages but also disadvantages that we want to deal with. We
want to emphasize our assets. We want to work on eliminating our
problems and we feel frustrated by government policies that do not
meet our expectations in any way.
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In recognition of the way the Minister of Human Resources
Development has been treating B.C. over the changes to the
welfare rules, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House, on behalf of the North Vancouver Riding Association, for
me to present to the minister at this time its annual 1995 horse's ass
award-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I do not think that is a point
of order. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the antics
of a clown are allowed sometimes in the House.
In reading the motion brought by the member for Mercier and
listening to her remarks, I am reminded of the old line of Winston
Churchill's that ``a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and
won't change the subject''.
What we have seen today is the ultimate act of fanaticism. It
showed a total lack of touch with reality, a total distortion of the
facts and a total unwillingness to agree to an exchange of
reasonable dialogue or exchange of views. It is a closed mind, a
reactionary mind and in many cases a misinformed mind.
That is unfortunate when one begins to talk about one of the
most important and significant changes addressed in this House.
The hon. member for Mercier seems incapable of dealing with
legislation on its merits, on its measures, on its proposals but
instead relies on the old rhetoric, the old speeches, the old lines
without being in touch of reality whatsoever.
(1040 )
An interesting judgment has to be made when listening to the
remarks of the hon. member for Mercier. It is a line of thought that
we have heard all too often in the remarks of Bloc Quebecois
members over the last two years. They have become the party of
exclusion. They keep people out. They have become the party
which says it cannot bring people in or widen the boundaries but in
fact wants to restrict.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois talks about exclusion. In fact, this bill is
inclusive and fairer. While 93 per cent of the work force was
covered under the old UI system, 97 per cent will be included in the
new system. Because of the inclusion of the new formula many
people will automatically be covered by the new employment
insurance system.
[English]
That is what is at the heart of this debate. To what extent do we
provide good, effective coverage, real support for employment and
a fair balancing of the need to create jobs and at the same time
protect income?
Let me deal first with the most important result of this reform,
which is the part time worker. We listened very carefully during the
public consultations and recognized that the labour force has
changed dramatically. More and more people now work on a part
time basis. They deserve the same protection as everyone else.
They deserve the same maternity benefits, sickness benefits,
income support, help in getting back to a job and the same security
that provides.
Under this program we are providing the formula that would
allow half a million part time workers to gain eligibility and the
Bloc is opposing it. They have taken a stand today against the
rights and responsibilities of part time workers to have the full
rights of every other Canadian. That is the basic position of the
Bloc Quebecois. Keep half a million people out is the message
from the member for Mercier. Half a million people will be denied
benefits. Half a million people will not be given the right to gain
17430
eligibility. It is incredible but understandable, considering the
history of this party. It is an act of exclusion.
Let me give a very practical example. The one thing the hon.
member for Mercier seems incapable of offering is actual working,
practical examples of how the new regime would develop.
Today, under the existing regime, the basic rule is that if people
work less than 15 hours a week they are excluded from the
program. They have no opportunity to receive protection on
income or maternity benefits. However, under the new regime,
someone who works 14 hours a week over a normal work year
period would amass a total of over 700 hours which would
automatically bring that person into the scheme. It would
automatically give that individual the right to maternity benefits,
employment benefits and income security. The member for
Mercier is opposed to those people being included. She is an
exclusionist. She wants to keep people out.
Therefore, all those people who have faced what they call the
glass barrier, who have had an artificial roof which stopped at 15
hours, under the prescription of this member, would be kept out.
They would have no income security, no protection and no
opportunity for re-employment. That is the reality and the truth of
the hon. member. She is saying, time after time, ``keep these people
out, exclude them, keep the parameters and boundaries restricted''.
That is the true mind of the reactionary. That is the true mind of a
person who cannot change. That is the true mind of the fanatic who
is not prepared to give up her ideology for the sake of helping more
people receive protection.
(1045)
Let me give another working example, the people who now have
several jobs over a period of time. Under the old regime they get
credit for only the first job. They cannot make a multiple claim.
Someone who works 10 weeks at 14 hours per week and then finds
another job for 35 hours per week would not be included. They
would not qualify. They would not get the same kind of protection.
Under our new proposal that person who has a series of multiple
jobs, whether in construction or in the service industry or anywhere
else, would be able to accumulate 700 hours because we are saying
the key is every hour counts. As a result they would now be in the
program.
Now we have an hon. member from the Bloc saying keep all
those people out. Do not give them any protection. Do not give
them any income security. This fixation and fanaticism we hear on
the status quo, the end result is to be discriminatory.
The hon. member for Mercier is arguing for discrimination
against a whole class of workers throughout Canada. As a result
many people who are working part time, who do not have that
opportunity, would not be given the rights to become eligible and to
get the protection.
One thing the hon. member does not include is that under the
new scheme if people do not get sufficient hours to qualify even
though they have the right, they are entitled to a full rebate on their
premiums. They do not pay it.
The hon. member is deliberately giving misinformation in the
House because she refuses to recognize that all those people under
that new coverage would have full rights to a full rebate of all
premiums. It is a really serious charge. People in the Chamber have
to ask about the veracity and credibility of a member of Parliament
who makes a claim without being prepared to say what is the case.
That could only be a clear, deliberate, malicious, malevolent
attempt at misinformation. Coming from that member, I am not
surprised because she has been doing it for the last two years. That
is the real example.
Over 1.3 million people with part time attachment would be
subject to a full refund of all the premiums. That would include
people now who pay into the system and get no refund. Over
900,000 Canadians who pay in and get no benefit would now be
able to get a full refund of their premiums.
All the nonsense we hear from the opposition, Bloc and Reform,
simply means they have not read the act. They do not know how it
works and they are deliberately trying to misinform people.
There will be 32 per cent fewer people paying into the EI system
than are paying now because of that refund program.
Let me talk for a moment about seasonal workers. Again the
member is deliberately and maliciously trying to misinform
Canadians because by going to an hour system, by allowing every
single hour to count, means many seasonal workers can qualify
earlier than they can now.
I was on a radio program yesterday and someone called from the
construction industry. He said they work 50 or 60 hours a week.
Right now under the old system all one does is get credit for a
week. They get exactly the same credit as somebody who works 25
hours that week. The person does not get claim for all those hours.
Right now, if the person is working 60 hours a week, they could
qualify under our program within eight, nine or 10 weeks to be
eligible, and every single hour counts beyond that. Close to a
quarter of a million seasonal workers will be able to extend their
benefits several weeks longer as a result of the hour system than
what they can do under the old system.
17431
Once again the hon. member for Mercier is arguing for a
program that would deny those workers the right to have their
season extended, to get better benefits and to be given the full
credit for the work they do simply because it is the ideology that
gets in the way of good, sound reasoning and practical common
sense.
(1050 )
That is clearly beyond the ken of the hon. member to understand.
People should get full credit for the work they offer. They should be
given the opportunity, the incentive, the reward and the credit when
they work more hours to get full benefit as opposed to being denied
that credit, as they are under the existing system.
Those quarter of a million seasonal workers who will be able to
get extended benefits is another demonstration of how we are
including people, not excluding people, as the hon. member has
argued to keep people out and deny them their rightful due and
their rightful reward.
May I also talk for a minute about the impact on families,
women and children. It was interesting that the hon. member seems
to have eliminated from her presentation one of the most important
innovations of the program, the family benefit supplement. This
ensures basic guarantee income protection for all those with
families under UI. It is something that has never taken place
before.
This will automatically include about 350,000 Canadian
families, about 115,000 alone from Quebec. It means they will be
able to achieve up to 80 per cent of their insurable earnings. It will
mean that on average a single mother with two children who now is
under the old UI system, under the new system will be able to
receive on average 10 per cent higher benefits. Yet the hon.
member condemns in a blanket statement the opportunity for us to
provide better protection for low income Canadians under this
program.
Furthermore, we have said in the new legislation this same
worker could now work during her claim period on UI up to an
additional $50 per week without having it in any way taxed back
from the program. It means a person on claim can make another
$50 and improve their income.
As I said, the real issue for people is income, how much money
they can actually get for their families. By offering the incentive
again and be able to work while on claim without have any
deduction up to $50 can add another substantial portion of income
to low income people.
The other exclusion put forward by the hon. member is that
women who have taken maternity benefits under the old system to
look after their children when they want to come back to work have
no recourse. Under our new proposal they would be eligible for all
the new employment benefits. They would be able to start their
own business, have a training voucher, have a wage supplement, an
income supplement, work on a job core program. It is a major
assistance for women coming back into the workforce to get those
employment benefits which up to now they have not had any access
to.
Yet the Bloc Quebecois is prepared to say: ``No, we do not agree
with that. We do not want to help women coming back to the
workforce. We do not want to give them a chance to get back into
employment. We do not want to provide them with the kind of
support they need''.
That again is another act of exclusion by the hon. member for
Mercier; deny women the right to get back in the workforce, deny
women the right to have extra income protection for their families,
deny women the chance to have an extra ability to make money
while on claim. All those measures designed to improve the
income base of women coming back into the program the hon.
member for Mercier simply denies, excludes, rejects and
demonstrates once again that ideology and fanaticism are her major
problems, not the real point in this legislation. That is the real issue
here.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or at least
to ask you to come to my assistance. There is a limit to being called
a fanatic by my hon. colleague opposite. This has been going on for
years. I ask that he withdraw his statement.
(1055 )
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to withdraw the
term ``fanatic''. I do not think it contributes to the decorum we
want to have in the House.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I was
simply referring to a comment by the hon. Winston Churchill,
which has been quoted in the British House of Commons on several
occasions.
The Deputy Speaker: If the minister used the term ``fanatic'' I
ask the minister to withdraw it.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I will
withdraw the term under your direction and I will ask to have the
matter checked and we will see whether it is properly within
Beauchesne's.
It does not change the argument. It is clear the hon. member feels
full liberty in the House to castigate without obstruction. If she
cannot take the heat she should not be in the kitchen.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? That was a
sexist remark.
17432
Have him withdraw this remark, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you
I am not the only one indulging in heated arguments, here.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
Minister of Human Resources Development was in the midst of
debate. The member opposite rose. She did not rise on a point of
order. She should not have been allowed to interrupt the minister. If
she was allowed to interrupt, she should have very clearly put her
point of order immediately and the Chair should have ruled
whether it was a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to allow the debate to continue without
interruption.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed to see a female
colleague stand up to support a minister who is telling women to go
back to their kitchens.
If this minister thinks he is Churchill, as he suggested a moment
ago, let me tell you that he is so ridiculous that he is turning this
House into a real circus, or rather a chicken coop.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not understand exactly the last point
the hon. member for Mercier raised. I will have to check the blues.
If indeed the comment was out of order, it will be dealt with later in
the House.
Mrs. Lalonde: I must raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank
you, Madam. I and every member of this House clearly heard the
minister say something like: ``If she cannot take the heat, she
should not be in the kitchen''.
Mr. Speaker, I formally request that he take this back. It is highly
insulting and unacceptable. All women should feel insulted by this.
And if it takes a point of order to get my hon. colleague, who is a
woman herself, and our male colleagues to support me in asking
that the minister withdraw his statement, so be it.
The Deputy Speaker: It is nearly time for oral questions. Does
the minister have anything to add before we look into this matter?
[English]
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to resume the debate. I remind the hon. member that if she
were prepared to read history more often she would realize-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, we will check the blues.
If a comment was out of order, we will deal with it later. For the
time being, let us hear statements by members.
[English]
Mr. Bergeron: He should apologize.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): I am telling you the
truth.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Welcome to the House of Commons. Dear
colleagues, debate will resume after oral question period. It being
11 o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
17432
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to say that as part of the democratic process I will be
conducting a public town hall meeting tomorrow with respect to
the employment insurance proposals.
This is a very important process for me and every member of
Parliament to undertake. We as elected representatives must listen
to our electorate and the concerns about legislation that will affect
their lives directly and indirectly.
I recognize there is some concern over the intensity of work rule.
We as a government must show that we are willing to listen to new
options and amend legislation accordingly.
Public meetings also give us the opportunity to gauge what we
are doing right. For example, the introduction of insurance benefit
clawbacks for high income earners has been initially accepted and
supported by various groups.
I invite all my colleagues to hold hearings to get the input of
their electorate. I look forward to reporting back to the House on
the results of the public meeting on this important issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
recent weeks, an unacceptable situation has arisen in Quebec's
amateur hockey. The Canadian Hockey Association is pressuring
the Quebec Ice Hockey Federation to join its insurance program.
The association even tried to force Quebec teams to pay an
unjustified surcharge to participate in interprovincial and
international tournaments.
In spite of pleas made to the government, asking it to help find a
solution to the problem, Quebec hockey groups had to go to the
17433
provincial superior court and get an injunction order prohibiting,
until December 12, the Canadian Hockey Association from
harassing Quebec teams. I ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
who is responsible for amateur sport, to contact CHA officials, so
that they come to their senses and stop harassing Quebec hockey
officials.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is at a
crossroads. We face a profound crisis in the unity of our nation.
I vigorously seek for all politicians to return to the people's
agenda instead of the political agenda. The political agenda in
Ottawa seeks central power; the people's agenda services closer to
home; the political agenda, decisions made by cabinet insiders; the
people, decisions made by free votes that express their will;
political, big expensive regulatory bureaucracies; people, the
minimum intrusion that is possible; political, government will look
after our needs; people, leave the tools in our hands and we will do
just fine.
The crossroads for Canada looms before us. I am optimistic and
enthusiastic. The people always prevail.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today to congratulate Tony Morris on being acclaimed
president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
Tony has assumed a great responsibility. The OFA is the voice of
Ontario farmers. Supported by over 41,000 individual members
and 29 affiliated organizations, the OFA presents farm family
concerns to governments and to the general public. The OFA has a
long history of advocating the interest of the Ontario farm
community. Though constituted in its present form since 1970, the
OFA can trace its roots back to the Ontario Chamber of Agriculture
established in the 1930s.
Agriculture is big business in Bruce-Grey and a major job
creator and contributor to this great country of Canada. Given its
importance, I look forward to working with Tony to secure the
interests of Ontario farmers and rural communities in general.
Again I congratulate Tony Morris.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the news is out. Canadian banks have rung up more than
$5 billion in profits for the fiscal year 1995. Last year, when the
same banks recorded $4.2 billion in profits, the Minister of Finance
imposed a one-time temporary tax that was expected to return $100
million to the people of Canada.
Canadian farmers, small business owners, workers, students,
pensioners and the unemployed have all been asked to pay more
with less return during 1995. The banks can be asked to do no less.
Five billion dollars in profits taken from ordinary Canadians during
difficult economic times must be treated accordingly.
I call on the Minister of Finance to do as he did last year and
impose an excess profits tax on the banks. The additional revenue
gained in this way should be applied to job creation programs so
that all Canadians, not just the banks, can share in whatever
economic growth is taking place in Canada.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
all members are aware, this week the crime bill received royal
assent. On average one woman is killed every six days in Canada,
often with a firearm at home by someone she knows. The weapon
of choice in most cases is a legally owned firearm and 80 per cent
of the time the firearm is a rifle or a shotgun.
A study released this week estimated the economic cost of
violence against women in Canada at $4.2 billion per year. The
recent passage of new gun control legislation is an important step
in dealing with the problem of violence against women.
Mrs. de Villiers, the president of CAVEAT, has requested that I
thank the Minister of Justice and the government for passing the
gun control legislation despite the often hysterical and ill informed
opposition.
The new gun control legislation will help to reduce the scourge
of violence against women. However it is only a first step. More
needs to be done. The government has been providing valuable
leadership but all parts of society must co-operate to eliminate
violence.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 6 the House remembered the 14 women who
were murdered with an automatic rifle at l'École polytechnique six
years ago.
While Parliament has taken an important step by strictly
controlling all firearms, the struggle against spousal violence is far
from over. Last week four women were murdered in Montreal, one
of them a young mother with the Montreal police. During the
summer in one week three women were killed by men in Calgary.
17434
According to Statistics Canada, nearly one out of four wives
has been assaulted at some time in her life by her spouse. This
must stop. What is needed is a wide range of measures directed
at both the symptoms and the causes.
All governments should copy the excellent program announced
by Quebec yesterday. Let us continue to apply the same political
will that we used for gun control.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister clearly told Quebecers that there is no
such thing as a Quebec culture. Federalists, like sovereignists, now
know that his motion to recognize Quebec's distinct nature is just a
smoke screen.
Roch Demers, an avowed federalist, saw the contradiction in all
this. Yesterday, he said: ``If that reality, namely Quebec's culture,
is not recognized, then Quebecers are right to contemplate
separating from the rest of the country''.
In spite of yesterday's attempt by the Prime Minister to correct
his statement, Quebecers now know that there will be no true and
substantial recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness.
All this reeks of bad faith, improvisation and expediency.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, every August in Glasgow, Scotland, the World Pipe Band
Championships are held. This year Burnaby's Simon Fraser
University finished first in the elite competition.
I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating
each of the band members for outstanding achievement and first
class representation of Canada.
The pipers are Pipe Major Terry Lee, Pipe Sergeant Jack Lee,
Andrew Bonar, Dani Brin, Richard Brown, Alan Campbell, Colin
Clansey, Dave Hicks, David Hilder, Shaunna Hilder, Anthony Kerr,
Robert MacLeod, Tamara MacLeod, Robert MacNeil, Bruce
McIntosh, Bonnie McKain, Lachlan McWilliams, Derek Milloy,
Pat Napper and Bruce Woodley.
The drummers are Lead Drummer J. Reid Maxwell, Blair
Brown, Keith Clark, Callum Hannah, Karen Hinchey, Kathy
MacPherson, Scott MacNeil, John Nichol, Colin Nicol, Roland
Reid, Christine Rickson and Dan Weeks.
These are true world champions.
(1110)
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention today to the 50th
anniversary of the
Japanese Bulletin, a Canadian community
newspaper which is published in Japanese, French and English.
May I take this occasion to congratulate those responsible for their
services to the Montreal Japanese community.
The existence of such a paper demonstrates the importance of
learning and the rich contribution made by foreign languages to
Canada on both the economic and the cultural levels.
[English]
For half a century journal volunteers have worked to bring their
community closer together, to help immigrants adapt to Canadian
society and to assist their members in addressing the social needs
of Japanese Canadians in the Montreal area.
Japanese Canadian readers of the Bulletin are diverse,
comprising third and fourth generation Canadians and obviously
recent immigrants.
[Translation]
Again, my congratulations to those who are behind the Japanese
Bulletin and my best wishes to this most interesting publication for
a long life.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, November 1995 saw an enthusiastic group of actors
take to the stage in Prince Albert. Produced by Saskatchewan's
newest musical production company, Destiny Productions,
delighted Prince Albert audiences enjoyed the world premier of
``Stubble Jumpers'', a Broadway quality production.
``Stubble Jumpers'', a great story about Saskatchewan boys
heading off to fight for Canada in the second world war, is destined
to become one of Canada's greatest musicals.
The book, music and lyrics were written by Prince Albertan,
Reverend Roy Benson. Another Prince Albertan, musician Rich
Miller, assumed the role of arranging and musical director. The rest
of the creative team consisted of artistic director Darryl
Lindenbach, choreographer Gillian Horn and Carole Courtney as
vocal coach.
17435
At a time when Canadian unity is being questioned, let us pay
tribute to the men and women who fought and sacrificed on behalf
of a united Canada.
``Stubble Jumpers'' is a great new musical. Broadway has come
to Prince Albert and Prince Albert will end up on Broadway.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the funding arrangements for completing highway
416 were made public at a press conference in North Gower.
The remaining 60-kilometre link to highway 401 is due to be
completed before the end of the century. This important link will
contribute greatly to our regional economy, as well as make for a
safer and more pleasant drive than on the existing road, as my
colleague here will attest.
I am very happy to see that the federal and Ontario provincial
governments have come to an agreement on this project and that
the political wrangling that had surrounded it is now a thing of the
past.
The construction of this final section of the highway will create
approximately 2,200 jobs and will contribute to our economic
growth.
Job creation and economic growth are some of the goals the
government set for itself during the last election campaign. This
proves that in co-operation with other governments we are living
up to our promises.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this morning
we learned from a SOM survey that Quebecers are not swallowing
the constitutional crumbs the Prime Minister is throwing them.
Whether it is his feeble definition of distinct society, his veto right,
which is not one at all, and his promise to make federal interference
in areas of provincial jurisdiction more discreet, to Quebecers, it is
nothing but the typical federal smoke and mirrors.
Yes, two thirds of Quebecers are dissatisfied with the Prime
Minister's proposals. The federal propositions are being rejected
by Quebecers, regardless of their region. Quebecers are nobody's
fools.
This survey was carried out before the government's
announcement that the number of regions to which the Prime
Minister wants to give a bogus constitutional veto would be raised
from four to five. This latest improvisation confirms the people of
Quebec's judgment of the Prime Minister's proposals.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the 1993 election campaign the Prime Minister
said: ``I have the people and I have the plan''. The unity debate and
the Prime Minister's handling of it clearly show that he has no plan.
Everything from constitutional vetoes to distinct society status has
been a stumbling, fumbling exercise in futility.
The Prime Minister is telling Quebecers that his version of
distinct society will make them unique and special, while at the
same time he is telling the rest of Canada not to worry, that it does
not really mean much. His performance reminds me of the movie
``Batman Forever'', with the Prime Minister playing the part of the
infamous Two Face.
We must stop thinking of our country as two of this or two of that
and start focusing on the truly distinct concept of equality for all
Canadians.
(1115 )
After listening to the Prime Minister's plans to offer a
constitutional veto to Quebec, then to four regions of Canada, and
today to Quebec, three regions of Canada and British Columbia, he
is beginning to sound more and more like The Riddler.
The Speaker: My colleagues, just in case it has not been brought
to your attention before, many times when we are on camera the
other microphones pick up what is being said around the member
who is speaking. I thought I should remind you of that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during Safe Driving Week and as the holiday season gets
into full gear, I again feel obliged to remind my fellow citizens and
my fellow members of the dangers that await us on the road.
We can never be too careful, and the slightest slip while at the
wheel can lead to tragic consequences. The most sure way of
protecting ourselves is by wearing our seatbelts. Hundreds of lives
are saved in Canada every year by seatbelts, an encouraging figure,
but not enough when some drivers are still not buckling up.
In speaking to you today about highway safety, I know of what I
speak. About a year ago, I was involved in a head-on collision
which could have cost me my life. I escaped the worst by being
buckled up.
17436
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after hearing the statements under Standing
Order 31 by Bloc members, who were complaining that it was not
enough, and the Reform members who said it was too much, I
would think that the Liberals were very much the happy medium.
Yesterday the Quebec Minister of Finance made a statement at a
press conference to the effect that Quebec will be able to balance its
budget thanks to increased payments from Ottawa, of all places.
The equalization payment program and the Canada assistance plan
have added $268 million to the federal transfer payments to
Quebec this past year.
It is, however, deplorable that the minister took advantage of her
press conference to seek to downplay the value of those programs
by comparing them to poverty traps and taxes on development. If
one had to apply the minister's logic to the insurance field, we
would end up with a insurance plan that paid victims of accidents
but to which people would stop contributing-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we
must move on to oral questions.
_____________________________________________
17436
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after watching the Prime Minister telling all and sundry
that his resolution on Quebec's distinct identity would provide
guidance for the government's actions and would produce tangible
results, we saw the Prime Minister show his true colours on
Wednesday, when, as if by magic, Quebec culture no longer
existed.
Considering the spontaneity of his statement on Wednesday,
Quebecers were not fooled by his about face the next day. They
know exactly what the Prime Minister is thinking.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Considering that the government deliberately ignores the fact that
Liberal members on the heritage committee are hunting down
heretics who mention Quebec culture, does the Deputy Prime
Minister realize that by doing nothing, the government has become
an accomplice to this witch hunt?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that this week the
Prime Minister explained very well the nature and importance of
Quebec culture, especially for the survival of French culture in
Canada. We are very much aware of that.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that the arts community, including Roch Demers,
a diehard federalist who campaigned for the no side, does not
understand the Prime Minister, or should I say, understands him too
well.
Earlier the Prime Minister explained that he did not intervene in
the case of the heritage committee because he respected freedom of
speech. That is what he said yesterday.
What explanation does the Deputy Prime Minister have for the
fact that in this case, the government respects freedom of speech,
but when the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce publicly
challenged the Prime Minister, he was gagged by being forced to
step down as chairman of the justice committee? Is there a double
standard?
(1120)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I find rather surprising
about the hon. member's attitude is that last week, the immigration
critic attacked the Liberal government's immigration policy but
remained silent about certain comments made by Mr. Bourbeau. So
if he does not like certain comments, he should say so.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister surprises me. Perhaps she
should realize that Mr. Bourbeau is not a member of the Bloc
Quebecois and that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, since
we cannot refer to him by name, is a member of her party. It seems
to me there is a difference, but perhaps it would be too much to ask
the Deputy Prime Minister to make those distinctions.
Since a substantial majority of Quebecers feel that the offers
made by this government are clearly inadequate, will the Deputy
Prime Minister admit that Quebecers have seen through these
so-called promises of change and will not be fooled by cosmetic
changes like the resolution on distinct society, which in fact
changes nothing because it does not say anything concrete or
practical or even theoretical, when it comes down to it?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the subject of criticizing
the comments of others, I am still waiting for the members of the
Bloc Quebecois to criticize what their own leader said about the
role of women to bear white children in Quebec. That was never
criticized by the Bloc members. When Liberal members make
comments, at least we can say their leader did not decide to involve
women in a policy to keep Canada white.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently the
Minister of Canadian Heritage changed the legislation governing
17437
his department. It now denies the existence of Quebec culture.
Section 4(1) describes the minister's powers and clearly talks of a
single Canadian identity and culture.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Given the
government's claims that its resolution on Quebec's distinct nature
will guide its actions, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage
intend amending his department's legislation to contain reference
to Quebec's culture?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity on Monday, at our next
meeting, to speak to the existence of a Quebec identity and a
Quebec cultural identity, before the House of Commons. At that
point I will look to see whether my colleagues opposite rise in
support of the uniqueness of Quebec culture. They may remain
seated; I shall rise.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are now
used to the minister's contorted answers, but I must say this last
one was a real humdinger.
In refusing today to amend his legislation, is the minister not
proving the emptiness of his government's motion on the distinct
society and the fact that it is worth less than the paper it is written
on?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be clearer than a vote on a unique
Quebec culture. I will see on Monday how my colleagues will vote
in recognizing it. If they remain seated, it is because they do not
recognize it. I will be voting in favour.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to ask about the unique culture of the Liberal government.
Yesterday morning the government's veto bill, Bill C-110, gave
two provincial premiers a veto over the Constitution. This morning
it gives four provincial premiers a veto over the Constitution.
After limiting debate in the House on the first day of debate,
after limiting committee hearings to two days and giving witnesses
24 hours notice, the government now informs us it wants to make a
major change.
My question is for the intergovernmental affairs minister. Will
the government admit that it should properly consult Parliament,
affected parties, experts and Canadians and that the appropriate
thing to do is to withdraw Bill C-110?
(1125 )
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact the government was
listening to the advice of the leader of the Reform Party, who only a
few days ago in the House said that we should extend a veto to the
fifth region and that the fifth region should be British Columbia.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the
government calls that listening, it was not listening very carefully.
We suggested that it is the people of Canada who should have a say;
the provinces already have a say.
The government has just made a major change to a one clause
bill. It has admitted that there are unclear legal issues surrounding
the bill and it may be challenged in court.
If the government will not withdraw Bill C-110, will the
government at least commit to the House that it will not bring in
further time allocation, not further limit debate and give Canadians
a chance to consider these issues?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to restate the fact that
when the leader of the third party gave advice to the House about
the recognition of a fifth region for the purposes of a veto, a
statement which he made on November 29, 1995, what the Prime
Minister did was to respond to good advice from the leader of the
third party.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is
an incredible exercise in the power of listening. I will say once
again that what the Reform Party and the leader of the Reform
Party said was that the government should consult the people of all
the regions of Canada, not the legislatures and the premiers.
The government has come up with a new definition of unity: We
are going to unite Canadians by getting them all against something
at the same time. The bill has been rejected by the Government of
Quebec and in polls of the people. It has been rejected by the
Government of British Columbia, even with the change, and by the
Government of Alberta. It has created a firestorm across the west.
Aboriginal representatives say they were not consulted. The
Government of Saskatchewan said it was not consulted.
Who exactly is it that the government believes it is pleasing with
this legislation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I fear that the hon. member
from Alberta is suffering some political amnesia. In the last seven
days, in the course of this debate, the leader of the third party rose
in the House to speak on this issue. I would like to read what he
said into the record because I think the hon. member from Alberta
is now-
Mr. Tobin: He is swallowing himself whole.
17438
Ms. Copps: -swallowing himself whole, to quote another
member of the government.
The quote reads: ``The government has not given priority
whatsoever to the concerns and aspirations of British Columbia,
the third most populous province in the country. B.C. is not
recognized by the government as a region in its own right. The
government is prepared to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
When is the government prepared to recognize B.C. as an
important province of Canada?''
That is why the Prime Minister, following good advice which he
received from the leader of the third party and good advice which
he received from members of the Liberal caucus and others, has
amended the bill to make it a better bill.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On December 22, 1994, the heritage minister and his industry
colleague issued a joint press release stating that a bill to amend the
copyright legislation would be tabled in the House as early as
possible in the new year.
Could the heritage minister confirm that the copyright bill will
indeed be tabled before the December 15 adjournment, that is to
say within the next seven days?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not like to be kept in suspense. I
indicated that the bill in question was on a critical path. It still is,
and it is making headway. In due course, the bill will be tabled in
the House.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
suggest that the minister is the one on a critical path.
Does the minister not realize that, according to the Society of
Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, this
regulatory vacuum resulted in losses of $300 million this year
because of private copying and that his inaction is sending the
message that the future of our artists is a matter of supreme
indifference to him?
(1130)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps our colleague has closer ties to the arts
community that I do, but I certainly get their message loud and
clear. I do not need to go through him to consult with them. I hear
them, I listen to them and we will act in their best interest.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the Minister of National Revenue, our minister from
British Columbia, on his new found influence with cabinet and the
Prime Minister.
Will he now try to achieve distinct society status for British
Columbians?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has
acknowledged the very important work of the minister from British
Columbia, working behind the scenes as we promised in the House
he would do.
I can understand the obvious embarrassment of the Reform Party
because only about a week ago its leader was in the House seeking
the right of veto for British Columbia, not for Alberta.
In a very positive way we have tried to respond to his concerns
and in particular to the very sound recommendations given by the
minister form British Columbia to the Prime Minister, who
ultimately is seeking the approval of the amendment.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the non-answer from the non-minister will probably reflect
the non-votes for the Liberals in the next election in British
Columbia.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of National
Revenue. Given the short shrift British Columbians have had over
the years with the closure of Royal Roads, the closure of base
Chilliwack, the KAON project, the welfare fiasco of recent times,
et cetera, will the minister with his new found influence try to
move the government away from knee-jerk reactions toward
meaningful action?
The specific one is the west coast fishing strategy, fishing
licences and fishing quotas. Will the minister move toward making
them fair and non-discriminatory because he understands what is
going on in British Columbia?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when I hear the word knee-jerk coming from this
member, the emphasis ought to be on the latter part of that
description in referring to the member.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the hon. minister to withdraw that.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, absolutely.
The Speaker: I accept that. Would the hon. minister like to
answer the question?
17439
Mr. Tobin: Absolutely, Mr Speaker, out of deference to you,
the House and all the goods knees in the world.
(1135)
Yesterday in Vancouver in beautiful British Columbia, while the
member was here trying to figure out ways to make the federation
fail, we were meeting with 80 representatives of the British
Columbia fishing industry, trying to work toward ensuring the
federation succeeds.
We believe that when people from coast to coast work together,
speak together, listen to one another and build together, Canada is a
better place. In working together, we will build the country. To the
hon. member and his party, they cannot fulfil their political
ambitions by trying to climb up on the broken pieces of Canada. It
is time to stand up for the country instead of tearing it down.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
As a result of the measures proposed in the minister's bill, UI
coverage for workers will be reduced even further. In 1990, 77 per
cent of unemployed workers qualified for UI. This proportion has
since dropped to less than 50 per cent, and the minister's reform
will reduce it even further.
Does the minister not agree that, as the Canadian Labour
Congress pointed out in its analysis of his reform, the new UI
program will protect only one out of three unemployed workers?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for
Mercier and the CLC are dead wrong in their analysis.
The proposed changes to the program substantially expand
coverage. We will be expanding coverage for half a million people
who are presently part time workers. We will be extending
coverage for seasonal workers by using an hours system so that
they can establish eligibility earlier and have longer benefits. We
will be extending the coverage of employment benefits for people
who have presently exhausted their programs so that they can get
back to work.
The net result is to give people a lot more opportunity to return
to work, to get credit for the work they are doing and as a result
achieve the most important objective, to give people real support in
getting a job.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
reform did not include an additional major obstacle in that workers
will be required to work a minimum of 910 hours in one year in
order to qualify for UI, there could be a semblance of truth to what
the minister is saying.
Does the minister not agree that-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would ask you to please choose
your words very judiciously.
Mr. Duceppe: That is very judicious.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that the
main reason why 500,000 part time workers were included in the
program is to require them to pay premiums even though most of
them will never be eligible to benefit?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we pointed out in an earlier
exchange, the hon. member has omitted a very important part of the
program. Those workers are also eligible for a major refund of all
premiums if they do not become eligible.
About 1.3 million part time workers are eligible for a full refund
of all premiums paid. As a result, many will be paying less than
they do now under the old system.
Once again it points out that when simply trying to defend the
status quo, they are totally immune and incapable of understanding
the real positive pluses that come by making good, substantial,
balanced, equitable reform.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary to the health minister is a physician from B.C. Some
of her colleagues have just built a brand new clinic there. It is
innovative and something to be proud of.
Because of her minister, however, that clinic is unavailable to
B.C. residents; only to foreigners. Does the parliamentary secretary
have any difficulty telling her neighbours waiting in line in pain
they cannot access that clinic because of her minister's policies?
(1140 )
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often we have to
say this in the House, but there is a Canada Health Act. It works on
the five principles of medicare, guiding principles for the country.
17440
Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians, especially British Columbians,
support that.
When any province sets up any sort of clinic or anything which
contravenes the Canada Health Act the government will act to take
whatever steps are necessary to stop it.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
quote a physician:
Governments which willing undertook the responsibility for funding
medicare when there was political mileage to be gained are now reluctant to
accept the concomitant financial burden. They try to weasel out of their
promise.
The honest alternative would be for governments to confess to the public that
they no longer can, or wish to fund medicare.
Those words should be eerily familiar to the parliamentary
secretary. They are published words of hers in a 1990 B.C. journal
of medicine.
The Speaker: Questions in question period should relate to the
policy or administrative area of a minister or parliamentary
secretary.
The way the question is phrased I judge to be out of order.
However, I invite the hon. member to rephrase his question.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): Simply, Mr. Speaker, what changed the
parliamentary secretary's mind?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is presuming
many things. My mind has always been clearly fixed on the Canada
Health Act and the five principles of medicare. Nothing since,
before or during my life as a physician has ever changed that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
The economic and financial update released yesterday by the
minister indicates that the government could have lowered UI
premiums to $2.93 for every $100 of insurable earnings and still
have collected the whole amount set in the 1995 budget. Yet, the
government decided to set the premium at $2.95.
Will the minister recognize that he could have lowered UI
premiums to $2.93 and still have met his 1995 budgetary
objectives?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is customary to do
what we call a rounding off of these premiums. It is clearly the case
here, given the minimal difference between $2.93 and $2.95.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the minister said in his document that these premiums could have
been lowered to $2.93, I assume he could have done it. But given
the minister's estimation that lowering premiums by seven cents,
in 1995, would result in the creation of 40,000 jobs, will he
recognize that, by refusing to lower these premiums by two cents,
down to $2.93, he is sacrificing, based on his own calculations,
12,000 jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the Minister of
Human Resources Development clearly said that it was our
intention to build a reserve, so as to preserve jobs should an
economic decline occur. Indeed, we are well aware that the worst
thing that can happen in a period of economic decline is to be
forced to raise UI premiums. This is why we are building up a
reserve and why we put the UI fund back on its feet by pouring $6
billion into it, over a period of just two years.
The hon. member is absolutely right when he says that lowering
UI premiums helps create jobs. This is why the minister lowered
the rate, for a total amount of $1.25 billion. This is the way to
create jobs.
* * *
(1145 )
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.
The banks have reported profits of over $5 billion. In that same
period of time, they have raised service charges and also reduced
the number of people that serve the general public. What is the
secretary of state doing to protect consumers from this
oligopolistic practice?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a question in
which a large number of Canadians have an interest.
The government believes that consumers are best served by an
environment where financial institutions compete for business and
where consumers have access to adequate information.
With regard to service charges, federal financial institutions
have to disclose all fees applicable to an account at the time of
opening an account. When there is a change in any fees they must
give at least 30 days' notice. That is a requirement of federal
legislation. I understand that Canadian banks charge substantially
lower service changes than U.S. banks for comparable services.
17441
The government is also working with the provinces to improve
the consistency of legislation on the cost of consumer borrowing
so that the consumer will have better information.
Finally, in our financial institution legislation that is going to be
reviewed, we are looking very carefully at consumer issues.
* * *
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, results of the Alberta plebiscite on wheat and barley
marketing are crystal clear. Two-thirds of Alberta producers voted
in favour of having a dual marketing system, with the freedom to
choose to market through the Canadian Wheat Board or outside of
the board.
Would the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House
if he agrees with the majority of Alberta farmers that choice for
marketing of wheat and barley is a step forward? A yes or no
answer would be appreciated.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the Reform
Party seems incapable of understanding answers that amount to
more than one or two words. I hope the hon. member will bear with
me while I respond to his question.
As everyone knows, a plebiscite with respect to wheat and barley
marketing was conducted recently in the province of Alberta. That
plebiscite is not without some considerable controversy. I note that
some farm leaders in Alberta, some agricultural reporters in
Alberta, some pollsters in western Canada have all raised what
appear to be serious questions about the process.
Approximately 16,000 producers participated in the process, out
of perhaps 30,000, 35,000 or 40,000 who might have participated
in the process. I point out again that this single vote within one
province, on an issue that affects all of western Canada and as
many as 130,000 prairie farmers, is obviously not a process that
can be definitive with respect to this issue across western Canada.
The Government of Canada has established a process to deal
with this issue in an orderly and logical way. That is the Western
Grain Marketing Panel. It is very well known. I would urge all
prairie farmers, including all of those in Alberta, to participate
fully and fairly in the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, farmers are not dumb. Maybe a lawyer thinks they
are, but farmers understand very well what the question was and
what it meant.
The minister has been pinning all of his hopes on the Western
Grain Marketing Panel. In a statement he has slammed the
producer vote as being merely academic. He has no respect for
farmers who democratically expressed a common sense position.
Why is the minister insulting the intelligence of farmers by
thumbing his nose at the clear message he received from over
16,000 plebiscite participants, 16,000 voters?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I point out to the hon.
gentleman that those votes represent about 12 per cent or 15 per
cent of the total number of farmers affected by this process.
The arrangement that the Government of Canada has put in place
in order for this issue to be fully ventilated in western Canada is a
logical and orderly process. It will provide farmers through the
Western Grain Marketing Panel with full, fair, balanced, accurate
information about all of the issues respecting grain marketing in
the west.
(1150 )
It will also provide farmers with the opportunity to debate all of
the issues related to grain marketing in a way that is totally
transparent, with all of the facts on the table. They can consider not
only the pros of the marketing debate but also the cons and the
consequences so this issue can be dealt with fairly in the interests
of all western Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A Canadian citizen, Tran Trieu Quan, has been a prisoner in
Vietnam for close to two years now, despite the fact that the
Canadian government believes he is imprisoned on trumped up
charges. The Prime Minister promised to look into the case
personally upon his return from Vietnam in November, 1994.
What explanation does the Deputy Prime Minister have for the
fact, that more than a year after the Prime Minister's Asian
mission, the situation remains unchanged, despite a recent
commitment by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Tran Trieu
Quan still remains a prisoner in Vietnam?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the treatment of the
gentleman in question is, of course, unacceptable to the
government of Canada. That is why the Prime Minister himself
raised the issue, as did the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We continue
to tell the government of Vietnam to respect the fact that this
Canadian citizen must be released, because the present position of
the government of Vietnam is not reasonable.
17442
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering the lack of success of government interventions to
date, does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to ask the Prime
Minister to personally bring up the case of this Canadian citizen
with the authorities in Hanoi once again and to demand his
immediate release?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, when asked this same question some weeks ago,
gave his word that he was pursuing this matter at the highest
diplomatic level possible.
You can be sure that the Prime Minister himself, having been
involved in this case, continues to be concerned, and wishes to do
his utmost to continue pressures on the government of Vietnam.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during my recent
visit to Atlantic Canada I heard a lot of criticism of the Tobin tax.
One criticism above all the rest is that fishermen are distressed that
the licence fees are to be based on gross landed value rather than on
net profit. The minister knows very well there is a large difference
between gross and net profit.
Is the minister going to listen to fishermen on at least this one
small point and ensure that fees are based on net profit, not gross
landed value?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during the member's visit to Atlantic Canada he
certainly was able to generate some reaction from the fishermen,
there is no doubt about it.
The executive director of the Maritime Fishermen's Union in
reference to the member opposite said words to this effect: Please
take your garbage back where it came from. We are not interested
in your politics of division. The president the fishermen's union, a
Newfoundlander, Earle McCurdy, in essence said to the member
that they are not going to be fooled by these crocodile tears and
they certainly will not accept a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Yes, the member made quite an impression on the fishermen of
Atlantic Canada and yes, they have an inordinate amount of
common sense in dealing with the kind of nonsense proposed
opposite.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see
this minister gets high on his own exhaust.
I have in my possession a Department of Fisheries and Oceans
document which shows that not only is the minister proposing a
$50 million tax grab in 1996, but more startling is planning to
increase this by a further $20 million in 1997. This will mean that
Canadian fishermen will be faced with a $70 million tax bill in
1997.
When is the minister going to start listening to fishermen instead
of the self-serving bureaucrats in his department who are
advocating this tax so they can preserve their own jobs?
(1155 )
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it takes a special kind of stamina, one that is clearly
exhausting this member's credibility, to stand in the House to ask
these kinds of questions.
This is the party-
Mr. Hill (Macleod): You are exhausting.
Mr. Ramsay: When are you going to take the billboards down,
Brian?
Mr. Tobin: Listen up, fellows. You might learn something for a
change.
This is the party whose leader went to Atlantic Canada and said
that it only takes 90 seconds of study to know that the fishery is
finished. This is the party that complained about the EI reform
which is now under way because the cuts were not deep enough.
This is the party that said of the TAGS program, which assists tens
of thousands of fishermen who have been hit by the fisheries
failure, that the program ought to be cancelled. This is the party
whose obvious lust at a shot in a byelection in Labrador has driven
it beyond the bounds of decency and common sense. And this is the
party that will be slam dunked in that byelection with the kind of
negative results it deserves.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
one listens to what comes across the floor of the House, Canadians
might get the feeling that Canada is not doing so well in export
markets.
I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade if he
could share with the House Canada's performance in international
trade and demonstrate clearly to Canadians how we are winning
markets every day.
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the first nine months of 1995 Canadian
merchandise exports grew by 20 per cent, compared to the same
period last year. Exports to the United States rose 17 per cent, but
the United States is far from our fastest growing market. Sales to
Latin America, including Brazil, have increased by some 29 per
cent, to Japan by 32 per cent, to the European Union by 42 per cent,
to China by 44 per cent and to all other Pacific nations by 47 per
cent.
17443
In 1992 our exports amounted to only 26 per cent of our gross
domestic product, but today exports constitute 37 per cent of our
gross domestic product.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
On October 30, Canadian Airlines International stopped all its
international flights originating in Montreal, preferring to
concentrate its operations in Toronto. As a result, Montreal and its
very substantial Italian community are deprived of direct
connections with Rome. The minister's policy for awarding
international routes prevents other carriers from offering this
service.
Since Canadian Airlines International no longer offers a service
from Mirabel, would the minister agree that his policy for
allocating international air routes is discriminatory, since it
deprives Montreal of direct connections with all countries for
which Canadian has been given exclusive access?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree that our policy for allocating international routes
has had the exact opposite effect of what the hon. member wanted.
I realize this is a drawback. The hon. member will probably say
so in his supplementary. When Canadian Airlines International
decided to stop their service from Mirabel, at the same time, and I
am sure the hon. member was aware of this, Alitalia, the Italian
airline, made the same decision. The problem at Mirabel is that
there is not enough passenger volume to support a service either by
Canadian Airlines International or Alitalia.
(1200)
What we are trying to do, and negotiations are now under way, is
to see how we can solve the problem so as to provide an adequate
service from Mirabel to Italy.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as this government continues its adversarial
approach with the western provinces over the transfer of federal
funds, it ignores the gross inequities it has created through the
Canada-Quebec accord.
Under the accord the province of Quebec receives $90 million a
year, 35 per cent of all federal funds being transferred for the
settlement programs for immigrants and refugees when Quebec is
currently only taking 12 to 13 per cent of the immigrants and
refugees.
If the government is going to continue the funding program, will
it consider renegotiating the Canada-Quebec accord so that the
money is going to the provinces that are receiving the immigrants
and refugees?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the member for
giving me the opportunity to say how our federal system works.
The immigration accord between Quebec and Canada is proof that
we can have agreements between provincial and federal
governments to make this country work.
Concerning the other provinces, the minister is open for
discussions. There are discussions going on and I am sure that
when the minister returns to the House he will give a detailed
answer to the member.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
In the infamous red book there is a promise by those who were
running for government that they would eliminate the GST. The
Prime Minister last summer stated that in the February 1996 budget
the government would outline a replacement for the GST. No
mention was made on Wednesday by the Minister of Finance of
GST reform in his finance minister's economic and fiscal update.
Is it still the intent of the Minister of Finance to tell the people of
Canada how he is going to recommend eliminating the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government's
undertaking in terms of the GST is to obviously have a system that
is fairer to consumers and which is easier to administer.
The government has stated that following the desires of
Canadians it is our wish to harmonize and to have a single tax, a
single base. We are in the course of discussing this with the
provinces. Undoubtedly it will come up at the meeting of the
federal-provincial finance ministers next week.
I would have been prepared to have discussed it in the fiscal
statement. The purpose of the fiscal statement was to give an
economic update on the state of the economy since the last budget
which is why I did not deal with it and I was not questioned on the
matter.
17444
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of members
the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Marcello Nunes de
Alencar, Governor of the State of Rio de Janeiro.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a question
asked earlier during question period by a member of the Reform
Party, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, to the hon. Minister
of National Revenue but in a different capacity.
Citation 412 of Beauchesne's states quite clearly in regard to
such questions:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being
responsible for a province-
The question was asked in contravention of our rules and it was
allowed to be asked uninterrupted. I realized that afterward when
another member rose to ask a question which was similarly against
our rules and that member was ruled out of order.
I would want to report to the House and to suggest to Mr.
Speaker that the question asked of the hon. Minister of National
Revenue was equally out of order. Therefore it should have been
indicated at that time so that all Canadians would know that the
minister was unable to answer the question because of the rules of
the House which specifically prevent him from doing so.
(1205 )
The Speaker: The hon. government whip raises a perfectly valid
point of order.
In listening to the question and not to whom it was directed, it
dealt with an issue that is seizing the House right now, the
government veto, and I thought it was proper for that time. The
hon. government whip did note that on another occasion I declared
another question out of order. Because it dealt with the veto and
because the Deputy Prime Minister in her wisdom thought she
would like to answer it, I permitted it. However I take this under
advisement. I thank the hon. government whip for raising the
matter.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too
want to bring to the attention of the House a statement and an
action by the member for North Vancouver before the Minister for
Human Resources Development started speaking.
I believe you will find that the member for North Vancouver
used unparliamentary language. In addition, citation 501 of
Beauchesne's states:
Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of
any sort in the Chamber. Thus during the flag debate of 1964, the display of
competing designs was prohibited. At other times boxes of cereal, detergent and
milk powder have been ruled out of order.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find and in fact I believe you
observed that the member for North Vancouver produced a trophy
of the rear part of a horse and presented it to the minister. At the
same time he referred to the minister with the words referring to
that part of the equine anatomy.
The Speaker: Order. My colleagues, the first point the hon.
member brought up is the use of props. I have asked hon. members
on numerous occasions to please not use props. I have asked this of
members on all sides of the House. We are equal in here. We are
members of Parliament.
Once again I appeal to you that even though you quote from
papers, there is no need to hold them up or shake them. I believe
that our words stand on their own. I take the point and reiterate to
the House, please do not use any props.
With regard to the other point about the horse, forgive me but I
did not see the use of the prop and I did not hear the words used.
With regard to the words, I will check Hansard and if it is
necessary, I will get back to the House.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I felt it
was a perfectly reasonable point of order I raised earlier. All I
asked for was the judgment of the House under the
circumstances-
Some hon. members: Order, order.
An hon. member: Read the book.
The Speaker: Order. I am going to close this matter off right
now. Are there any other points of order? There being no other
points of order, we will proceed to the daily routine of business.
_____________________________________________
17444
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
17445
(1210 )
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 108th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding questions
concerning the role of the Senate and its interference with Bill
C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of the electoral
boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral
boundaries.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present the 11th report of the Standing Committee on
Industry on Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on
internal trade, with amendments.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of
the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on Bill C-98, an
act respecting the oceans of Canada. As vice-chair of the
committee, I would like to extend my thanks to the members of the
committee for their hard work in connection with this bill. It
demonstrates the kind of co-operation we have received in this
instance.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been
signed by a number of Canadians from Winchester, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill,
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has to do with fetal alcohol syndrome. This petition
has been signed by a number of Canadians from Guelph, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House
that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health
problems or impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol
syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent
preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today, both on the
same subject from constituents in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka.
My constituents call upon the government to change the Young
Offenders Act and to strengthen certain provisions thereof.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to table two petitions today, both on the same
subject concerning the taxation of native Indians. The petitioners
also ask Parliament to halt land claim negotiations and ensure that
one and the same law applies equally to all Canadians.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions from my constituents
of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The first petition signed by 30 of my constituents deals with the
government household moving service and the need to continue
with a policy of dividing the furniture moving business between
independent movers on an equitable basis.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to resolve to veto any
proposed change to the tendering process of the Department of
National Defence and to support the present system of tendering.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by 211 constituents calling
upon Parliament to take steps to keep the synthetic bovine growth
hormone out of Canada through legislating a moratorium or a
stoppage of the BGH use and sale until the year 2000. These
17446
constituents further call for an examination of the outstanding
health and economic questions through an independent and
transparent review.
* * *
(1215 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that the questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before recognizing the minister, I must
inform hon. members that I have had time to check the blues. I
think it is quite clear this is a point of order. The minister said-it is
in English unfortunately-that ``if she cannot take the heat, she
should not be in the kitchen''.
As you know, this was an expression used by Harry Truman. It
seems the expression is not equally familiar in both languages, but
it is an expression.
With our colleagues, we understood it to mean that women
should stay at home, or something like that. I just spoke to our
colleagues-I think they were not in the House at the time-and we
agree it was a misunderstanding. There is no indication, as far as I
can see, that the minister said anything against women or hon.
members of the female sex.
I also looked at what was said by all members, and I do not think
there were any insinuations against women members, as far as I can
see. I want to thank all members for raising this point, and we can
now proceed with questions and comments.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe
the minister was in the middle of debate on the motion before the
House but was interrupted by a point of order and therefore did not
complete his allotted time. I trust his time will not be diminished
by the time taken for points of order and that he will be allowed to
continue so that we may proceed to questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker: I am told by the Table the minister's time
had expired for his intervention. Accordingly, we are into questions
and comments.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I request clarification as to whether
the time allotted to the minister did include the interruptions for
points of order or whether he had used the full 20 minutes to speak.
The Deputy Speaker: I am reminded that if a point of order is
raised during an intervention it is included in the 20 minutes.
_____________________________________________
17446
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the floor for questions and
comments.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to comment on the minister's speech and, in
particular, on his statement that 97 per cent rather than 93 per cent
of workers will be eligible for the plan.
The Bloc has never said it did not want people to be eligible for
the plan. We have always said that unemployment insurance should
be one of the tools for creating employment. The government has
not offered any other, this reform is its only tool. I think some other
tools are missing.
There may indeed be more people paying into the plan, but I
would like to know from the minister whether he has had estimates
made of the number of new contributors who will be able to benefit
from the plan. For people in the regions, where work is seasonal,
working 910 hours in a year means working 26 weeks at 35 hours a
week.
(1220)
Even if all the hours are counted, even if people sometimes work
a 40 hour week, it will be very hard and will result in an exodus of
young people. This will mean that many people will remain on
welfare. What I have understood from the reform is that people will
have a year to accumulate their 910 hours. The next year, it starts
all over again, and we begin at zero. So, there are many people who
today are getting unemployment insurance, because their job
afforded them between 300 and 400 hours. Now they will have to
do 910 hours before they are entitled to unemployment insurance
benefits.
In my opinion, this will mean the following: people who work 12
or 13 weeks in the summer at 35 hours a week will end up with
some 400 hours and then will have to leave the region to come up
with the other 500 hours. They will have to look for jobs elsewhere.
17447
Over three, four or five years this will reduce the population in the
region. This is a negative aspect of the reform.
We are not saying unemployment insurance should not be
reformed, we are saying that 910 hours is far too much for someone
new to the system to accumulate right off in order to be entitled to
benefits, it is inappropriate for our economy.
There is one other point I would like to raise. When the minister
terms it an equitable reform, how can he say it is equitable for
seasonal workers when their benefits will drop from 55 per cent to
50 per cent after about three years, when they will have used up the
100 weeks after which the reduction kicks in? The people affected,
therefore, are in seasonal industries, a sector where, through no
fault of their own, they have to be on unemployment insurance year
after year. They are not guilty of anything, so why must they be
penalized? These are people who work in industries with 12, 13,
14, 15 weeks of work a year. They cannot invent more work than
that.
So they are being told their benefits will be cut down to 50 per
cent. After three years, they will be down to 50 per cent, and for no
other reason except to penalize them and push them into other
sectors where they do not necessarily have any expertise. Where is
the other side of the coin, the assurance that there will be changes
in their regional economy?
Last year, everywhere we went with the Human Resources
Committee the people in the regions said they were not opposed to
change. They said they wanted assurance that there would be set
transitional periods, possibilities of adjusting the economy, of
bringing in aspects from new technology, all those things.
But today, instead of a carrot and stick approach, only the stick
has been brought out, with no carrot anywhere in sight. There is no
sign from anyone in this government, particularly not the Minister
of Industry, whose vision of the economy is a century behind the
times. There is no vision here of what the positive aspects will be.
I would therefore ask the minister to tell us what percentage of
those now under the plan will be eligible under the new
arrangements, and what percentage will never be eligible because it
will be impossible for them to accumulate 910 hours at any time in
their working lives. I feel that this is an important question,
because making it so that more people contribute may be very
attractive from a budget point of view, but from the human point of
view it is equally important to see that people will have enough to
live on.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised
some very useful and important questions and I would like to
provide him with a detailed response. I hope hon. members will
listen.
In terms of the question being addressed earlier about part time
workers, we estimate that 1.3 million people who have a minor
work attachment will now be eligible for a total refund of all
premiums paid. That includes 900,000 people who presently
contribute benefits but receive no claim or eligibility because they
do not have enough weeks.
Those 900,000 people will now be able to receive a full refund
on their benefits. In fact, 32 per cent fewer people will be paying
benefits into the new employment insurance system than in the old
system. Overall, part time and low income workers will be paying
$14 million less in premiums in the new system.
(1225 )
Those are hard figures. More people are covered but if they do
not receive their full eligibility they get a refund of all their
premiums, which means a $14 million saving in premiums for part
time workers.
I will deal with the second question the hon. member raised
regarding the new entrance requirements for new entrants. I will
quote to him because he has quoted back to me several times, with
great support, the recommendations of the seasonal task force. The
working group told us we should do something about eligibility to
stop young people from leaving school to take advantage of the
short term benefits of UI to the detriment of their future career
prospects.
That was a direct recommendation of the seasonal workers task
force. It talked with seasonal worker groups right across Canada.
I recommend the hon. member actually read the legislation
rather than listening to his colleague, the member for Mercier.
The new entrance requirement is only a first time requirement.
In the second year, if they have worked 490 hours in the previous
year, the entrance requirement goes down to the regular number of
hours. In other words, if they simply get 490 hours in the first year
they are not required to do 900 hours in the next year, as the hon.
member asserts. They go down to the regular 420 required hours. I
hope that provides some clarification.
I will now come to a very important point. The hon. member
made a very good case about the need to help change economies in
parts of rural Canada, to help people redevelop new economies,
recognizing there are problems.
One of the major elements in the new program is a $300 million
transition jobs fund that can be used for the investment in these
areas to help small businesses with capital formation, to start new
enterprises. It can used in terms of new training programs, new
schools in those areas, if that is the choice of people in those areas.
Investments can go into new infrastructure to attract new industry.
17448
I recall a discussion I had with people in Atlantic Canada. They
were saying there was an enormous opportunity now with the new
export potential for developing food processing, food value added
manufacturing. They new substantial new sewage treatment plants,
new water facilities. This new jobs funds will do that.
I suggest to the hon. member that one of the responsibilities for
him as a Member of Parliament is not to rely on the old system
because he recognizes, as well as everyone else does, it has been a
deterrent to jobs. It has stood in the way of developing new
enterprise.
Concerning the new methods we are bringing in, the new
employment benefits, $800 million in employment benefits,
creating over 40,000 jobs in Quebec at this time, plus the infusion
of a new investment fund to start helping those regions to make
changes, to adapt, to invest, to create new industries, surely if the
hon. member is deeply concerned about people in his own riding
would not object to having a new economic development fund to
help create jobs and new enterprises in his area. That is what the
reform is about, to assist people in that transition and that
adaptation to a different kind of economy.
We also do it over a period of time. We are not asking people to
go cold turkey into this. We are saying there is a five-year
transition. Also in the legislation is a clear requirement for
monitoring the impacts, the results, the initiatives which will be
tabled in Parliament and will be fully transparent. We will be able
to ask in Parliament in 1998 what has happened, what adjustments
have to be made, if they have to be made, and what kind of other
tools can be used.
This will be an opportunity for members of Parliament to engage
in a very clear evaluation of what works and what does not work, to
share information and to be part of a process of re-evaluation and
monitoring. We are being very open and transparent and clear
about it.
Rather than engaging in the wild hyperbole I heard from his
colleague earlier this morning, we are putting the onus on the hon.
member and others to say let us get the real facts.
(1230 )
Let us get down to what is really going to happen. Let us use
these new tools for employment. Let us use the new investment
fund. Let us use the new opportunities to extend benefits to part
time workers. Let us use the opportunity to extend employment
benefits to people who have exhausted their old UI benefits, who
want to get back to work but have no assistance right now.
He knows that in Quebec the provincial government has cut off
major support for people to get back to work. We are bringing
them back in because we recognize that people who have exhausted
benefits have as much a desire to go back to work than anybody
else.
We are now giving them the opportunity to start their own
business, to be able to use a wage supplement with employers to
have an income supplement, to have a training voucher if the
province agrees, and I hope they will so that we can help people get
upgraded.
Employment benefits such as having a job corps in their area,
doing reforestation projects, building new infrastructure projects
are now available to the hon. member's riding as they are to people
across this country.
For the life of me, I find it hard to understand why someone who
expresses a concern about jobs for his constituents totally rejects
the opportunity of new investment, for new employment benefits,
to extend benefits to those who have exhausted theirs, to provide a
supplement for families to bring up their incomes, to provide an
extension of coverage for part time workers.
All those things are part of the new package. I would think the
hon. member would be applauding, supporting and working with us
to make sure that the full benefits of all the programs are shared by
members of his riding.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
listening to the eloquent response by the minister of human
resources to the question from the Bloc as to how much the
government is providing to the province of Quebec and to other
provinces in his vision of the reform of UI.
The motion we are debating today is that this House denounce
the government for its massive cuts to the unemployment insurance
system that limit access and so on. It seems to me that this type of
motion is in line with the pathetic attitude toward this House and
this country held by the Bloc. We are trying to build this country
and they are trying to destroy it. It fits right in line with all the
things they have been doing along the way.
If this is the type of leadership that the Bloc brings to this House
I feel rather sorry for the people of the province of Quebec if the
member for Lac-Saint-Jean moves over there and starts to lead that
province. I feel that they are going to continue downhill rather than
climb out of the lethargy of unemployment that currently exists in
that province.
I come from the west where Alberta is one of the have provinces.
British Columbia and Alberta are a growth area where we are
prepared to get up and get the job done. That is the important thing.
It is not to sit around and denounce the government. While we do
not agree with the way the government is trying to do things, let us
acknowledge that it is trying.
I find it rather disconcerting that this Bloc motion again today is
to bring down, to denounce what the government is doing rather
17449
than putting forward any constructive efforts to try to put the
people of Quebec back to work.
If they were to adopt the get up and get at it attitude that we have
in the west, they would be a lot better off. The economy would be
better off in the province of Quebec. The country would be better
off because those people would feel better with a positive attitude
rather than with a negative attitude.
As part of the doublespeak of the Bloc Quebecois, two days ago
there was the annual general meeting of the Interparliamentary
Union in the West Block. This is an organization that I sometimes
call the junket club and the travel club courtesy of the Canadian
taxpayer. For $20 one can buy an annual membership in the
Interparliamentary Union and the government throws in half a
million dollars to top it up in order to cover the cost of travel
around the world. I have been a little critical of the value we are
getting for the money that is spent.
(1235 )
As a result the Liberals and the Bloc typically have joined forces
to change the constitution of the organization to say that only those
who agree with the aims and objectives of this organization are
allowed to sit on the executive. As I mentioned in the House
yesterday, the communists handled it even better.
The point I am trying to make today is at that annual general
meeting the Bloc supported the Liberals in changing the
constitution to deny accountability. We asked the members of the
Bloc why they were supporting the Liberals on this issue. They said
that they loved to travel around the world to promote Canada. We
were shocked.
What are they doing within Canada? They are destroying the
country. I believe they should be held accountable for that. I
thought it was absolutely disgraceful that they would take
Canadian taxpayers' dollars that are paid in B.C., Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and the four eastern provinces
and run around the world courtesy of us, accomplish absolutely
nothing, enjoy it, then come back and say ``we love to promote
Canada''.
However, as soon as they put their feet back in this country they
are tearing it apart, knocking it down and trying to destroy it. Let us
recognize where the Bloc is coming from. The attitude of its
members is that anything which interferes with their opportunity to
spend Canadians' money while they follow through with their
objectives is to be applauded. I denounce them for that type of
attitude.
This motion is strictly for consumption in the province of
Quebec. I listened to the debate by the Bloc member. Typical of
their attitude, they want Canadians to pay more so they can receive
more. In a totally lopsided argument they want to ensure that
money flows one way from the rest of Canada to them. Yet they are
so spoiled that they want to break away and build some kind of
sovereignty association that continues this idea, however false. It is
totally false that we would think about supporting them should they
ever separate from this country.
During the referendum the member for Lac-Saint-Jean who was
leading the yes forces said: ``Remember, they will punish us
because we're the ones who are getting the unemployment
insurance while all the rest are getting the investments credits''. I
say to them now is the time to get off their posteriors and get back
to work. They should not worry about unemployment insurance but
think more about employment. That is what the rest of the country
is doing.
We have seen the Minister of Human Resource Development
change the name of unemployment insurance to employment
insurance. I do not think that words are going to do very much.
However, perhaps the idea is a small step in the right direction.
The UI reform that is being proposed is a continuation of this
centralist, top down, one shoe fits all approach by the Liberal
government. It is not going to work. More tinkering with the
system is not what we need. There is nothing that is radically new
in the bill brought down by the Liberals. There is nothing
refreshing. There is no rethinking of UI. Yes, they have expanded a
little bit. Yes, they are going to refund some premiums to some
people. Yes, they are going to cover some more groups. Yes, they
are going to do a few things.
The Liberals have just massaged unemployment insurance
around the edges. They have not said that for the past 20 or more
years unemployment in this country has hovered around 10 per
cent. It does not matter how much money is spent on the program.
Unemployment seems to hover around 10 per cent. If we look
around at other countries we find that unemployment is
significantly lower. With our friends to the south of us
unemployment consistently runs to about 3 per cent less than ours.
We must spend more money to fix our problem and yet
unemployment continues at 10 per cent.
(1240)
What is the problem? Perhaps the problem is that there is not
enough incentive to work and there is too much incentive not to
work. Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development
not have a new approach to UI rather than just expanding it around
the edges.
I will give a couple of examples and perhaps the Minister of
Human Resources Development can take notes. I was in Atlantic
Canada last year talking to some good Reformers down there.
There are lots of Reformers in Atlantic Canada. This particular
Reformer was telling me that when she was young going to college
there were all kinds of summer jobs in Atlantic Canada for
17450
students: in the hotels, in the restaurants. The tourist season was on
and there were all kinds of opportunities.
The last year she was in university the Liberal government, 20
odd years ago, changed the rules to say: ``We will now pay
unemployment insurance to seasonal workers''. Housewives came
out of their homes, worked for four months, spent eight months at
home. It absolutely destroyed the labour market for the kids
coming out of university. That is a simple situation of cause and
effect.
I know there are many families in this country who depend on
seasonal work and unemployment insurance for their livelihood. It
is not that I am denigrating that, but when the rule was introduced
20-odd years ago it should have been foreseen that not only would
it cause dependency on UI in a seasonal environment but that it
would destroy employment for university students who needed to
make some money during the summer. We aggravated the
situation.
However, we keep tinkering to try to resolve the problems that
we created, rather than looking back and saying: ``Look at the
Pandora's box that we opened''.
The young people in this country are motivated, enthused and
they are want to work. They do not want UI. They want jobs.
Remember the great theme of the government prior to the last
election: jobs, jobs, jobs. They waved the red book and said: ``This
is going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Vote for us and there are going to be
jobs everywhere''.
The President of the Treasury Board is the minister in charge of
doling out the $6 billion in borrowed money to try to create some
jobs. He appeared before the government operations committee to
explain the wonderful success of the jobs, jobs, jobs program and
the wonderful success of the infrastructure program because now
the country is $6 billion further in debt. We all hoped that we were
going to get something wonderful for this significant investment.
He told us the infrastructure program created 8,000 permanent
jobs which is $750,000 of borrowed money per job. We would have
been better giving the interest on the money to the people and
telling them to stay home. They would have had a lot more money
and we would have been a lot less in debt.
Now we have the Minister of Human Resources Development
tinkering to change the UI program to help those people who did
not get a job even though they were promised one in the last
election. There is something wrong here. There is something wrong
with what the Minister of Human Resources Development is
proposing. There is something wrong with what this government
has proposed. By the way, it has not proposed very much in the last
two years. However it did put us $6 billion more into debt to create
8,000 jobs.
(1245)
Where are the young folk? Their hope is waning. Their
motivation is waning. They are becoming discouraged, and the
Minister of Human Resources Development says: ``If you get a part
time job we will cover you with EI''. That is not what they want.
They are motivated and they want to work.
A constituent came into my office a few months ago. He was an
enthusiastic young gentleman with a university education. He was
willing to work. He had done all kinds of volunteer work. He had
spent 600 hours a year volunteering to help the RCMP. He had a
dream of becoming a mountie. Can he? No. He is a white male.
Reverse discrimination has killed his dream.
The Minister of Human Resources Development says: ``I have a
program for you. It is not called unemployment any longer; it is
called employment. Sit at home and we will send you a cheque''.
He is a young intelligent fellow who wants to work and contributes
to the country of his own free will by volunteering because he
wants to get ahead. He wants to do the best he can for himself. He
thinks he has a future ahead of him, but employment equity slapped
him down.
That is the type of thing at which the Minister of Human
Resources Development should be looking. The young, the
motivated, the intelligent and the educated should have every
opportunity to get ahead. It does not matter who they are, what they
are or where they are. If the minister would appreciate that, we
would have a lot less need for the program changes about which he
is talking.
I talked about the need for some innovative thinking. Today
when a person pays unemployment insurance the employer has to
pay that amount multiplied by 1.4. There is a direct relationship
between what the employee pays and what the employer pays. It is
a total, fixed, absolute relationship.
There are employers who on a continuous basis turn their
employees over to the UI system. They are seasonal employers. We
read about one of them in the Globe and Mail yesterday. General
Motors uses UI when it shuts down the factories for retooling and
so on. On a regular basis they are turning their employees out to the
UI system, hoping it is okay, and hiring them back when they want.
Why do we not recognize that some employers use the system a
lot more than others and change the premium according to risk? It
is a fairly simple situation. We could count the number of T4s
issued at the end of the year, count the number of pink slips issued
during the year, find the ratio, determine whether it is a high risk
employer or a low risk employer and grade the premium
accordingly.
That would give the employer the incentive to keep staff during
slack times. It might even give the employer the incentive to create
17451
new work during slack times. The employer knows that if he uses
his business experience to extend the employment of his employees
he will be rewarded. That is what it is all about. Rather than a
bureaucrat in Ottawa saying what the rules are, the decision making
should be made on the shop floor by the manager.
The same also applies to the employee side. What about the
employee who loses his job, who is laid off for whatever reason and
runs out to get a job right away? He is motivated. Then there is the
other employee who will say: ``I am covered for a year. I will take
three or four months off and then I will be slow about looking for a
job''. He will be employed within the year, before his UI runs out.
(1250 )
What about the seasonal worker who says: ``I am quite content to
sit at home during the wintertime because I happen to be a greens
keeper on a golf course?'' Since there is not too much grass to cut
in the winter he is not required to look for a job in the winter. UI
will carry him.
Since this person is a frequent user of UI he should pay a higher
premium than the other person who has stable employment or does
not use UI very often even though he changes jobs. We could grade
his premium to give him the incentive to stay employed rather than
being on and off UI.
It is a relatively simple situation. We grade people on income tax
when the employer knows their deductions for income tax. I think
the same type of situation could be used for UI. I throw that out for
the minister's benefit. I am am talking about a new approach to UI,
a decentralized approach to UI, something that merits being
explored.
While the minister may have taken a small step on UI reform, he
missed the wonderful opportunity of taking a great step forward.
Along with his colleagues he has totally and absolutely failed in
delivering the electoral promise of jobs, jobs, jobs. This is why we
still have a 10 per cent rate of UI and why his program, as changed,
will not work.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the member's discussion. I found it odd what Reform Party
members say on this issue. I remember when they first came to the
House and how they were to make a positive contribution. They
were to support the government.
This piece of legislation is very important for the domestic
economy and for making our manufacturing sector competitive
within the world. The unemployment insurance rates in Canada are
some of the highest in the western world. Many people feel that
because of their attractiveness to some extent the rates have had a
significant effect on our ability to compete.
I recall in my own practice as an accountant dealing with small
businesses. There was an ongoing problem of people refusing to
take jobs at a time when they were already receiving
unemployment insurance benefits because the cost of physically
travelling to the place of employment or having to employ
babysitters, et cetera, meant they would receive less than by sitting
home and drawing benefits. In some ways this piece of legislation
lowers those benefits in recognition that we have reduced the
competitiveness of our labour force.
I listened to Bloc members go on and on about the need for
underpinning the social structure of the country and possibly
workers in Quebec. The Quebec Manufacturers Association
recently published a study showing that competitive labour rates
within that province were some of the worst in Canada, which
makes its ability to compete worse than that of many other
provinces. As a consequence it creates a situation of continued
unemployment.
The hon. member said that we missed an opportunity. I also
heard him say that he wanted to devolve. I think devolve is the
operative word of the Reform Party today. Let us call devolve what
it really is. It means to destroy or tear down a system which creates
labour mobility and allows people to move from province to
province to seek employment. Would he reflect on the history and
recognize the positive initiative that has been taken by the
government to increase our competitiveness in international trade,
to keep the underpinnings of a mobile labour force and to recognize
the object of employment is to get people back to work and to
increase their skill levels?
(1255)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the new buzzword is employment.
Unemployment has gone away. This must be to hide behind the fact
that the whole concept of jobs, jobs, jobs has failed and people are
still unemployed.
It would be wonderful if all the people who thought they would
get jobs and voted for the Liberal Party because it promised them
jobs had employment. However they do not and it is
unemployment insurance we are talking about. It does not matter
how they want to dress it up.
I am glad the member recognized that perhaps our UI programs
have been a disincentive and have hurt our competitiveness around
the world.
We are debating a motion put forward by the Bloc from the
province of Quebec. I remember reading an article some months
ago about MIL shipyards in the province of Quebec unfortunately
running out of ships to build. The average wage in the shipyards
was $34 an hour. They were not competitive and could not get any
more orders. They wanted the federal government to give them
some work, to build more ferries that we really did not need, until
such time as they could re-engineer the productivity of the factory
to allow them to break into the international shipbuilding market.
17452
MIL Davie did not have a hope of breaking into the international
shipbuilding market because it was paying its workers $34 an hour.
They are now out of work. Where are they? They are part of the
package of unemployed people the minister of human resources is
trying to help.
We have to provide incentives at the managerial level in the
workforce. I did not say anything about devolution in this situation.
I said we should put the incentives where they can be managed, at
the managerial level of the workforce. I also gave a proposition on
how we could look at it. I was surprised and disappointed that the
member continued to hang on to the idea of centralist decision
making: one shoe fits all; the people in the big wide world are
incapable of making any decisions for themselves; it has to be done
here in Ottawa. As a businessman I would have thought he would
have realized that there is a great benefit in giving people control
over their own lives and control over their own decisions. The
whole government is missing that opportunity time, time and time
again.
That is the unfortunate truth and that is why we are in a mess.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to my colleague from St. Albert. I wondered at the start
whether or not he was talking about the motion before the House. I
have lots of comments about that but I will only make one. He
complained about the IPU and said that only people who agreed
with the aims and objectives of the organization were permitted on
the executive.
My hon. colleague represents the party that is constantly
pointing out that if hon. members representing Quebec and the
Bloc Quebecois are here they are not following the aims and
objectives of Parliament, which is obviously to do the best we can
for the people of Canada. I am not sure how he can have it both
ways. He also mentioned his vendetta against those members who
travel on some of these things to learn about other parts of the
world and so on. Yet I notice he is very interested in
competitiveness around the world and Canada's competitiveness,
providing jobs. I do not know how he thinks we are will achieve
that by sitting at home in Prince Alberta and gazing at our navels.
(1300)
He has said all decision making is here in Ottawa and that the bill
does not address that. The bill replaces 39 programs, which
certainly suggests the people in Ottawa know best where each
program should go with five which put a great deal of decision
making with the local people. In my riding people are already
taking advantage of this.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I thought the member for Oxford
had been around here for a couple of years. I have been around here
for a couple of years. I thought he was elected the same time as I
was.
To think Bloc Quebecois aims and objectives in the House are
the same as those of the rest of us, where has he been? Its objective
is to destroy the country and the House, while I would hope the
objective of the rest of us is to build the country and strengthen the
House. Let us get that absolutely clear. If the member for Oxford
has not realized that yet, please tell him to wake up, Mr. Speaker.
On the IPU, we have thought police in this town and the
constitution of the IPU was changed by the Liberals and the Bloc,
not by Reform. We voted absolutely against it. They voted to say
only those who agree with the aims and objectives of the
organization are allowed to sit on the executive. Who is to police
this? I asked the chairman who is to police this. I guess it is
something called osmosis or it percolates up to the top where your
ideas are better than my ideas or you are right and I am wrong.
The constitution does not say how the IPU is to police this new
rule. I stand up for the taxpayers of Canada who are throwing half a
million dollars into that junket club so these Liberals and Bloc
members can run around the world and bring back pieces of paper
to table in the House so they can collect some dust. They call that
building on experience and improving our competitiveness around
the world. Again I say to the member it is time to wake up.
We cannot afford it. They should not be doing it. We have to get
real in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as I begin my speech, and considering previous
comments, perhaps it would be wise to repeat the text of the motion
before the House today. The hon. member for Mercier moved:
That this House denounce the government for its massive cuts to the
unemployment insurance system that limit access to the program and hit young
people, women, seasonal workers and immigrants hard.
The word Quebec does not appear in this motion. The motion
clearly includes all Quebecers and Canadians, especially the people
in the Maritimes, and I will get back to that in a moment.
First, I also want to say that my comments today also reflect the
results of consultations I have conducted since last Friday in the
form of a series of conferences, including three telephone
conferences, mostly with people from my riding in the Gaspé.
There is a consensus that emerges from these consultations which,
in addition to the unions and workers, included employers,
members of the Chambers of Commerce and people from all walks
of life.
17453
Several aspects of the reform proposal have their merits. For
instance, the fact that low-income families will have a chance to
get higher benefits. However, there are major aspects that need
changing, and they are part of the consensus I will share with you.
First, the requirement of 910 hours of work for first-time
contributors to the unemployment insurance plan. Previously, to be
eligible, the maximum requirement for a first-time contributor was
20 weeks, 15 hours per week, which adds up to 300 hours.
(1305)
Applying the same principle to these proposals, the government
could have said 700 hours, the maximum for regions where the
unemployment rate is not as high. But that is not what they did.
They set the maximum at 910 hours, to be eligible for the plan.
This means that someone who works 35 hours a week will have
to work 26 weeks full time to be eligible, and this means in one
year. If the following year you are back to square one, this means,
as it says in our motion, young people and women-because in
most cases women or young people who enter the labour market
will be hit hard by this measure-seasonal workers, plus those who
arrive on the labour market and immigrants getting their first job in
Canada will all be affected.
What was the rationale for setting this number of hours? How
could Liberal members, elected on a platform that stressed jobs,
have done that? The best way to get someone a job is to give him an
incentive to work. The proposed system will ensure that people
who have worked 600, 700 or 800 hours will have to go on welfare
as a matter of course. That is not a big incentive to work.
I think something should have been included to give people a
taste for better benefits, something worthwhile. So, in addition to
not providing any job creation program with the choices it made,
and not proposing a way to transform regional economies, the
government is waving a stick and telling workers they will have to
work 910 hours; that is the way it will get them working longer. But
first there have to be jobs.
I think our motion constructively criticizes this position, and the
government will have to fix up its requirement of 910 hours. This is
the consensus of the people in a region such as eastern Quebec.
Why? Because it will lead to an exodus of young people as well. It
will swell the numbers of young people who have been leaving
over the past 10 or 15 years.
If somebody works 12 thirty-five hour weeks, he will have 700
hours. He will be short 210 hours, but there is no work in his
region. Where is he going to find work? He will have to move to a
major centre. This will reduce the regional economy in a number of
sectors.
This measure severely punishes the regions, it is backward
looking and must be withdrawn.
Another point we agree on is the need to eliminate the penalty
against seasonal workers. Give me one reason why employment in
a seasonal industry, such as forestry, fishing or tourism, should
result in punishment for the worker whose benefits will be reduced
according to his use of the unemployment insurance plan?
Why is it this way when it is not the case for workers in an
industry that is not seasonal? This, to me, is totally unacceptable. I
see it as rather an insult to Canada's regions as well, although their
development of seasonal industry has been praised. Their
contribution to the Canadian economy is readily accepted, and
then, suddenly, the rules are changed and the people penalized and
no job creation adjustment program is provided.
This leaves a group of very perplexed members, including the
Liberal members for the maritimes, members such as those from
St. John's East, Annapolis Valley-Hants, Madawaska-Victoria,
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in Quebec, all those who
come from ridings hit hard by this policy, which offers no remedy
to change the situation. I am willing to bet that, when the policy is
reviewed in three years, as provided for in the legislation, it will be
assessed as having a disastrous impact because there was no
program to revitalize the economy of these regions as they were
being penalized.
It will have taken three more years to arrive at the same result. I
think we might as well correct the situation right away.
I would like to show you what this will mean for people, not in
theory but in real life. Someone who works 12 weeks at an average
salary of $500 a week can now receive benefits equal to 55 per cent
of his or her salary, or $275.
(1310)
Under the new program, this person will have to work more
hours per week for a longer period in order to qualify for benefits
that will drop from $275 a week to $214. We in this House make
good money. If our pay cheques were reduced by $50, it would not
be so bad, we might be able to live with it. However, if someone's
earnings fell from $275 a week to $214, he would wonder how he
could feed his children every day of the month.
This kind of money is on a par with welfare. You think this is an
incentive to work? This is totally unacceptable and I think that the
government should use the time when the bill is in committee to
correct these problems. The people affected should be able to tell
the government what it means in real life to go from $275 a week to
$214, to make the government understand how the bill would affect
them in real life.
Especially since, with the reduction in the number of weeks of
work required to qualify for UI, the end of the tunnel is welfare.
What a great incentive.
17454
My arguments are not only those of someone from eastern
Quebec. It concerns everyone in Quebec and Canada. Away from
the centre every area will be affected by this and confronted to
it. We must all join in condemning this government proposal and
in seeing to it that changes are made.
We could assume that, perhaps, the government had no choice
but to go about it this way. Perhaps there are financial constraints
holding it back. But now this: a lower limit. It makes no sense. In
the past, the contribution limit was $42,000 in salary. In the future,
the limit will be $39,000. This means that high paid workers, the
higher middle class and high paid workers will be
contributing-listen to this-$900 million less to the UI fund.
This government claimed to be here to create jobs and help the
jobless and those whose skills were not adequate for the labour
market to find a job. So what did the government do? In its reform,
one of its most regressive initiatives, it lowers the ceiling and, as a
result, high paid workers will be contributing $900 million less to
the plan.
Do you know where the government will take the missing $900
million? In the pockets of new contributors, those who did not
make contributions before, who will now have to work for 910
hours to qualify for benefits but who, while making contributions,
if they work ten hours a week during 50 weeks, for a total of 500
hours in the year, will not be refunded fully.
These measures are unacceptable. The UI program may be in
need of a reform. It might have been a good idea to set up an
employment insurance system. The problem is that the government
gave a nice label to a reform that only seeks to make cuts and help
reduce the deficit. We are still wondering: if this is the contribution
of UI claimants to help reduce the deficit, then what will others be
made to contribute? What will be the Royal Bank's contribution,
considering it made one billion dollars in profits last year. One
billion is more than small change. It is more than the difference
between weekly UI benefits of $275 and $214.
The government will have to show that it is also going to get
money from those people. In the meantime, it must amend its
reform and it must do so urgently. One wonders what prevented the
government from introducing, before its reform or at least at the
same time, a job creation policy or a regional economic
diversification initiative. What prevented the government from
showing people that it was going to take positive measures to
ensure that regions such as eastern Quebec can get on the new
technology express and fully adjust. Why did the current
government not take such action?
(1315)
Why is it bent on targeting only the most vulnerable people? It
would have been nice to hear something like: ``As regards our
young people, we will, in certain regions, set up job creation
programs that will allow them to gain a first year of solid
experience, to develop their entrepreneurship, and to see if they
want to become entrepreneurs''.
Let us look at one of the five aspects of job creation dealing with
self-employed workers. Basically, it is a very good program
permitting someone on UI to start a business. Interesting
experiments have been tried under this program. But now, with the
910 hour requirement for first time applicants, a lot of people are
going to be left out in the cold. But, if these people were eligible to
UI, they could put forward a business plan, start their own business
and eventually take some pressure off the unemployment insurance
system instead of remaining dependent on it.
It seems to me that this reform lacks originality, initiative, and
the new ideas which might have been put on the table and which we
would have hoped to see in here, especially after nearly two years
of consultation. This is another part of the reform that should
scrutinized.
Lat year, I toured Canada with the human resources committee.
We went across Canada to find out what kind of reform people
wanted. Nowhere did I hear: ``The number of hours to become
eligible to UI benefits should be increased, seasonal worker
benefits should be diminished''. Nowhere in Canada did I hear this
kind of thing.
However, I was told, for example: ``True, there might be some
economic problems in certain areas; some things have to be fixed,
and we must be given the means to do it''. But, do not present us
with a fait accompli, as the government is doing.
What kind of effect is this going to have on regional economy?
Take the Maritimes, for example; those of you who represent
ridings in Atlantic Canada, figure it out: three years from now, all
your seasonal workers will be down to 50 per cent only. They speak
in terms of 20-week periods. A 20-week period does not mean a
reduction of one per cent a year, it means a reduction of one per
cent of the salary each time one receives unemployment insurance
benefits for 20 weeks. Therefore, in three years, there will be 5 per
cent less benefits paid in the regions.
The spinoffs of that will not be job creation but quite the
opposite. When jobs are created, another more convenience store
opens somewhere and another service job is offered to someone.
But these cuts produce the opposite. There will be less money in
our economy so there will be less jobs of that kind, there will be
more people on welfare, through one program or another, and more
people will leave the region.
Instead of breaking the vicious circle that leads to an exodus
from the regions, measures like this will tighten it and the result
will the opposite of what is expected. This reminds me of the
disheartening experience I had last year somewhere in
Newfoundland, in an employment centre, where I found a
document in a
17455
display case. It was a Human Resources Development Canada
document that encouraged people to move, to give up and to go live
somewhere else. That does not ensure the future of a country, be it
Quebec or Canada. A healthy country is one which capitalizes on
its resources and develops them and one which gives recognition to
people who work.
If seasonal workers are blamed for the situation their industry is
in and for the fact that they cannot work for a longer period, the
mid term consequence will be a lack of manpower in part time
industries. The tourist industry already has that kind of problem. I
can tell you the new plan will only make it worse and will further
widen the incredible gap we have between available jobs and
unemployed workers who do not have the skills and training to fill
those jobs. The hon. member for Mercier has moved the motion
before us because of this whole reform.
(1320)
The government, through massive UI cuts, limits access to the
program and sets goals that are the very opposite of those we
should have in a society such as ours and our society should be
judged by, that is the best use possible of its human resources.
The present Liberal government perpetuates the ways of the
previous government it ousted. People voted for change, but the
government has fallen back into the same old ways. It is high time
you woke up, and swept out the bureaucrats that come up with such
proposals for cabinet. You have to get rid of them, because the
current government will be judged not necessarily on the way the
richer people are allowed to prosper and the more talented are
allowed to perform, but rather on the way it ensures that society
reaches its full potential, that all Canadians can make a useful
contribution and be proud of what they are doing in building
something worthwhile together.
If you continue to penalize the people in this way, you will
achieve the exact opposite of what you are looking for.
I challenge the government to let the Standing Committee on
Human Resource Development travel to Atlantic Canada and
throughout Canada, even to the large urban areas, to talk to the
people and realize that seasonal workers are not the only ones who
will be affected by the decrease in benefits. The government has
now decided to clip the wings of the workers who in the 20 to 30
year age group and who have not had the opportunities that we have
had, and that is totally unacceptable.
So, if the government wants to check if its reform makes a lot of
sense and if it does not believe the points I just made, it only has to
talk to the people to find out what they think. You will see that it
will come back with a totally different reform than the one now
before the House.
I hope that the Liberal government will take advantage of the
holiday season to reflect on this, propose changes and ensure that
Quebecers and Canadians can continue to be proud of the balance
between the citizens, and realize that the future does not depend on
development in big cities, on a lower unemployment rate in
Montreal and Toronto, but on the premise that Canadians and their
families from sea to sea to sea are satisfied and happy with what
they are contributing to.
I think the government has tabled something that needs to be
reviewed. That is why the House should condemn the government
for its cuts to the unemployment insurance program. This should be
in particular the responsibility of the members, who might have
reviewed the reform a little in their caucus and may have had the
time to express some points. Today, we will see if the members,
especially those from the Maritimes, stand for the Liberal Party or
for the people they represent.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to question the statements
made by the member to the House. I suspect he might have
selectively read from the reform, rather than reading it from one
end to the other.
The hon. member asked a question about the whole issue of
incentives for employment and for job creation. He indicated in his
speech that he could not see any incentives. I want to ask him about
that because I have difficulty understanding that he read this
document.
I see items such as $800 million being put into specific programs
to encourage employment. I look at wage subsidies to encourage
employers to hire people, particularly those who need to be trained.
I look at earning supplements to top up wages to encourage people
to get back into the workforce rather than having to collect
benefits.
The hon. member talked about the self-employment initiative
program. That was in UI. It continues to be in the UI reform. It is an
excellent program which is going to create a lot of employment.
The hon. member suggested that people would not be able to use it
because they would not be able to get onto the program. In fact,
half a million people who were not eligible for the program
because they were part time workers are now going to be eligible
for the program.
The member keeps going on that there are no incentives. People
are going to be rewarded for every hour they work and for every
effort they make. The benefits are based on hours worked, not on
weeks. A whole series of things in this reform encourage people to
17456
work. It gives them the incentive to work. It gives them financial
support to work.
(1325)
The hon. member totally ignores those things. He fails to look at
those parts of the employment insurance reform which will result
in opportunities for people to get a job. The fact is that this is all
taking place within a financial context which he totally wants to
ignore. He will not look at those things.
My question to the hon. member is very specific. Why do you
ignore those things in the UI reform? Why do you ignore the $800
million which is being added to the $1.9 billion that already exists
to create employment not only in English Canada but in your
province of Quebec as well? Why are you ignoring those things?
Why will you not talk about those things? Why will you not
admit-
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask that questions be put through
the Chair, not directly to the member.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, my first response to this remark is this,
and I think it is important. The member asked me why we have not
read the reform proposal from cover to cover, why we do not have
all the details.
There is a contradiction between the member and his
government. The government has used closure to limit the debate
to three hours on Monday. It is muzzling us because it does not
want a real debate on this bill at second reading. It is doing that
because it wants to hide this reform before the Christmas holidays,
so that we will have to go home without having had the time to
show Canadians that it is unacceptable.
About the $800 million, it is obvious that it is not $800 million at
all since it is just money being transferred from the consolidated
revenue fund and the unemployment insurance fund. The
government has tried all week to confuse us on this issue, getting
quite confused itself in the answers of the various ministers. It is
certainly not today that it will succeed in convincing us.
I want to make a last comment. It is simple and obvious. Go back
to your ridings to explain to the people that the 910 hour minimum
requirement is reasonable. Ask your constituents if they think it is
reasonable to require that people who participate in the
unemployment insurance program for the first time work a
minimum of 910 hours in order to become eligible. You will all
come back with the same answer after the Christmas break, or
maybe even next week.
Is it reasonable to require that these new workers-I am talking
about our young people, about women who enter the job market,
about immigrants who come to Canada-work a minimum of 910
hours when the previous requirement was 300 hours and when the
highest requirement for people who are already contributing to the
program is 700 hours? Is it reasonable to impose a 910 hour
minimum requirement to those people to whom we claim to want
to give an incentive to work, when it is obvious that this kind of
measure will do exactly the opposite? We will see within a year that
a vast majority of people will be discouraged. This will stimulate
the underground economy and force Canadians onto welfare.
If the government has not understood that, it will have to make
some adjustments; otherwise it will have to face a lot of angry
people. As Gilles Vigneault once said, ``it will have quite a storm
on its hands''.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have great difficulty understanding why the Bloc does
not want to look at the initiatives surrounding employment which
are being brought forward by these reforms.
Are the Bloc members aware that the insurance program will
cover 500,000 more people? Are they aware that the family income
supplement will go to 350,000 low income families? Are they
aware that 380,000 workers will have their premiums refunded?
Some 2,700 workers will eligible for two additional weeks of
benefit. About 45,000 seasonal workers who currently are not
eligible for UI will, despite making payments, become eligible
under this new act.
Are they are not interested in putting people back to work? Do
they not see that this reform of ours on the employment side is
doing just that? I ask the hon. member to tell me and tell the House
why he and his party cannot see that these changes on the
employment side will be very beneficial for the whole country.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking the same
question I asked the minister this morning. He said that there would
be 500,000 more contributors to the program. We all know that
there will be 500,000 more contributors, but what we want to know
is how many of these 500,000 people will ever get benefits.
How many will pay and never benefit from the program? I am
very surprised. Many of the questions we would like answers to are
like this. Before the referendum, the government did not want to
introduce this bill, because it had to be looked at carefully. Today,
they are in a great hurry. They want us to pass this legislation on the
double.
What is behind this new position of the government?
The Deputy Speaker: It being 1.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform
the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81, proceedings on the
motion have expired.
17457
[English]
Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, December 6, the business
for the current supply period will be concluded on Monday,
December 11 of this year at 6.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private
members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
17457
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): moved
that Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
(order of discharge), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on my Bill C-323.
Prior to the last election I served as a probation officer and family
court counsellor in the British Columbia provincial attorney
general's ministry. I served for over 20 years. I spent each day
working with the Canadian Criminal Code and I learned firsthand
the system's weaknesses and strengths. I also discovered the
loopholes that aided offenders to walk when they should have been
properly held to account. Far too often I saw justice not being
served. The criminals were benefiting and the victims were not
served. There was little neglected victims to do. Advancing the
plight of victims of crime is one of the motivations for me to serve
in the House.
When constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby elected me as
their representative in 1993 I made a commitment to take a firm
stand on behalf of the victims of crime. Whether changes to the
Canadian Criminal Code or to some other statute, I promised
something would be done to protect the public and to change the
balance of the operation of the law to be more in favour of victims.
On May 1 of this year I had the distinct pleasure to introduce Bill
C-323. Today there is even a greater satisfaction that the bill was
deemed a votable item with a chance of becoming law. Small
changes such as those in Bill C-323 may not sufficiently change the
overall system to the way we would like but it certainly represents
a good start.
Approximately a year and a half ago a Vancouver area lawyer
approached me with a concern that a loophole in the Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act was enabling offenders to be relieved of their
commitment to pay civil court judgments. It was a loophole that
was causing victims further suffering. It was clear that a simple
amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act would eliminate
the possibility for a person to use personal bankruptcy to escape
from any owed damages awarded in civil court. Thus I have been
working to bring forward my private member's bill.
When a person commits an assault or battery, a wilful act that
harms another, the victims can sue for damages through a civil
lawsuit. However, under the current BIA if the offender claims
bankruptcy after being found liable in court the damages awarded
to the victim are cleared, causing the victim to once again suffer
hardship.
(1335)
Subsection 178(1) of the bankruptcy act lists various things an
order of discharge does not release a bankrupt person from. The
law has long recognized there are some things that cannot be
forgiven and will remain. It takes into account alimony,
maintenance and support of a spouse or child, debt arising out of
fraud, embezzlement or a fine, penalty or restitution order imposed
by a criminal court in respect of an offence.
Therefore according to the way the act currently reads a bankrupt
person cannot be relieved of paying a traffic fine yet can be
relieved of paying damages for something like sexual assault. I do
not think any member of the House would disagree the statute must
be changed as soon as possible. We must provide some appropriate
balance.
In April I read an article in the Vancouver Province newspaper
about Sherleen Hackett who was awarded $145,000 in damages for
sexual abuse by her stepfather on June 28, 1991. Stepfather James
Hackett was ordered to make payments of $500 a month.
According to the article he made one full payment of $500, four
payments of $100, and then filed for bankruptcy. It was as easy as
that to turn the legal system on its head.
Allow me to cite several other examples so those following can
fully comprehend the severity of the fundamental flaw in this
statute. Tammy Carr of White Rock, B.C. sued her stepfather for
sexually assaulting her for six years and was awarded $42,513. Her
stepfather, David Graham, filed for bankruptcy six months after the
judgment. Payment to date: none.
Cynthia Shefford of Alexis Creek, B.C. was awarded $357,743
by a supreme court jury for the sexual abuse committed by her
father, Leonard Klassen. The father was ordered to pay his daughter
$500 a month for 12 years. Three months after the trial Klassen
filed for bankruptcy. Payment to date: none. The amount of
Shefford's award is the largest awarded in the country to date, but
what good is it to have such a record amount if not a penny is
received by the one who needs it most, the victim?
My bill would make a simple amendment to subsection 178(1)
of the act, as part (a) of the act currently says that an order of
discharge does not release the bankrupt from any fine, penalty,
restitution order or other in similar nature to a fine, penalty or
17458
restitution order imposed by a court in respect of an offence or any
debt arising out of a recognizance of bail.
Bill C-323 would make an addition to this part:
An order of discharge does not release the bankrupt from any damages in
respect of an assault or battery awarded by a court pursuant to a judgment
rendered in a civil proceeding and any interest on the damages before or after
judgment ordered by the court or payable by law.
The amendment is a brief but fundamental change to the act. Not
only would it strengthen the statute in legal terms, it would
strengthen the public's view of the operation of Canada's justice
system. Some of the imbalance and absurdity in law would be
removed.
I do not think many Canadians know debtors may currently
avoid substantial payment on sexual assault judgments by making
an assignment in bankruptcy. However, as more and more people
file their cases in the courts, public awareness will increase. The
more our legal system gives the offender a loophole, the more
disregard will arise.
If is nothing is done to such a small section of the Bankruptcy
and Insolvency Act the justice system as a whole will be in danger
of being viewed as completely in disrepute. The sad thing is
Canadians already look at our justice system and think it is not
reflective of them.
One need look only at the Young Offenders Act to see examples
of ineffectiveness. The government continues to claim what it is
doing will save lives and make Canadians feel more safe. In the last
two years the Liberal government has made several changes to the
Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act, and yet my
constituents still complain to me they feel afraid to walk the streets.
The government says these changes need time to be
implemented but I believe it knows that all the time in the world to
discuss and defer will make absolutely no difference to the crime
statistics. The criminal law changes made so far by the government
are anaemic and do not sufficiently respond to the desires of
mainstream Canadian values.
(1340)
The situation is similar to that with intersections and street
lights. Before a municipality will put up a street light at a busy
intersection it waits for a certain number of serious accidents to
occur. If no accidents occur, it is believed a street light is not
needed. Usually someone has to die first.
Therefore a responsible government would address a problem
before it gets out of control. The amendment in my bill should have
been introduced years ago or at least near the time that such cases
were coming before the courts.
This is the job of federal departments. There are legal experts
who must know the bankruptcy act inside and out. They knew there
were loopholes in subsection 178 for years but until now nobody
has addressed them.
In 1992 British Columbia's legislature took a lead with this issue
by amending its own limitation act. The amendment removed any
limitation period for bringing action for damages for sexual
assault. This is interesting in that the issue was addressed in a
provincial legislature in 1992 and yet it takes the federal
government another three years to address it at the federal level.
The government is not in the vicinity of the eight ball at all. It
has not recognized as a matter of urgent priority those victims
suffering because of legislative inadequacy.
In 1994 an ad hoc committee of women for reform of the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act submitted a discussion paper on
why subsection 178(1) needs to be amended. I will summarize
some of the benefits it believes will result by amending the act.
It avoids a negative public perception regarding the impact of
bankruptcy on sexual assault judgments and consequent disrepute
of the act. It sends a clear message to sexual abusers that the act
cannot be used to avoid payments as a result of judgments.
It deters abusers by eliminating a means of escaping the cost to
be paid for sexual abuse. It provides greater certainty for victims,
the courts, trustees in bankruptcy and the superintendent.
It provides a greater likelihood that victims who are able to
realize civil judgments will be able to pay for their own treatment
and will be less likely to be dependent on an already overburdened
social services resources.
It provides consistency with current federal initiatives to lessen
the burden on the social safety net. Abusers will be made to bear
the costs of the victims' recovery process rather than society as a
whole or the victims themselves.
A lawyer friend of mine who suggested the amendment has been
pressing both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry to
make such changes that I have included in my bill.
I will read a letter the Minister of Industry sent to my friend on
April 6, 1995:
My colleague, the honourable Minister of Justice, recently sent me a copy of
your letter of August 16, 1994 recommending that the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act be amended to include awards of damages in serious assault
cases among those not released by a discharge in bankruptcy. I regret the delay
in replying to you.
Your letter is quite timely, as I am now considering a number of possible BIA
amendments to be included in a bill targeted for introduction later in the spring
or in the fall. Among the amendments under consideration is one along the lines
you have proposed. Your letter argues strongly in favour of such an amendment,
and it will be given due consideration.
17459
Thank you for bringing your concerns to the government's attention.
On November 24, 1995 the Minister of Industry introduced Bill
C-109, which included amendments to the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act, including a change to subsection 178(1). I applaud
the minister for his recent initiative. I wish the change could have
come about sooner, but I understand the minister wanted to make
many amendments to the act besides my proposal.
On page 61 of Bill C-109 and carrying over to page 62, there is a
small section that reads:
Subsection 178(1) of the act is amended by adding the following after
paragraph (a): (a.1) any award of damages by a court in civil proceedings in
respect of an assault;
The minister's bill finally attempts to fill in the loophole, but I
am suggesting my wording is better. The government bill deals
only with the word assault, which is from the Criminal Code. My
bill deals with both assault and the purely civil tort created from the
historical term battery.
It also deals with interest on moneys on such civil awards, which
the government bill overlooks. I am also now suggesting that in
view of further advice, the term interest on moneys awarded should
apply to the whole section 178, not just to the assault award section
as suggested.
In addition, the bill should include the term wrongful death.
(1345 )
Currently the government bill envisions that an assaulter will not
be cleared of civil liability damages and bankruptcy, but if the
assault is serious enough to eventually cause death then the
offender becomes free. The inherent message is for the perpetrator
to do more harm and actually kill the victim. Then the civil
liabilities will not survive the bankruptcy. That angle must also be
covered.
I have discussed these provisions with the minister. I will be
looking for some positive moves from him in the next week. He
should publicly promise to approve the appropriate clauses of Bill
C-109 so that perhaps I might find it acceptable to withdraw my
bill and have the government fully take over my initiative.
So far the minister has appeared co-operative and open to
discussions. I compliment him for bringing Bill C-109 forward. It
is a technical clean-up of many outdated sections of the old statute
which was based on reviews and consultations that were started by
the Conservative government of the last Parliament. The minister
has appropriately built on that beginning and we look forward to
speedy passage. I hope I will be able to report to Parliament that as
legislators we will get this thing done.
Victims of crime should wear no political label. I
commemorated again for our party on December 6 the national
tragedy of the murder of the 14 women from Montreal. The 14
roses on display in the Commons lobby on December 6 were a
sober reminder of the obligation of Parliament and what it owes to
victims of all kinds from every region of the country.
The platitudes have reached high levels in the House for years
now about the remembrance of December 6. Yet little in actual
legislation has been passed that directly uplifts the plight of
victims. However, with my bill we have a practical and concrete
chance to act positively. We will see if the Liberals social
philosophy can measure up to the expectations of mainstream
Canadian values and the hopes and aspirations of Canadians even
from an ignored British Columbia.
I am being very direct in my comments, for the hopes of hurting
children and grandparents were dashed by uncaring Liberals on the
justice committee this week when a private member's bill from the
member for Mission-Coquitlam granting grandparents legal
standing in divorce courts was summarily dismissed. It was shot
down by the government after many brave Liberal backbenchers
dared defy cabinet signals on the bill and actually vote for change.
They voted for the real people's agenda. They voted for the people.
Then the top down Liberal mindset took over and the old style
political games were played by the government against the hopes
of ordinary people.
Here we have it again: Liberal members not supporting victims.
They cannot deny it. Their jaws are quivering, but their votes are
now forever part of the parliamentary record. The pattern runs deep
with them. It has been allowed to run too long for our country's
well-being.
Can one wonder when I reflect the cynicism about government
from my constituents? They feel government is something done to
them rather than for them. In mock amazement the justice minister
said to me on national television that I was too cynical when I
recounted to him a few of the missed justice system reforms that he
as the minister had chosen not to pursue. I cannot be too hard on
him. After all he has an educational handicap in that he is a lawyer.
Here is another initiative placed right in the lap of the Liberals,
private member's Bill C-323. This measure is not supposed to be
handled in a partisan manner. The country is watching. I hope the
House will get it right this time and fully support the kind of
initiative I have brought forward to help victims of crime and have
perpetrators pay for and restore what they have done. Let us have
offenders directly accountable to victims.
I am encouraged that uncharacteristically of Liberals the
Minister of Industry might not be as misguided as the justice
minister when it comes to being in touch with mainstream
Canadian values. We all know how good people can become rather
strange when they acquire an extensive legal education and then
call themselves
17460
lawyers. This minister seems reasonable enough to spread the
credit around and advance the people's agenda rather than merely a
Liberal agenda. In view of the early signals I have received from
the Minister of Industry, I am hopeful that my bill, or more
correctly the people's measures, will get to the next stage.
I urge members to dig deep, overcome themselves, be generous
of spirit and support a good idea. I am also calling upon the
Minister of Industry to give the proposals most serious
consideration.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-323, an act to
amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
(1350 )
It has been two weeks since the Minister of Industry introduced
Bill C-109, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Income Tax Act.
The bill contains more than 70 amendments to the BIA. The
amendments fine tune the laws regarding commercial bankruptcy
and introduce new features involving consumer bankruptcy. The
legislation has been designed to assist Parliament in its three-year
review of the BIA.
The House welcomed the opportunity to look at the bankruptcy
laws in more detail. After all, Canada's bankruptcy laws must
protect the interests of borrowers, lenders, insolvent practitioners
and government. These interests are so varied and complex that
over the decades bankruptcy laws have been very difficult to
reform.
Bankruptcy laws are an integral part of the framework
legislation that established the rules of the marketplace in which
buyers, sellers, lenders and borrowers can make transactions with
confidence that the law will treat them fairly.
Among the issues covered in Bill C-109 was the treatment of
court fines in assault cases in the event of bankruptcy. The
government proposed that people who had been accused of sexual
or physical assault should not be able to turn to bankruptcy as a
way of avoiding penalties imposed by the civil courts. Fines for
physical or sexual assaults become non-dischargeable in the event
of bankruptcy under Bill C-109.
The legislation is now before the House and when it is in front of
the committee, the committee will have the opportunity to study it
in detail and to make appropriate amendments.
One such amendment should be the proposal before us today,
that section 178 which lists non-dischargeable debts also includes
the following:
-any damages in respect of an assault or battery awarded by a court pursuant
to a judgment rendered in a civil proceeding and interest on the damages before
or after judgment ordered by the court or payable by law.
The key difference between Bill C-109 and Bill C-323 is the
addition in the hon. member's bill of including interest on damages
as part of the non-dischargeable portion of a bankruptcy debt. This
is an excellent amendment. I commend the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby for it.
I would like to see the same principle applied to all categories
listed in section 178, not just the assault cases. I would prefer to see
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act amended so that either the
interest issue is addressed specifically in each category or,
conversely, have it addressed generically so that it is clear that it
applies to all categories listed in section 178.
I do not believe debate on a private member's bill is the most
appropriate place to make these changes. All of us are concerned
about the efficient allocation of House time and I would rather see
the issue discussed in committee when it reviews Bill C-109. That
being said, I congratulate the hon. member for his worthwhile
contribution to the amendment of Canada's bankruptcy laws.
Too often in the House we fail to acknowledge the
perceptiveness and integrity of suggestions that come from the
other side of the floor. Perhaps this is one reason Canadians have
become impatient and cynical about politicians. They see us
perform during question period. They are witness to the bickering
and sniping that show politics at its worst.
What Canadians do not see in the clips from question period that
make the nightly TV news is that behind the scenes and in
committee there is a common purpose among members of the
House. We are working hard to make things better for Canadians.
Perhaps we ought to make more of an effort to congratulate one
another in public. Behind the curtains we often have a kind word
for our colleagues on the other side of the floor. Sometimes we will
ruefully congratulate them on a political point well scored. The
time has come for us to acknowledge without shame when
members across the floor come up with good ideas that ought to be
a part of government policy.
This is one such occasion. I commend the hon. member for his
work on bankruptcy reform. I look forward to hearing what he will
have to say to the committee if he agrees the committee is a more
suitable forum for his ideas to be discussed.
17461
(1355)
[Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity today to speak to the bill introduced by the hon.
member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
I listened carefully to the hon. member's arguments. Members
with whom I spoke in the Bloc Quebecois, and I personally, are in
favour of this amendment. It is clear that individuals who are
ordered in civil court to pay damages in respect of an assault or
battery or any another act that could lead to a conviction in civil
court, should not be able to shirk their responsibilities by declaring
bankruptcy.
Like our government colleague, I think this amendment to the
Bankruptcy Act is admissible and useful.
There is also the aspect of interest payments which may be
useful in an amendment to the bill introduced by the minister on the
same subject.
However, I was less inclined to appreciate the arguments
presented by the hon. member to justify his amendment. I agree
there is a problem. In Canada, individuals convicted in civil court
of causing damage as a result of violent acts or sexual abuse should
not be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.
However, I think the hon member-and this is just a
comment-was putting his amendment in a rather negative
context.
There was a lot of talk about crime, a list of people convicted of
sexual abuse or acts of violence was mentioned, cases were cited,
and so forth. Perhaps the climate in my riding, in my region, and
even elsewhere in Quebec is not quite the same, but I have not met
many people in my area who are afraid to go out at night for fear of
being assaulted or abused. These things can happen, of course, but
they are not so widespread that they can be used as arguments to
justify otherwise quite worthwhile amendments.
The hon. government member also noted that, last November,
the Minister of Industry tabled in this House a bill to amend the
Bankruptcy Act. This bill is much broader than the amendment
proposed by the hon. member because it kind of overhauls the
Bankruptcy Act. Like the hon. member who spoke before me, I did
notice that there is an identical clause in the bill introduced by the
Minister of Industry and in the bill presented by our colleague from
the Reform Party today.
I even think that, had it realized this sooner, the committee in
charge of determining which bills shall be considered as votable
items might have decided that this bill was redundant in light of the
minister's bill.
When I went over clause 105, a little paragraph further down
caught my eye. It has nothing to do with this debate, but I know,
Mr. Speaker, that you are quite lenient on the issue of relevance. I
do not know if my colleague from the Reform Party saw this
paragraph that makes it more difficult for students who are out of
school but are unable to find a job to declare bankruptcy.
(1400)
They are told they cannot do so within two years of finishing
their courses. This is, I feel, an aspect which merits attention
perhaps. I wanted to bring it up here in the House, and my party
will debate it when the time comes. I believe that, after all of the
Reform member's justifiable severity concerning people getting
out of their responsibilities after a civil judgment, he ought to focus
the same amount of energy on the student situation in order to
determine whether there is a problem. We know that in Canada, and
in Quebec, my region in particular, getting into the work force is a
huge problem for students.
I feel therefore, that in the bill to be introduced by the
Minister-I know I am not in order, but I feel this will have to be
examined carefully. It is all very fine to want to be strict, to want to
see people pay their debts, but one still needs to have a proper
understanding of the situation. My colleague has justifiably
pointed out that people found guilty in civil suits ought not to be
exempted.
Looking at the student situation, however, we become aware that
the minister's bill is very severe, considering that at the present
time the job market for young people in Canada is very bad, and
when it comes right down to it, one realizes the amendments
proposed by the minister are unfavourably biased against students.
A student who is unable to pay his debts after graduation is judged
initially as in some way guilty of fraudulent intent in not wanting to
repay his government loans. This is, I feel, not the case for the large
majority of students. The bulk of young people forced to declare
bankruptcy at the end of their studies do so because they really
cannot pay.
Certainly there are some people who will take advantage of such
possibilities to commit fraud. However, as was said this morning
concerning the whole unemployment insurance question, when a
system is put into place there are always some people who will try
to cheat, but it is my belief that not everyone using the system
ought to be tarred with the same brush as the dishonest few.
I hope that the government will take this into consideration when
the time comes to examine this legislation, particularly since the
unemployment insurance reform will mean that students who have
terminated their studies will be hit hard by that as well. We realize
that a student completing school and finding a first job will have to
work 910 hours in order to qualify for unemployment insurance.
17462
Lots of students today are on contract, and it is rare that anyone
gets 910 hours in one go. Young people will not qualify. If they
cannot qualify, they cannot pay their student loans. If they cannot
pay their student loans, they will have difficulty meeting their
obligations. Under the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act the
minister has tabled, young people will not be able to pay and
therefore will not be able to declare bankruptcy and will be unable
to pay. It is not clear where they will end up.
In any case, I hope that, when the committee studies the
legislation, it will look carefully at the amendment the member
proposed, because I think it is acceptable, but I hope it will also
look at other aspects of the legislation, which are tightening and
toughening up the system. Basically, Canada's entire social system
is becoming harsher. It is our whole way of looking at our young
people in school and people having difficulty finding a job.
Our whole approach, that of Canadians and of Quebecers, is
getting tougher. We accept the situation, because it is always being
presented in the light of our difficult economic situation, but still,
in such a situation, things have to be taken into account, as I
suggested my colleague have done in connection with the whole
issue of crime and its control through more severe measures.
I think we have to take things into account as well in our attitude
toward Canadians and Quebecers who need a little more support
from the government in a time of greater economic difficulty. I
thank you for having tolerated my wandering slightly off the topic
of debate.
(1405)
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf
of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak in
support of Bill C-323, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act (order of discharge).
I begin my remarks by congratulating my Reform Party caucus
colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, on
the fine job he has done in bringing this legislative proposal
forward for the consideration of the House. In my view, all
members of the House should be quick to rally in support of this
bill.
Very simply, the changes to the bankruptcy laws being proposed
by my colleague would prevent persons from declaring bankruptcy
in order to escape paying civil damages for an assault or battery
they have been found to have committed by a Canadian court.
Clearly, Canadians want the members of the House to support
changes in our laws that will protect the victims of crime in our
society.
Canadians have demanded measures that will address the
damage done by violence in our homes, our streets and our
playgrounds. We on this side of the House were elected on a
mandate to bring changes to the criminal justice system. The wave
of support for the Reform Party of Canada which swept across the
west in the last election is based on the demand by the Canadian
electorate for changes in the way our society deals with crime and,
in particular, violent crime.
I take this opportunity to give fair warning to the Liberals that
this wave of support for the Reform Party of Canada will sweep
across the nation in the next federal election. I have no doubt about
it.
The efforts of my colleague will not go unnoticed by Canadians.
He has introduced a private member's bill which seeks to add civil
damages awarded in respect of an assault or battery to the debts
listed in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which cannot be
released by the act. Again, I congratulate my fellow British
Columbian for his efforts on behalf of all Canadians and the
Reform Party of Canada.
Canadians know that the Liberals have proposed changes to the
bankruptcy laws of our country. Canadians are aware of the gutless
and poor legislation the Liberal Minister of Industry has presented
in the House. In true Liberal Party fashion the government is
ramming the changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
through the House on a fast track like it has with so many other
bills.
Bill C-109, the weak and cowardly Liberal government changes
to our country's bankruptcy laws, was introduced and read for the
first time on November 24, 1995. It was read the second time on
November 28, 1995. That is four days later, for the Liberals across
the floor who are counting the days on their calendars. Bill C-109
will become another bright light on the Christmas tree of Liberal
red book broken promises. Bill C-109 will be rocketed through the
House like a missile, with no debate, or as little as possible, no
amendments, no regrets and no apologies.
Bill C-96 creates a new department for the federal government.
The creation of a new department is a far cry from the demands of
Canadians to reduce the size of government. The new department is
exempt from having to submit an annual report. The books are
being hidden by the Liberals.
Bill C-101 is another bill debated in the House. It was a
collection of weak and ineffective changes to the Railway Act. That
bill was so far from what stakeholders in the industry wanted that it
was worthless.
Bill C-107 was another great debate for the Liberals. It was cast
in stone. It could not be changed, not one word. There was nothing
to debate. The Liberals passed it in a matter of days, patted each
other on the back and congratulated the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development for all the hard work he had done to
steer the bill through the House.
17463
Canadians are absolutely amazed by Bill C-62. It is so seriously
flawed the Liberal minister is scrambling to make changes to the
bill even before it gets sent to committee.
(1410)
If the Liberals care to pay any attention to my warning of their
fate in the next election then they should endorse my colleague's
bill. Bill C-323 will go a long way in fighting violent crime in our
society. The victims of these crimes need the resources it takes to
recover from the violence that has been committed against them.
The perpetrators of these violent acts are using the country's
bankruptcy laws as a convenient tool to get away with their crimes.
Do the Liberals really want to be known as the political party
that stands 100 per cent in support of the segment of society that
uses violence as a response to events in their lives? Do the Liberals
really want to be known as the political party having the guts to
stand up to the perpetrators of violence? Or do members of the
House want to be known for saying to perpetrators of violence:
``You cannot hurt someone and just walk away''. This has to be said
to those who beat up on women, to those who punch smaller
persons, to those who sexually violate another human being,
including children.
That is what Bill C-323 is asking us to do. It is asking us to deal
with bullies. It is asking us to stand up for those who have been hit
by a bully. This is elementary. This bill is trying to put on the
statute books something that we all learned in the school yard.
The Liberals have already chosen not to do what this bill is
asking. I hope that people watching me right now will pick up a pen
and write down on a piece of paper Bill C-323, then go to their
phone book, look up the phone number of their Liberal member of
Parliament and phone him or her. Tell them that you want to
register your vote as a yes for Bill C-323 on your behalf. This is to
make sure that bullies are punished.
I am willing to put politics aside on this one. We need to protect
the people in society who have been victims of violence. We are
talking about violent acts which have been proven to be committed.
Courts have decided how much the person perpetrating the
violence owes the victim. The aggressor laughs at the court order,
declares bankruptcy and walks away from the terrible damage done
by the violent action. The victim who is probably already paying
high medical bills, losing time off work or is being affected in any
number of sad, tragic ways, can do nothing. They are stripped of
their ability to recover because some smart lawyer has figured out a
way to exonerate the client from having to pay for an act of
violence.
I cannot believe that on behalf of my constituents I am standing
here today and literally begging the Liberals to listen. I am asking
them, on humanitarian grounds, to support something that is so
basic that any Canadian with an ounce of morals or integrity would
support it.
Most Canadians would be surprised to know that those
committing violent acts can get off scot free through the
bankruptcy laws. Any self-respecting Canadian would say: ``Let's
put a stop to that today''.
Canadians cannot believe that the Liberals ignored the chance to
do something about this situation with the proposed changes to the
bankruptcy laws. The Reform Party's private member bill, C-323,
has been on the Order Paper since last spring. The Liberals knew it
existed. They chose not to include this idea in their amending bill
introduced just last month. This is shameful. This is embarrassing.
Canadians are very disappointed.
(1415)
I am the national defence critic for the Reform Party of Canada. I
have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. As a matter of fact I am
still on the supplementary reserve list.
The Canadian Armed Forces is famous throughout the world for
standing up to bullies. We did this for 30 years in Cyprus. We are
peacekeepers. We are known for having a fair and just society. We
are admired for our willingness to take our notion of right and
wrong to virtually every corner of the planet and assist in keeping
peace, preventing bullies from hitting on people and getting away
with it.
I am proud to support Bill C-323. The Reform Party of Canada is
proud of my colleague's bill. The people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, whom I represent, are proud
to have me speak in favour of the bill.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for the opportunity to speak to the private member's bill put
forward by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
This legislation is a clear example of a good idea whose time has
come. In fact, the idea of amending the Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act so that people who have been accused of sexual and physical
assault cannot use bankruptcy as a way of avoiding penalties
imposed by the civil courts has also been raised by government
legislation.
Bill C-109 was introduced a couple of weeks ago. Under it, fines
for physical and sexual assault become non-dischargeable in the
event of bankruptcy. The legislation before us takes this idea one
step further and I think it is a good step. Under Bill C-323 the pre-
and post-judgment interest on awards would also be
non-dischargeable. I want to commend the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby for his foresight in closing this loophole.
This is an excellent amendment to the laws regarding bankruptcy.
17464
The hon. member's bill inadvertently opens another loophole.
Section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act refers to a
number of instances where debts are non-dischargeable. Among
them are alimony payments, child support and fraud.
In cases where the courts award pre- and post-judgment interest
in these other circumstances, I do not think the bankrupt should be
able to escape these obligations simply by declaring bankruptcy.
Nor do I think this was the intention of the hon. member when he
tabled this legislation.
The bill after all seeks social justice. It is an endeavour to make
sure that those who have incurred debts and interest charges by
order of the court cannot escape their obligations by declaring
bankruptcy.
I am certain that if the hon. member had the opportunity to
redraft the legislation, he would do so in a way that would close
down the loopholes for the bankrupts listed in section 178. I would
suggest to him that the surest way of having his recommendation
adopted would be to withdraw Bill C-323 and resubmit his
proposal as an amendment to Bill C-109 now at second reading.
I am convinced that the amendment will be welcomed by the
committee. We have already heard expressions of support from
both sides of the House. We all know that the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby has hit upon an excellent idea and a worthy
amendment and we all want to see it incorporated in law as soon as
possible.
That is why I support the principle of Bill C-323 but I cannot
support the bill as it now stands. I encourage the hon. member to
withdraw Bill C-323 and present its substance as an amendment to
Bill C-109 at committee. There it will be incorporated into a bill
that has been designed to address the broad spectrum of both
consumer and corporate issues that relate to bankruptcy.
Many of the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
contained in Bill C-109 are aimed at redressing an imbalance
between consumer debtors and their creditors. The legislation puts
more pressure on debtors to rehabilitate and to act more
responsibly by repaying their debts. For example, as we have
discussed in the House before, most consumer bankrupts are
discharged nine months after bankruptcy. Even if they start
obtaining surplus income, it is costly for creditors to get back what
they are owed.
(1420)
Under Bill C-109 consumer debtors will be required to remit a
portion of their surplus income, the income which exceeds the
minimum cost of living. The creditor will not have to go to the
courts to receive his due.
The legislation also covers student loans. Some students have
declared personal bankruptcy upon graduation as a means of
discharging their student loans. Under the new law, students will
continue to be able to declare bankruptcy but their student loans
will not be discharged for another 24 months.
Under the new amendments, insolvent spouses may submit a
joint proposal for bankruptcy. This will help save time, cut costs
and streamline the process. Former spouses will no longer be able
to use the bankruptcy laws as an easy way to get out of making
support payments. Spousal and child support payments become
provable priority claims.
The legislation also contains measures to ensure that low income
families will not lose their GST credit refunds. Such refunds will
be exempted from seizure in the event of a bankruptcy.
All these are good amendments. Among the good amendments is
the proposal to ensure that people who have been accused of sexual
or physical assault do not use bankruptcy as a way of avoiding
penalties imposed by the civil courts.
The hon. member has added a very useful amendment to this last
provision. I look forward to discussions in committee on it if he is
willing to withdraw his bill.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, all laws passed by Parliament are designed to deal with
inefficiencies and injustices created by free and voluntary
interactions among people. Canada's Bankruptcy and Insolvency
Act is no exception.
People dealing honestly and with the best of intentions borrow
money from others in order to establish businesses or carry them
over periods of temporary insolvency. In this world of uncertainty,
occasionally the best made plans of borrowers go wrong. They are
unable to meet the repayment schedules to which they have
committed themselves.
Historically, creditors used to have powerful instruments of
coercion to assure that debtors make every effort to repay their
debts. The stories of debtor prisons are the stuff of Dickens' novels.
They have done much to influence our thinking about the injustices
involved in the old, harsh methods of dealing with debtors.
These attitudes are that debtors unable to pay their debts are in
trouble for reasons beyond their control. They typically are poor
and need to be protected from rich creditors. Moreover, it is not in
the interests of society that individuals who have hit a streak of bad
luck should be stigmatized for life and forever unable to get back
into business or even just mainstream life. The conditions
described in Dickens' novels were that the poor were stripped of
everything. They were stigmatized. Indeed those were bad times
and some changes were needed.
The existing Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act reflects social
attitudes. It makes it possible for individuals to declare bankruptcy
to escape the social and economic penalties that historically were
imposed on debtors. In Canada and in most industrialized countries
today, debtors can clean the slate, walk away from past mistakes
17465
and start all over again by the simple act of asking courts to declare
them bankrupt.
Canadians believe generally that these rules are desirable and
create a better society. They also believe that bankruptcy itself and
the stigma attached to having declared bankruptcy are sufficient
deterrents to abuse of the privileges granted under the law.
(1425)
I might note that there are significant differences between
countries. I understand that in the United States, some successful
businessmen who today are millionaires brag about the fact that
they have been bankrupt at least two or three times. One of the
significant cultural differences in the United States, Canada and
Europe is the fact that we typically do not have these kinds of
entrepreneurs that go around saying it was quite all right to have
been bankrupt a couple of times.
Mr. Forseth: They have no shame.
Mr. Grubel: My colleague whispers into my ear that they have
no shame. I personally think this is reflective of a more dynamic,
risk taking society which has all kinds of benefits for creating
wealth and generally raising the income of citizens. However, there
are always excesses.
As is the case with so many well-intentioned laws, this law on
bankruptcy has been shown to have a number of unintended
consequences. This law is subject to increasing abuse, especially as
the memory of the disgrace of debtor prisons and social ostracism
are receding from the public conscience.
Bill C-323, the amendment to the bankruptcy act introduced by
my Reform Party colleague from New Westminster-Burnaby, is
aimed at curbing one of the unintended consequences of what
otherwise is a well-intentioned good act. If accepted it would
reduce the ability of individuals to escape responsibility for the
payment of fines which have been imposed by civil courts in
response to damages caused by violence, typically against women.
The intention of the existing legislation clearly was not to open
bankruptcy as an avenue which could be used by violent offenders
to escape the penalty which society through court actions has
imposed on them. This private member's bill is consistent with
public sentiment on this subject. I support it and urge members of
this House to pass it.
The proposed legislation continues to protect innocent victims of
bankruptcy from the historic, often unjust and socially undesirable
consequences of excessive penalties. Making sure the perpetrators
of violent acts against people are duly convicted in a court of law
and required to pay a fine is not equivalent to bringing back debtor
prisons. It is a necessary and in my view highly desirable act that
would restore equity and would close a loophole in the existing
law.
I have every confidence in the ability of those entrusted with
carrying out the intent of this act to distinguish between cases
where bankruptcy is designed to escape responsibility and where it
is the result of genuine bad luck. The risk of mistakes in such
decisions is worth the social benefit in terms of greater equity
envisaged by the designer of this bill. I urge that his ideas receive
the assent they deserve.
The Deputy Speaker: I wonder if we might agree not to see the
clock until the next member has finished his submission. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
intently to the speech of the hon. member for Capilano-Howe
Sound who said how different our culture and our attitudes are
toward bankruptcy. I do not believe that is the case.
For example, members of the Reichmann family, in the pursuit
of some of their objectives not only within Canada but also
internationally, used the protection of chapter 11 of the United
States and also our own creditors arrangement act. Many of our
countrymen are alarmed and curious to understand how it was
possible, after all the smoke had cleared from that period of time in
our history, that over 2,500 employees of the Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce had lost their jobs, but at the same time many
of the executive staff were promoted and that today the Reichmann
family still has partial ownership of Canary Wharf. These are the
people that my Reform colleagues would like to support, I suppose.
(1430)
I will now move into the area of this bill. It was a very
honourable presentation by the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby. Rather than take the time of the House
today, I can state that it was never the intention that this act be
abused by people trying to escape societal obligations. I believe it
is very appropriate that the member bring forward this legislation
at this time.
The question seems to be whether it is appropriate that this bill
go forward. Another bill is currently being debated, Bill C-109, a
government bill, which overlaps and has some similarities to this
bill. When I try to compare these two bills, I discover that their
differences are twofold. One is that the member's bill talks about
assault and battery, whereas the minister's bill talks simply of
assault.
My reading of the word assault would include the definition of
the word battery. I do not believe that is a significant difference
between Bill C-109 and the private member's bill.
17466
The other difference, as I understand it, is that the hon. member
includes the concept of interest related to awards or judgments in
the area of assault and battery. That would be different from the
existing bill of the minister.
I am not a lawyer, but I understand in law that when we specify
in one aspect of the bill a specific such as interest, that by definition
a judge will assume that we meant interest only in that particular
area and that some of the other areas of the bill would not have
interest judgments attached to them. As a consequence, I believe
we need to either amend the existing legislation in Bill C-109
which talks about interest, so that we are clear that interest is
included in all the categories, or we need to delete the interest
adjustment aspect from the member's bill.
The bill presented by the member is a good one and deserves the
support of the House, but it is a matter of time allocation. This
House is very busy. We have been putting through a lot of
legislation recently and I am sure the government has much more
legislation to present in the new year. We have to find a way in
which we can do this efficiently.
It seems to me that the most efficient way to handle the matter
would be for the member to move an amendment to Bill C-109 at
committee stage. Indeed, I would be happy to support the member
in that initiative.
Today I would have to say that I have to oppose the bill, not
because I oppose it in principle, not at all. I support the initiatives
of the member. I would oppose it simply on the grounds of time
allocation.
I believe there are many members on this side of the House that
would support the initiatives of the member to bring forward
amendments to Bill C-109 during committee stage, dealing with
the aspect of interest.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of private members' business has expired.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
[English]
It being 2.35 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at
11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.33 p.m.)