CONTENTS
Friday, May 3, 1996
Bill C-12 Consideration resumed of report stage 2293
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2293
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2295
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2301
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2303
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2303
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2305
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2305
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2306
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2306
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2306
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2306
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2307
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2312
Bill C-34. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 2313
Bill C-278. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 2313
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2313
Bill C-279. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 2314
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2314
Bill C-280. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 2314
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2314
Motion for concurrence in 15th report 2314
Motion moved and agreed to 2314
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2314
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2314
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of report stage 2316
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2316
Division on motion deferred 2318
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2318
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2318
Bill C-213. Motion for second reading 2326
2293
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 3, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from May 2, 1996, consideration of Bill
C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, as
reported (with amendments) from the committee; and Motions
Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to rise in the debate on unemployment insurance
reform. Like my colleagues, I will speak with the aim of shedding a
little light on its impact on the world of culture.
This reform being proposed by the Liberal government will have
a profoundly negative impact on people and employment, as the
hearings of the parliamentary committee have shown. It appears to
a number of people, including the Bloc Quebecois, that
employment insurance, new terminology defined by the reform, is
nothing more than impoverishment insurance. In other words, the
unemployed have no more assurance of employment, but they have
the certainty of going poor.
The conditions of eligibility have been tightened. Eligibility
under this bill increases the threshold level from 12 to 15 15-hour
weeks to 12 to 20 36-hour weeks, in fact more than double. The
effect of this new eligibility criterion is to make the system less
accessible to most employees, especially those who are currently
working part time.
Whereas all workers will have to contribute as of the first hour,
in Quebec, as in Canada, tens of thousands of workers will have to
pay premiums without being assured of receiving a single cent of
benefits in the event their job is terminated, and, in this regard,
artists, creators and people working in culture will be penalized
first.
Bill C-12 provides for employment insurance protection to part
time workers and to those holding a number of jobs, but provides
no such protection for self-employed artists. Artists are considered
to be self-employed and therefore are not eligible for employment
insurance. The government's main argument for excluding
self-employed workers from the system lies in the fact that workers
in this category can terminate their employment themselves,
therefore voluntarily.
Of the 156,000 people working in the cultural sector surveyed by
Statistics Canada, 29 per cent were self-employed, 47 per cent were
employed and 24 per cent were both self-employed and employed.
In other words, more than half the people working in the arts and
culture are partially or fully self-employed and are therefore
considered independent.
The number of independent jobs, that is, part time jobs and
multiple jobs held by a single individual, increases much more
quickly than the number of so-called traditional jobs.
(1005)
Basically, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, feels that
Bill C-12 should be withdrawn. Our party wants the government to
withdraw this bill and to have another consultation process to
ensure a reform of the unemployment insurance system that is
suited to the new realities of the job market, including the job
market in non traditional areas.
Amazingly this bill on unemployment insurance reform does not
allow self-employed workers to benefit from the system even
though it was estimated that the costs to the system would be
relatively low. Indeed, according to projections, extending
protection would entail, percentage-wise, a relatively low increase
of the system's net costs by the year 2004.
If Bill C-12 does not allow artists and many others workers in the
creative and cultural fields to benefit from what is now called
employment insurance, why levy premiums on their low wages
when they are systematically excluded from the system? That does
not make sense.
These people are denied access to the employment insurance but
we levy premiums on their wages from the very first hour worked.
Considering that most artists as well as numerous other workers in
the cultural field cannot claim UI benefits or take advantage of
employee assistance programs-they do not even have a pension
plan-it is outrageous that Bill C-12, this UI reform project, does
nothing to remedy the situation.
2294
The employment insurance system conceived by the federal
government and supposedly in tune with the 21st century's reality,
offers no coverage to artists and workers in the cultural field. And
I repeat, the new provisions concerning part time jobs and multiple
jobs are no help at all for self-employed artists, who are not
eligible for employment insurance benefits.
As official opposition critic in matters of heritage and cultural
industries, it is my duty to condemn this government's lack of
action and this reform's unfairness, since there is no definition of
self-employment or independent work, and no rule or regulation is
suggested concerning these cases.
The government did not deign to take into consideration the brief
submitted by the cultural sector human resources council. To quote
only one example, Revenue Canada recently communicated with
several theatrical booking agencies in Toronto to tell them that
since they were hiring actors, consequently they should contribute
as employers to the unemployment insurance system. But the fact
is actors are self-employed, they are the ones paying for the
services of booking agencies, it is not the other way around.
It should be noted that in this particular case, Revenue Canada
and its management are acting in such a way that they add insult to
injury. Not only are actors, artists and creators not entitled to UI
benefits, but Revenue Canada wants to extort UI premiums from
casting agents or others, on behalf of people who are not entitled to
benefits under this plan. We recognize here the Liberal way to do
things for the sole purpose of padding the public purse and getting
the deficit under control at the expense of ordinary people,
especially artists, creators and cultural workers.
I would like to conclude by reminding this House that, in 1980,
over 15 years ago, the federal government signed the UNESCO
Belgrade recommendation concerning the status of the artist,
clearly upheld in the Status of the Artist Act, which received royal
assent on June 23, 1992.
The status of the artist, clearly defined by the Belgrade
recommendation, endorses the notion that artists must be eligible
to the same UI benefits as any other citizens.
(1010 )
As the opposition critic for heritage and cultural matters, I
condemn this government's ignorance, its blatant ignorance
regarding the Belgrade recommendation it signed. Nowhere in the
bill on unemployment insurance reform, nowhere in Bill C-12 is
there mention of the status of the artist, of the words artist, creator,
cultural workers.
The words artist, worker, creator are not part of the vocabulary
of the government or the Minister of Human Resources
Development. We have every right, on this side of the House, to ask
this government, in the name of justice and fairness, to withdraw
this bill.
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. In
particular, I want to comment on how disappointed I was to sit
through part of the committee's deliberations on the bill. This
committee meeting went on for 24 hours, three full working days.
During that time the Bloc Quebecois did not put forward one single
amendment of any substance whatsoever and certainly not on the
issue of artists and employment, about which the member has just
spoken.
I wonder where the lack of interest in this important sector of our
economy is: on this side of the House or on the other side of the
House.
I want to speak on what this legislation does for women who, as
all of us know, have significant barriers to advancing in the
workplace, to having equality economically as workers, and to talk
about some of the ways in which this bill has significant
advantages for women.
The bill ensures that women will have their benefits reduced less
than men. Whereas men in the workforce will see a 10 per cent
reduction it will be 7 per cent for women by the year 2001. This is
important because Canada has been a world leader in its
commitment to gender analysis of major new policy initiatives.
This is the first major new policy initiative on which a gender
analysis has been done and for which the minister, cabinet and
members of Parliament have the full ability to understand how a
piece of legislation affects women differently from men and
ensures that we are moving toward equality rather than away from
it in the measures we take.
All part time work will now be insured. This is a major boost to
women in the workplace who are nearly 70 per cent of Canada's
part time workforce. For the first time a quarter of a million women
who hold down part time jobs will have their work insured. They
will be entitled to claim employment insurance benefits if and
when they lose their jobs.
Under employment insurance many women will be able to
escape the so-called 14-hour job trap. Because all jobs will be
insured, employers will no longer have an incentive to keep jobs
under 15 hours a week. Women who hold down more than one job
to make ends meet will now be fully insured.
Under the new process all hours worked, every single hour, will
count toward a claim for people who become unemployed. This
means that multiple job holders will be fully covered if they take
sick, if they take maternity or paternity leave or lose one or more of
their jobs for one reason or another.
While more women will be covered, many others will have
premiums refunded. About 700,000 women who earn $2,000 or
2295
less a year will receive a refund, including 495,000 who pay
premiums today and have little chance of qualifying for benefits.
(1015 )
Equality of opportunity is a basic Canadian value. We have
implemented measures to help single parents and low income
families get back on their feet. Low income families, two-thirds of
which we know are headed by women, will see their employment
benefits actually increased by 12 per cent thanks to the family
income supplement and other measures. Benefits for single parent
families specifically will increase by 13 per cent.
The family income supplement will boost the weekly income of
many low income families, many of which are headed by women.
It will boost the living standard of children in this country. The
family income supplement will provide an average top up of $800
per family for families with incomes of under $26,000 a year.
Exceptions to the intensity rule will also help women. We have
also made a provision so that women returning to the workforce
perhaps after having taken five years off to care for a child will
have access to employment programs. It also means that low
income women will be able to increase their weekly income while
claiming benefits. The increased earnings exemption will mean
women are able to earn up to $50 a week or 25 per cent of their
benefits, whichever is higher, while on claim.
Because there has been so much discussion about this issue in
the House and in public particularly in the last few weeks, I would
like to talk about the role members of Parliament have played in
this legislation. One of the commitments our government made
when it was elected was to give members of Parliament a stronger
role in developing legislation and in representing their constituents.
This bill is a very good example of that process.
The bill was referred to committee before it was debated in
Parliament and before it was subject to any approval or voting
whatsoever. Through that process members of Parliament from all
parties had an opportunity to shape the bill, to suggest changes to it
and to bring back a full report without the constraints of it being
government policy and something to which they had to adhere
before Parliament debated the bill. Therefore, Parliament would be
able to debate it in full awareness of the views of members of
Parliament from all parties and from all regions of the country.
When the bill went back to committee, members of Parliament
were very instrumental in amending the bill. I want to mention
three members of my own party in particular who brought forward
significant amendments. They told the minister this was not good
enough for their constituents. This is the way members of
Parliament effectively represent their constituents, by identifying
problems and working to solve those problems.
I pay particular tribute to the member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury who dealt with the seasonal
employment workers who work a bit, then do not work and then
work again. He made sure it was their total working time that
counted and that the gaps in between those periods of working did
not discount their benefits.
I pay tribute to the member for Halifax West who ensured that
there were higher payments in high unemployment regions.
I pay tribute to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who
made a significant change to encourage people to find work, which
is one of the fundamental principles of this bill. This bill
encourages people to find work and does not penalize them when
they find an extra day, a week or an hour of work. The member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore was key in making a change that would
make it more productive for people as they would not lose benefits
by taking on extra work that supplemented their income.
This is the way our government has encouraged Parliament and
members of our caucus to work. Through that, I believe it has
encouraged members of Parliament from the different parties to
work together more closely. That is why the consideration of this
bill over the last few days has been very discouraging.
(1020)
The Bloc Quebecois simply filibustered in the committee. It kept
the committee sitting all night, not doing any work on the bill, but
just debating. Bloc members talked endlessly, hour after hour
throughout the night. Not one single amendment to the bill was put
forward. There were no constructive ideas, no positive
contributions. They just sat there and talked over and over again.
I am pleased to support the bill. As with every piece of
legislation that passes through this House it is not perfect but it
does make major progress for the workers of this country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is unanimnous agreement on Bill C-12 dealing with
employment insurance. For two years now, in Canada and in
Quebec, we have seen Canadians and numerous groups
representing them oppose this unfair bill which will only make
workers poorer, especially young workers and women who already
have a most difficult time on the labour market.
If government had not gagged the human resources committee,
these groups could have explained once more how the bill will not
help the jobless because the reform it proposes will create even
more poverty and, by modifying eligibility criteria, will send more
people onto welfare.
2296
During the last election campaign, the Liberals, besides
promising to scrap the GST, also used another very important
slogan: jobs, jobs, jobs. Now, Quebecers and Canadians know
quite well the value of promises made by members of this
government. What has the government accomplished since
October 25, 1993? The answer is simple: it has just carried on with
the previous government's program, the Mulroney agenda. Cut
after cut, social programs, and therefore the have-nots, are the
main targets.
Our harsh judgment is not based on an erratic bias against an
intelligent reform of social programs or a logical reform of our
unemployment insurance program. The proposed reform makes no
sense. These programs must be reviewed so that they will equitably
meet the real needs of people who are having a hard time finding
and keeping jobs. But there is only one objective to the current
reform: to make blind cuts that will hit hard the poorest and
workers. The government is artificially reducing the deficit at the
expense of employers and workers who contribute to the
unemployment insurance fund.
Indeed, since 1990, that is for the last six years, the government
has been pulling out of financing the fund, while continuing to
manage it. The very substantial surpluses realized by the funds
these last few years have been used to reduce the deficit. Premiums
have been slyly disguised as a tax to reduce the deficit. Those who
are lucky enough to work have the exceptional privilege of paying
this new tax called unemployment insurance contribution, even
though it is not being used exclusively to meet the needs of those
who are not as privileged.
The Bloc Quebecois, in its minority report on social program
reform, proposed ``that the unemployment insurance fund be
treated as a non-budget entity managed by an independent
organization. The way the program is controlled and contributions
used must be changed''. Therefore, the preferred route chosen by
the Bloc Quebecois would be to give management of the program
to the provinces. We could also set up a new organization which
would exercize a better control over unemployment insurance and
would not come under the control of the Department of Human
Resources Development.
(1025 )
Major labour confederations in Quebec and Canada, as well as
organizations like the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the
Conseil du patronat du Québec were highly critical of the the
government's accumulation of surpluses in the unemployment
insurance fund. Such surpluses, combined with the fact that the
government continues to cut into the program, do not contribute in
any way to job creation. On the contrary, they are a major obstacle.
As for unemployment insurance eligibility, Bill C-12, if passed,
will have a devastating effect on the possibility of benefiting from
unemployment insurance in case of job loss. In 1990, 87 per cent of
unemployed people were receiving benefits, while only 46 per cent
do today. It does not make sense to think that this percentage could
decrease even further.
Yet, what the minister is proposing to us in his bill will not
increase this percentage, quite the opposite. In fact, the number of
hours required to qualify for benefits is more than doubled, going
from 420 to 700 hours, instead of the 180 to 300 hours required at
this time. For new workers, it will be even more dramatic, because
they will have to work for 910 hours before qualifying.
Furthermore, the maximum benefit will decrease from $448 to
$413 per week. This $35 cut thus reduces by more than 7 per cent
the maximum a person losing his job will be entitled to, provided,
of course, he meets the eligibility criteria. So, their reduced buying
power will force the unemployed to curtail their lifestyle and cut
into some of their most basic needs. It is a bread and butter matter.
Everyone understands that, except the government, of course.
So, people will have to work longer to receive fewer benefits and
for a shorter period. That is how the Liberal government sees the
improvement of the system. These new eligibility criteria will
particularly affect young people and women. Since these groups
represent the majority of part time workers, they will need a very
high number of hours to qualify for benefits.
The Minister of Human Resources Development should take
example on his colleague from the finance department who, as
recently as yesterday, in the House, during question period,
reiterated his statement that the promise to abolish the GST had
been a mistake. He even said he was making this statement on
behalf of the government of the Liberal Party. It is high time the
minister admitted that his bill is a gross error and that it must be
withdrawn without delay.
In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the House to
a statement in the May 1, 1989 issue of Hansard: ``The point I am
trying to make, which many of us will have to look at seriously, is
the whole notion of trust and credibility. Canadians are prepared to
share the burden, if they think it is being done fairly.
Unemployment insurance, family allowance, and old age pensions
are a sacred trust. We must not allow the trust of Canadians to
deteriorate to a point where they become cynical. I have listened to
people talk about New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and about
other countries and how they do it. This country is very special in
how it deals across the board with men and women in every part of
the country. There are basic standards, basic programs, universal
programs, and programs that allow people to deal with their future
with some degree of security''.
What stands out from these remarks made by the Minister of
Human Resources Development when he was in opposition is that,
with Bill C-12, the degree of security the minister is referring to
2297
will certainly turn into income insecurity for those who will lose
their jobs under the Employment Insurance Act. It is unfortunate
that logic is dependent on which side of the House one sits on.
(1030)
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, B.Q.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-12, concerning
the unemployment insurance reform. This bill has been shamefully
entitled an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
Through this bill, the government claims, and has clearly said so,
to be pursuing two goals: first, to promote job creation, and,
second, to improve the system's fairness. However, we will see that
this bill will do exactly the opposite and that, here again, the
government is about to increase the unfairness of the system, as
was pointed out by my colleague who spoke just before me.
First, there will be no job creation. Why? As we all know, the
Prime Minister has been repeating ad nauseam for a few weeks that
the government is not there to create jobs. With the massive layoffs
in the public service, the privatization of ports, airports, railway
lines and bridges, and now the disposal of railway cars announced
in Bill C-31, where at least 10,000 railway cars will be sold, it is
clear that, instead of creating jobs, the government is organizing a
gigantic closing sale.
The Prime Minister is perfectly right in saying that a government
does not create jobs. However, the Prime Minister says:
``Government does not create jobs. I urge the private sector to join
with us to make that job growth happen; the private sector will
create jobs''.
Again, this is only partly true, because it is not large companies
that create jobs. In fact, these companies are the ones laying off the
largest number of people, this at a time when their profits are
higher than ever before. General Motors made profits of $1.39
billion, but laid off 2,500 employees. In 1995, Bell Canada made
profits of $502 million, but laid off 3,200 employees, in addition to
the 8,000 that had already been let go since 1990. Petro-Canada,
which sort of belongs to us since we paid for it, made profits of
$196 million, but laid off 564 employees. Shell made profits of
$523 million in one year, but laid off 471 employees. Imperial Oil
made profits of $514 million, but laid off 452 employees.
And, last but not least, the five major Canadian banks, which
made total profits of $4.9 billion. This means 5,000 million dollars
in profits. Still, these banks laid off 2,800 employees.
Do not tell us that major companies create jobs when they make
profits. Do not tell us, as the Prime Minister did, that private
companies are the ones that will create jobs.
The presidents of these banks are paid incredibly high salaries.
Jeffrey Simpson, from the Globe and Mail, recently wrote a very
good article on this issue. He said the situation was totally
unacceptable, because these undue benefits and enormous salaries
are not related to performance. Just remember Canary Wharf, in
which Canadian banks lost hundreds of millions because they made
bad investment decisions. The banks do not always make the right
decisions. Yet, not one of these bank presidents had his salary cut.
There is no connection between performance and salaries. Their
salaries go up each year, while employees are being laid off. This is
what is happening.
If, as the Prime Minister says, it is not the government that
creates jobs, and if, as we can see, it is not large companies either,
then who will create jobs? It is small and medium size businesses,
it is, as Mr. Parizeau said, the ``tiny, tiny businesses''. They are the
ones creating jobs; yet, they are also the ones that will be penalized
with Bill C-12, as we shall see.
Under the old system-I use the word ``old'' but I should say
``current''-workers and employers start paying unemployment
insurance premiums after 15 hours of work or $163 in earnings.
The amount earned is called the insurable earnings. This is what the
current system provides for.
(1035)
But with the changes being introduced, employees and
employers will pay UI premiums from the very first hour of work.
Who usually hires people for less than 15 hours a week? Not large
corporations, not Bell Canada, not General Motors, not Petro
Canada; small and medium size businesses do. What will it mean
for them?
Previously, people could work for up to 15 hours a week without
either the employee or the employer having to pay UI premiums.
Now, as soon as a person works an hour, both that person and the
business will have to pay premiums. That means that the whole
payroll is covered, from the first hour of work, which directly hits
small and medium size businesses.
This new grab for premiums will bring close to $1 billion into
the unemployment insurance account, and that huge amount will
come from low wage earners and from all small businesses, which
are the only ones creating jobs in Canada. And they talk about job
creation.
Meanwhile, what is happening at the other end of the system?
They are lowering the contribution ceilings. Previously, people
were contributing into the UI account up to maximum earnings of
$42,380. This meant the worker contributed up to that amount and
the employer was also paying his or her share up to that amount.
That ceiling is now being lowered to $39,000 and both workers and
businesses will pay less.
2298
Therefore, that billion dollars will be taken from the small
business sector, the one that creates jobs, which will allow for the
same amount of savings for large corporations that are laying off
people in droves. So, Bill C-12 will not create, but kill jobs.
It is easy to understand. Here is an example. Under the present
plan, if a company has an employee who earns $40,000 a year, both
the employee and the company contribute to the UI fund on those
$40,000.
Since the earnings ceiling is $42,000, contributions would be
paid on the whole amount. But under the new plan, if the company
has a surplus of work, it will be much more profitable to have the
same employee work overtime for $30,000 or more, with his
annual earnings going up to $70,000 a year or more, because there
are no contributions for the earnings over $39,000.
Instead of hiring another employee to do the work, it is much
better for the company to have its existing workers work overtime.
This bill will not accelerate, but slow down job creation. We talk
about work sharing, but it is obvious that this bill does not deal with
this issue at all.
We have also been told that greater equity was another goal. That
was their second argument. But the bill will actually make things
more unfair. High income earners will pay $900 million less in
premiums.
With Bill C-12, high income earners and big companies, which
do not create jobs, will get a $900 million cut in contributions. That
is a nice little gift. But to compensate that, low income workers and
small businesses, which do create jobs, will have to pay more. That
is what is happening with Bill C-12.
I remind the House that 82 per cent of all spending cuts across
federal programs are in unemployment insurance. Needless to say,
Mr. Speaker, as you are indicating that my time is almost over, that
with Bill C-12, the government not only breaks its promises to
create justice but also balances the budget with the workers's
money. This is a collective salary grab of $5 billion, since the
money in the UI fund is not the government's money but has been
contributed by workers and businesses, and the government is
using this money to reduce its deficit.
(1040 )
In our view, this bill will stimulate poverty instead of
employment.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues
did earlier, I would like to say a few words about this bill, not about
each of its clauses, because it is a rather thick, not to say dense,
document and I would need more than one day to go over
everything.
The fact that some 220 amendments to what the government
thinks is a perfect or almost perfect bill have been moved goes to
show that it is in fact far from perfect and needs a few alterations at
least to make it better.
We only need to look at the title to see all the problems the
government had to deal with to make this bill look more attractive.
The government wants to replace an insurance against
unemployment by an insurance that almost goes against
employment, but of course, it cannot put it this way. I had a
professor, at university, who used to teach us about insurance and
explain the principle behind insurance, as was developed by the
British, as follows. He would say it in English and we would be
very impressed since, at the time, although we did not speak
English fluently, we paid a lot of attention to whatever was said in
English or to English principles.
The professor used to say: ``The principle behind insurance is as
follows: ``To divide amongst the many the losses of the few''''. He
would then explain in French, for those who like me at the time did
not understand a word of English, that it meant to divide amongst
the majority of the people concerned the losses of a number of
them. So, the object of the unemployment insurance program we
used to know was to divide among the majority of the people who
were lucky enough to have a job the losses incurred by the few who
had the misfortune to lose their jobs and end up on unemployment.
That is the fundamental principle behind ou unemployment
insurance system.
Now, we see that the government wants to change the name,
probably to suggest that we want to divide among as many people
as possible or among the majority the losses incurred by those who
would find a job. I hope that is not what it means. You do not get
insurance against a job, although that could make some kind of
sense, because the government kept talking about jobs, jobs, jobs,
and people could say: ``What if I suddenly find a job, maybe it
could hurt me. It might be better to keep receiving UI benefits or to
find something else'', since the jobs currently available are not
enough to make a decent living.
I am kidding when I say that, because it would be ridiculous for
the government to seek passage for a bill that would protect us
against the risk of finding a job. What the government tells us, and
I think this is how we must interpret it, is that this bill seeks to
assure people that they will keep or find a job on the labour force.
Now we must ask ourselves this: Does the bill, as drafted, reach
this goal? I cannot demonstrate that every section of the bill does
not meet this goal, but I would like to give some examples of real
cases in our ridings, particularly in mine.
(1045)
I will give the example of women or men, but as it happens it is
more frequently women, who want to re-enter the labour force after
2299
having raised their children or for some other reason, after having
been outside the labour force for some years. What happens to
these women? Those who are lucky enough to find a job will have
to pay UI premiums as soon as they start working. But to be
entitled to benefits, even if their job is a short term one and if they
work only for a few weeks or months, they will have to have
worked at least 910 hours. What does that mean, in practical terms?
We have to compare because for people who are already working
and lose their job, the number of hours is not as high. I believe it is
something like 700 hours.
What does that mean in practice for these women? After having
raised their family, they cannot rest on their laurels because they
want to get back to work. Let us say a woman finds a job where she
works 3 hours a day, from 9 to noon, 5 days a week, which amounts
to 15 hours. If this person is very hard working and really wants to
make more money, she also works on Saturday. So she works 6
days a week, 3 hours a day, for a total of 18 hours. At a rate of 18
hours a week, this person will have accumulated at the end of the
year-and I am counting only 50 weeks because this person really
deserves 2 weeks holidays-900 hours of work. It would only be
750 hours if she worked 15 hours a week. Since the law requires a
minimum of 910 hours to be eligible for employment insurance,
this person, after having worked 900 hours during the year, will not
be deemed eligible for employment insurance if she loses her job.
So this person pulls herself together and tries again the following
year. She starts working in January at a rate of 15 hours a week
because there is no other job to be had, and her boss needs her for
only 15 hours, or 18 hours, a week. She starts working again, and
will accumulate 750 hours if she works 15 hours a week or 900
hours if she works 6 days a week. At the end of the second year, she
will have accumulated 900 hours again. If she loses her job at the
end of the second year, she will not be eligible for employment
insurance again. But she will have paid premiums from the
beginning.
From the very first hour of work, this worker has paid premiums
for unemployment insurance, or employment insurance as we must
call it now. At $2.95 for each $100 earned, her contribution will
total $186 at the end of the year. After two years, it is two times
$186. After 5 years at $186 a year, those contributions amount to
close to $1,000. However, that worker would still not be eligible for
employment insurance. If that is what the government calls helping
people to get back to work, I think that it will have to realize that it
is not the right way of helping people.
We could take the example of day care workers. In remote areas,
families where the father and the mother work have difficulty
finding people to take care of their children. These people do not
want to declare their earnings because, of course, they do not make
enough and they would be penalized. How does unemployment
insurance help those people? It cannot help them because there is
no way for them to become eligible for unemployment insurance.
I would also have liked to give the example of training courses
denied to people who are already too resourceful. When they find
themselves unemployed and they want to improve their skills to
redirect their career, they are told that they are too resourceful or
too highly educated to have access to the courses and that they must
continue to get unemployment insurance benefits and look for a job
without additional training. This is ridiculous.
(1050 )
I would have liked to talk about self-employed workers but,
since my time is running out, I will leave that to my colleagues.
Maybe I will have an opportunity to do so myself later on if the
government allows us to debate this bill all day today and again
next Monday and Tuesday. We will have the opportunity to deal
with these points and to say how this legislation does nothing to
help people who are unemployed or who want to find steady
employment.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are listening to me with great interest
and respect, as you always do, and I thank you for that. Once you
leave the Chair, you will no doubt help me convince your
colleagues of the validity of my remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure the member for
Joliette understands full well that, as your Speaker, I never let party
politics get in the way of my work.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to speak to Bill C-12, an act respecting employment
insurance in Canada.
This is certainly a strange name for a bill that will be harmful to
certain groups of Canadians and Quebecers, denying them the
protection of the UI system and plunging them deeper into poverty.
1996 is the International Year for the Elimination of Poverty, a fact
the government seems to have forgotten.
I would like to begin by saying that Bloc members are not
opposed to social program reform. We are, and have always been,
in favour of UI reform in order to keep the system up to date.
In our opinion, Bill C-12 fails completely to meet this need to
move with the times. Under the reform now before us, the poorest
members of society would essentially end up paying for the
financial irresponsibility of the financial government, and the latter
would see its role in provincial areas of jurisdiction increased.
In fact, this is quite the opposite of the promises made by this
government barely six months ago in Quebec. One that is
particularly representative comes to mind, something about having
to face the music. In light of what has happened since, it is clear
that the Prime Minister was addressing not just the Quebec
government, but also had in mind Quebecers who were
unemployed, particularly women and young people.
2300
We must analyse this bill for what it is and not for what certain
Liberal members would have us think it is. It is estimated that
over 30,000 Quebecers and Canadians will be forced to turn to
welfare if this bill is passed. As recently as yesterday, an article
in Le Devoir reminded us, and I quote: ``According to a study
commissioned by the Quebec Department of Manpower and
Income Security, single mothers were the group particularly
affected by unemployment insurance reform. A sizeable number
of them would be forced onto welfare rolls''.
The situation is clear. Several of the measures contained in the
bill will affect the disadvantaged, whose jobs are generally
unstable and at the bottom of the scale. For example, at present,
workers are required to contribute to unemployment insurance
once they have worked 15 hours in a week, or have earned $163.
Bill C-12 proposes to make everyone contribute from the first hour
worked.
Workers get their contributions back only if they have earned
less than $2,000 in a year, and only when filing their income tax
return. Until then, the government has the use of the workers'
contributions, and the interest earned on them. This simple
measure will affect part time workers in particular, and 70 per cent
of these are women or young people. Let us not forget, as well, that
the government can dip just as freely into the UI fund, to which it
does not contribute one red cent.
The reform proposed by the Liberal government will also restrict
access to the plan. At present, a worker has to work at least 15
hours a week, for 12 to 20 weeks, to be eligible for unemployment
insurance.
(1055)
Amendments in Bill C-12 will force possible claimants to work
at least 35 hours a week for 12 to 20 weeks, depending on the area.
Keep in mind that 31 per cent of women in Canada and Quebec
work less than 35 hours a week. Therefore this is a double penalty.
Moreover new workers will be forced to work more than 910
hours before being eligible, a three-fold increase. This measure
will seriously impact on women who return to work after have
stayed home for a while. Young people just coming onto the job
market are also hard hit. Many women and young people will
contribute to the unemployment insurance fund but will not
accumulate enough hours to be entitled to claim. They will pay
premiums without ever being able to receive UI benefits.
It is no wonder therefore that so many women's groups and
student associations have submitted briefs against the proposals.
They understood, just as we did, that because of those measures
they could very well be prevented from ever participating in the
system. The Syndicat de la fonction publique du Québec maintains
that this legislation is violating section 15 of the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms because of its discriminatory impact on
some disadvantaged groups.
Moreover, certain provisions of the bill provide for a 1 per cent
reduction in benefits for workers who have claimed benefits for 20
weeks or more during the last five years, up to a maximum of 5 per
cent. Again, this will have a negative impact on seasonal and
contract workers.
Again, women and young people can be found in great numbers
in areas where seasonal and contract work is the norm. The
government wants to punish women and young people for being
too often on UI, treating them as if they were to be blamed for
losing their job and for the precarious nature of the labour market.
Using family income to determine eligibility for the family
supplement has harmful effects. This is a form of income support
which is closely related to welfare. This is not the role of
unemployment insurance. Why not increase the child tax benefit
instead? Shamefully, this measure brings women back to square
one with regard to their financial autonomy.
Finally, since I am running out of time, I would like to mention
one last measure contained in Bill C-12, which discriminates
against women in the area of maternity leave. Fewer and fewer
women are entitled to maternity leave. Current statutory provisions
require a minimum of twenty 15 hour work weeks to be eligible for
maternity leave. Under the new provisions, over 700 hours of work
will be needed.
However, the very person in charge of the status of women keeps
on denying that these measures are disastrous for women and
young people. The Secretary of State for the Status of Women,
appearing before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,
claimed that, far from penalizing women, the unemployment
insurance reform would benefit them.
And yet, even the Minister of Human Resources Development
has recognized that his reform would be harmful and that the bill
should be amended. This incident reminds us that since the
government abolished the Canadian Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, there is no longer any group defending women's
interests within government.
What can we say about this government's attitude and its lack of
compassion for young people? The only measure it implemented
was to create a training program called ``Experience Canada'',
which constitutes another intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. But
the best part is, just listen to this, the program is managed by the
Council for Canadian Unity. As young people would say, things are
not cool between the Council for Canadian Unity and young
people. Do not treat us like a bunch of twits.
2301
(1100)
Ultimately, what we are asking today is that the Minister of
Human Resources Development do what his ex-colleague Sheila
Copps did and keep his word by withdrawing his unfair Bill C-12.
_____________________________________________
2301
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently I had the pleasure of attending the opening ceremonies of
the Science Fair at River East Collegiate in my riding. I was
impressed by the fact that some 20,000 students participate in
science fairs at the regional level.
About 400 of Canada's finest will go to a Canada-wide science
fair this month in Ontario and will compete for more than $100,000
in awards. Five students from River East Collegiate will be among
them.
I would like to congratulate the moms and dads and the many
volunteers for their time and hard work. I would also like to wish
them the best of luck.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday, following the resignation of the Deputy Prime
Minister, the Prime Minister called a byelection in the riding of
Hamilton East for June 17.
What is the real meaning of this election? If the former Deputy
Prime Minister is re-elected, will we be able to reasonably
conclude that the people have absolved the government for
reneging on its promise to scrap the GST? We do not think so.
For quite a while now, politicians have not been getting a passing
mark as far as credibility is concerned, and this government, which
does not hesitate to sacrifice the neediest in its fight against the
deficit, must recognize its mistakes and reaffirm clearly its
willingness to treat people with fairness and common sense.
Absolve the government on the GST, no, never.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for a few days each year, Paul and Elizabeth Peters gather
with others who share their joys and concerns parenting
handicapped children.
I want to extend this tribute to the Peters in recognition of the
20th anniversary of the annual retreat they initiated at Camp
Assiniboia in response to the needs of these families.
The camps have provided a very valuable service to our local
communities over the years and have helped address the special
needs of the participants. Through the Peters' efforts, families have
been able to share their experiences and learn more about
opportunities for the handicapped.
In these challenging times, I am encouraged by the generous acts
of outstanding Canadians like Elizabeth and Paul Peters.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister is blaming the current public awareness of his
incompetence on acts of God. I disagree.
It was not an act of God that produced his government's
acceptance of NAFTA nor the subsequent problems over the
tariffication of supply managed products. It was bad advice and bad
decision making.
It was not God that tried to cover up facts in the Somali affair, it
was trusted officials. Nor did God start the multimillion dollar
lawsuit against a former Prime Minister over Airbus. It was
government officials.
God did not tell Public Works to push Anne Rainey off the Peace
Tower project because she was a woman, nor did God cause the
discrimination against Chander Grover at the NRC. Government
officials did and they gave financial backing to the perpetrators of
this inequality.
God did not kill the Crow rate, nor the GST promise, nor the day
care promise. The government did.
In our system of parliamentary government, the Prime Minister
is god. His acts are indeed the problem.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to host, along with members of the Canadian Bankers'
Association and the Ottawa Carleton Board of Trade, ``Partners in
Your Success'' a seminar for business owners, entrepreneurs and
interested members of the community.
This event also involves many key business organizations,
including the Business Development Bank, the Export
Development Corporation, Canadian Commercial Corporation,
OC-EDCO, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Industry Canada and
the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
2302
We are also delighted to have the Minister of Industry as our
honoured guest and keynote speaker.
I would like to congratulate and thank all of the organizers for
their hard work and dedication in putting this important event
together.
* * *
(1105 )
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was pleased to learn last night that the leader of the Reform Party
was finally going to take action and teach his caucus members
something about respect for human rights.
I have a few questions. Where was the leader of the third party
when other members of his caucus have shown the same intolerant
attitudes? Where was the leader this week when another member of
his party supported discrimination against gays in the workplace?
When the immigration critic said Jamaicans were responsible for
crime in Toronto, the leader blamed it on the media and said there
was no need to apologize for grassroot conversations. When a
member of his party blamed women for domestic violence, the
leader said it was a question of political correctness. Where was he
when a member of his caucus mused aloud in this Chamber that the
country might be better off without francophones?
Intolerance is not a new problem in the third party.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this
difficult period of increasing globalization and competition, where
some are tempted to withdraw into their shell, it is reassuring to
note that some Quebecers continue to be care about developing
countries and do not hesitate to get personally involved.
It is therefore with much pride that I salute Claude St-Hilaire,
Viateur Alain and Mario Ferland for their work in Senegal in their
respective fields of endeavour, that is management of a building
company, recycling of plastic waste and the establishment of a
school of commerce at graduate level. Their volunteer work
overseas, for the International Services of CESO, deserves our
admiration.
We are very glad to note that human solidarity with developing
countries remain an important value, which should inspire our
governments in their relations with our political and trade partners.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation of Canada is
working with local partners in the region of Peel, metro Toronto
and Montreal to help high schools implement a four-hour CPR
program into the core curriculum of health and physical education.
The program is based on ACT's successful 1994 project in
Ottawa which now involves 10,000 grade nine students each year.
Students learn heart health and how to help a family member in an
emergency.
ACT's corporate support is led by Astra Pharma, Hoechst
Marion Roussel, Merk Frosst and a number of other
pharmaceutical companies. As the CPR program expands, local
corporate support is necessary to equip schools with CPR
mannequins.
I urge members to support the high school CPR initiative as they
move into their constituencies and to encourage local corporate
support for the CPR mannequins needed to empower our youth and
to save lives.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if the people of the Atlantic provinces really are aware of
how much extra tax they will have to pay because their provincial
Liberal governments have come to the rescue of the federal Liberal
government as it desperately tries to save face on the GST
nightmare.
The actions of their governments will mean that consumers will
now pay taxes on such things as children's clothing, second hand
goods, heating oil, gasoline, new homes and funerals. While the
rest of the country's taxpayers will pay for their government's
inability to keep a promise, the people of the east coast will
ultimately be the ones to suffer under this harmonization scheme.
The GST rate may be lower for the time being, but when the
so-called subsidy runs out and the provincial governments find
they have to make up this difference, where will it come from?
According to the memorandum of understanding it could come
from the Atlantic Canadians themselves as they face increased
provincial taxes to cover the shortfall.
Harmonization is not what the government promised on the
campaign trail and harmonization, plain and simple, means higher
taxes for all. Talk about government by broken promises.
2303
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problems
of racism and intolerance go beyond a few misspoken words. It is a
matter of action as well.
Events of the past week cause all of us to examine our actions
and positions as well as our words. I hope that members of the third
party will take seriously the challenge to tackle the roots of racism
and not try to paper it over by simply cleaning up some language.
Since the last election we have seen a pattern in the intolerant
statements of members of the third party. Sometimes they are
dismissed, like the slur on Chinese culture, or blaming blacks for
crime. Sometimes there is an apology for the language, like the
comments about Muslim veils, but no change in position or action.
This time I hope we will see some action and change in position
to show that they have really learned something about the meaning
of equality in this country.
The third party came here with a promise to do politics
differently. So far, the differences it has introduced have not been
very encouraging.
* * *
(1110 )
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the third party has chosen in the 11th hour to discipline the member
for Athabasca for his bigoted comments against gays.
Unfortunately, for the people of Canada who have been hurt by the
continuous stream of harmful and discriminatory comments made
by Reform MPs, the action is too little and much too late.
Why has he not asked for the resignation of those three MPs
making discriminatory comments: the members for
Nanaimo-Cowichan, Athabasca and Wild Rose?
Further, why did he not take action against the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby in December 1994, who offended all
Canadians when he blamed women for domestic violence? What
does the leader of the third party have to say to the member for
Macleod who says that unwanted sexual touching is not an act of
violence?
The leader of the third party dismisses his members' comments
as politically incorrect. He has never apologized. I say shame,
shame, shame.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to see that the leader of the third party has finally taken
action, although belatedly, to deal with the offensive and
disgusting behaviour of two of his caucus members. I hope this will
finally force him to review the record of all members of his caucus
when it comes to human rights.
I hold out little hope that this will actually happen when the
leader of the third party has attempted shamefully to minimize
their actions and to blame the media for his members' outbursts. I
am sorry, it is not the media that is responsible for the long record
of intolerant statements made by Reform Party members.
Was it the media that prompted the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby to blame gay men for violence against
gays? Did the media make the member for Athabasca repeat his
offensive remarks? How can the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan
now blame the media for his bigoted comments when he stated
similar views in 1994?
I hope we will see genuine action against intolerance-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr. Speaker,
today is the world day in favour of freedom of the press.
The Bloc Quebecois joins with all those who will rise to remind
us of the importance of a conscientious and honest press in a
democratic society. We deplore the killing, the imprisonment and
the disappearance of journalists whose only crime was to want to
inform. In 1995, in Algeria alone, 22 journalists were killed while
fulfilling their duties.
Although such a tragic situation does not exist in Canada, we
must be vigilant, as evidenced by recent statements by Joan
Crockatt, news desk officer of the Calgary Herald, who said that
Southam News should create news on national unity and that it had
a plan to promote national unity. This shows how fragile our
system is.
In the debate that is currently-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time is up.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a correctional system which is no longer effective
in deterring criminal behaviour because it has lost the will to
punish.
2304
Three decades of correctional experiments in which many
violent and serious criminals are forced against their will to
participate in rehabilitation programs has proven costly and
largely ineffective. The collapse of Edmonton's facility for women
illustrates the failure of Canadian corrections to manage criminals,
let alone change their behaviour.
Making prison conditions too easy only undercuts the deterrent
effect of imprisonment. The philosophy that dangerous, violent and
repeat offenders serving hard time should live in residential style
cottage units, benefit from taxpayer funded perks such as
university education, cable and colour television and special meals
is wrong-headed.
Canadians want dangerous offenders held in maximum security
institutions, not in prisons where the electronic door locks and
alarm systems do not work. Canadians are demanding public safety
first, punishment second and rehabilitation third. When will the
Liberals learn from their mistakes?
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
for the third time in one week we have witnessed offensive and
hurtful comments being spread by members of the Reform Party.
I am referring to the comments made on Wednesday by the
member for Yorkton-Melville. Once again a member of the
Reform Party has lashed out against a minority group, this time
Canada's aboriginal community. This Reform member made
derogatory remarks about Canada's native leadership when he said
that its leadership will turn native self-government into fascist
states. These statements are inexcusable. He has chosen to condone
Neanderthal sentiments by repeating them in this chamber.
The Reform Party leader has assured Canadians he would no
longer tolerate this behaviour in his caucus. Further outbreaks
would warrant their expulsion.
(1115)
Canadians must count on the leader of the Reform Party to keep
his promise and ask for the resignation of the member for
Yorkton-Melville. Canadians must be assured that even
Reformers can keep their promises.
_____________________________________________
2304
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Quebec is exasperated. On January 18, 1996, Minister of
Employment Louise Harel submitted to the federal government a
proposed agreement to implement the Quebec consensus on the
repatriation of manpower training programs. On April 17, a
meeting between that minister and the Minister of Human
Resources Development was cancelled without being rescheduled.
On April 25, the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre in turn urged the federal government to respond to
Quebec as quickly as possible. As far as we know, it did not get an
answer either.
Instead of announcing programs that only increase overlap and
complicate the situation even further, does the minister not
recognize that the time has come for him to sit down at the
negotiating table with Quebec and at last fulfil his government's
promises?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do think the time has
come to see how we can negotiate with all the provinces of Canada
in order to meet our commitment with respect to training programs.
However, since the consensus the hon. member is referring to was
confirmed in Quebec after my meeting with Mrs. Harel in Quebec
City, I think it is important-once all the provinces are sitting down
at the negotiating table with us-to have an offer reflecting the
reality in Canada, in Quebec of course, but also elsewhere.
I hope that, with the co-operation of all our provincial colleagues
responsible for manpower and employment, we can come to an
agreement. But I can assure the hon. member that, once we are
sitting down at the negotiating table, our intention is to have a very
legitimate, clear, comprehensive, unambiguous offer so that we can
enter into negotiations that will finally lead to the conclusion
everyone is hoping for.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is far from reassuring. The Quebec consensus includes
manpower adjustment programs, manpower policies, and not only
manpower training. That is clear, as the Chambre de commerce de
Québec and the Conseil du patronat reiterated before the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development.
Does the minister not agree that Quebec's exasperation is
justified? It is this consensus Quebec is asking the minister to act
on by finally sitting down at the negotiating table with Quebec.
When will the minister do so?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Quebec
consensus is very clear. I agree with the hon. member. It is in this
context that I and the Government of Canada want to be sure we do
not sit down to another failure at the negotiating table.
2305
But, as the hon. member might agree, dealing with active
measures can be very complicated. As far as manpower is
concerned, I agree with the hon. member that we have already said
we would indeed withdraw.
As for the other elements, commonly referred to as Part II of the
Employment Insurance Act, it is a very complex matter because the
needs across the country vary widely. We are familiar with
Quebec's demands, and that is why we will go much further than
simply withdrawing from the area of training. We want to look at
all these other elements the hon. member was referring to.
Once we sit down at the negotiating table, I can assure the hon.
member that the Government of Canada will put forward a
straightforward proposal that, I hope, will meet the demands made
by Quebec and all the other provinces.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
taking good note of the minister's answer. I am also taking good
note of the fact that no date has been set for these negotiations.
(1120)
Does the minister not agree that the federal government seems
much more concerned about its plan B, the Guy Bertrand version,
than about recognizing in concrete terms the Quebec consensus on
manpower policies?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is precisely-at least in
part-to avoid bringing into the debate all the other well-known
elements related to manpower training and the active measures to
help create jobs that we want to be certain our proposal will be very
easy to understand. In my opinion, we will then have a legitimate
hope of reaching an agreement not only with Quebec, but also with
all the other provinces.
Once our work is done, and we are almost there-I do not like to
set deadlines when we are not certain we can meet them-I am
confident that, in the near future, we will be able to sit down at the
negotiating table with our colleagues from all the provinces. Of
course, there is always the possibility that the Prime Minister will
hold a conference with his provincial counterparts from across the
country; there are all kinds of timetables that must be considered.
We want to assure the hon. member as well as all those interested
in this issue that we will go ahead. We want to make sure that our
proposal, when it is presented, will be well thought out and meet
the needs not only of government officials but also of the people we
really want to help: the men and women working in all kinds of
jobs across the country and those looking for work.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I ask members and ministers
to please make their questions and answers a little shorter.
* * *
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Finance stood by his
statement to the effect that his government had made an honest
mistake in promising to abolish the GST. He even said that he was
speaking on behalf of the government when he made that comment.
Will the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the
comments made yesterday by the Minister of Finance do reflect his
government's thinking?
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to be a member of
the finance committee which travelled across the country for the
consultations with respect to the GST. I was accompanied by
members of her party and of the third party.
We heard Canadians, we consulted with Canadians and we
responded with a package of changes and a harmonized national
value added tax. We listened to Canadians. We did what they asked
us to do and it is consistent with our red book commitments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is also for the President of the Treasury
Board.
When the Prime Minister refused to recognize he made a
mistake regarding the GST, he spoke on behalf of his government.
When the Minister of Finance openly said it was a mistake, he
claimed to be also speaking on behalf of the government. Who are
we to believe: the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
divergence from what the Prime Minister has said, what the
Minister of Finance has said and what the former Deputy Prime
Minister has said.
The fact is this government is committed to the elimination of
the goods and services tax. We are achieving that goal by the
vehicle of harmonization of sales taxes with the provinces which is
now well in train. I think in the next few months we will see even
further progress on this issue.
This government is working to fulfil its promises and is doing so
in a very difficult financial context. Despite the best of intentions
2306
sometimes reality confronts us. The Minister of Finance and the
Prime Minister have been very open and forthright in admitting
that.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to their
election promises because acts of God can knock them off track.
This is the same man who promised Canadians during the last
election ``there will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not
keep''. The Prime Minister cannot have it both ways.
(1125)
I ask the government, which is it? Will the Prime Minister keep
every commitment he made to Canadians during the last campaign,
or will he admit that his government has broken election promises?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, time and time
again the Prime Minister has stated that this government has a very
proud record of discharging its promises as laid out in the red book
in the last election. We are discharging our promises.
Perhaps I could ask the hon. member about his party's promise.
His party campaigned on doing things differently in politics, a new
way of politics. Is the new way of politics reflected in the
statements of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, the
statements of the hon. member for Athabasca, following on
statements I could cite from other members in this House? That is
not the new way of doing politics.
I would submit our record in discharging our promises on this
side stacks up very favourably compared to that of the Reform
Party.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
the defence minister is rehearsing for when he becomes a member
of the opposition again. It is the opposition that asks the questions.
The government answers them.
The Prime Minister said that acts of God prevented him from
keeping some of his promises. Was it an act of God that made the
Prime Minister sign NAFTA? Was it an act of God that made the
Prime Minister cut CBC funding? Was it an act of God that cut
provincial transfer payments to social services and health care?
Was it an act of God that cut old age security by 10 per cent?
The Prime Minister can blame God, floods, famine or locusts for
his failure. He is the one who broke his promises. Will the Prime
Minister simply admit that his promises are worthless?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is this
government that has delivered on its commitment to reduce the
deficit. It is this government that has delivered on its commitment
to restore faith and integrity in public office in this country.
The right hon. Prime Minister has led the way in many of these
promises which we have outlined in the red book. We feel that by
the time the next election comes, Canadians will judge us on our
performance and they will see that we have delivered on the
promises we made in that election.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister claims that he has fulfilled 75 per cent of his red book
promises which is not true. It is simply not true.
There are 157 promises in the red book and his government has
only kept 37 of them. That is barely 25 per cent. It must have been
some act of God, a huge tornado that swept away 75 per cent of the
red book promises. The Prime Minister's signature in the red book
is not worth the paper it is written on.
Does the government still intend to implement all the promises
in the red book, those promises it made to get elected?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes
to credibility and believing promises, I certainly would put my
faith in the Prime Minister.
When it comes to adding up the promises we have kept, the
figures of the Prime Minister are more reflective of reality than
those of the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, next May 13, the Quebec superior court will be hearing
the case of Guy Bertrand, the lawyer who claims the 1995 Quebec
referendum was illegal under the 1982 Constitution. Yesterday, the
Minister of Justice indicated to us that the government is seriously
considering intervening in this case.
In order to inform the public and to demonstrate his good faith,
is the Minister of Justice prepared to table in this House the legal
opinions he has in hand concerning the Bertrand case?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true that the federal
government is contemplating taking part in the proceedings before
the Quebec superior court. I would, however, like to point out that
our reason for this is not connected with the positions of either Mr.
Bertrand or Mr. Singh, but rather the position taken by the
Government of Quebec.
2307
On April 12 for the Bertrand case, and May 1 for the Singh case,
the Government of Quebec presented two requests for dismissal
without a hearing of the two cases which challenged the legislation
or other measures being used to make a declaration of sovereignty
legally binding.
(1130)
In support of those requests, the Government of Quebec takes
the position that neither Canadian courts nor the Canadian
Constitution have anything to do with Quebec's declaration of
sovereignty.
The question we are asking at this time is whether the
Government of Canada ought to have something to say in response
to this position, that is to say the position of the Government of
Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):Mr.
Speaker, we totally subscribe to the Quebec position, particularly
since Quebec is absolutely not in agreement with the 1982
Constitution, having never signed it.
If his government intervenes actively in the Bertrand case, will
the Minister admit that this confirms the existence of a Plan B on
the rules of secession, and that he is preparing for a legal denial of
the fundamental right of the Quebec people to determine their own
future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker. Our consideration of these
questions, our consideration of the possibility of participation
before the courts is merely, as I have said, related to the position
taken by the Government of Quebec. I would also like to stress that
we have not yet made a decision on this; we are considering our
decision.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I could not
find anywhere in the Liberal red book where the Liberals promised
to replace the GST with a billion dollar cash incentive to three
provinces. Nowhere, not even on page 22.
On the campaign trail the Prime Minister did not say: ``I hate the
GST, I will kill the GST and I will spend a billion dollars to do
that''.
What act of God is this government hoping for to convince
Canadians that this government did not break its GST promise and
that it is not wasting a billion dollars on a cash incentive to hide this
broken promise?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has asked
that question. It gives me a chance to remind the hon. member that
on numerous occasions when we have had structural adjustment the
government has responded with assistance to those regions that
require it. That is what is taking place in the implementation of the
national harmonized value added tax in the Atlantic provinces.
I will repeat again what the member and others in his party have
heard time and time again. It is worth repeating one more time in
the hopes that they will absorb it this time. It is going to be an
enormous improvement for those Atlantic provinces. We are
sharing the cost of adjustment with those provinces, consistent with
what we have done for instance out west in western grain payments
to grain producers when we ended the Crow rate subsidy.
I do not recall-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. The hon. member for
Calgary Centre.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance and now his parliamentary secretary object to
the word B-R-I-B-you get the picture. They call it the cost of
adjustment.
I am starting to wonder if it is only the government that is paying
it and the premiers who are receiving it who have a problem with
that word. The premiers of Alberta and Ontario, the B.C.
government, journalists across the country and Canadians from
coast to coast see it for what it exactly is.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask the hon. member
for Calgary Centre to put his question, please.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, when will the finance minister stand up
and admit that this billion dollar cash incentive, this billion dollar
cost of adjustment has nothing to do with good policy but
everything to do with political expediency?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has everything to do with good
policy and it is good for the country.
I do not recall the hon. member suggesting that fishermen were
bribed or that western grain producers were bribed. This is how we
do things in this country. We are implementing a national value
added harmonized tax. It is good for the Atlantic provinces and it is
good for Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
For a number of years now, the federal government has been
trying to privatize several regional airports. Last December, it also
announced its intention to turn over harbour management to
2308
regional bodies. However, the Government of Quebec rightly
maintains that several of these harbours and airports are presently
in need of extensive repair that could result in costs to the
provincial governments.
(1135)
Can the Minister of Transport assure us that he will respect the
opinion of the Government of Quebec in the process of privatizing
federal harbours and airports?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had some very constructive discussions with Quebec's
transport minister, Mr. Brassard. We spoke about the need to
exchange information with regard to the transfer of airports to
municipalities, the province or private interests.
We will continue with the program, but it is my hope that in
future we will be able to continue to have, in a spirit of
co-operation, discussions that are productive for both parties and
for these airports during the transfer period. There are, I believe,
$35 million set aside to help with the transfer, that is to improve the
infrastructure of these airports before they are turned over to
municipalities.
What I am waiting for from the province of Quebec is a decision
on its part to allow the 12 municipalities who wish to enter into
discussions with us to do so. In the province of Quebec, they cannot
deal directly with the federal government without Mr. Brassard's
permission. I hope to have this permission within a few weeks.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Quebec is wary of Greeks bearing
gifts. We need to know the conditions and repercussions of
decisions.
Does the minister intend to make the necessary repairs to federal
harbours and airports before privatizing them, or to make financial
compensation available in order to ensure the viability of these
privatized facilities?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Of
course, Mr. Speaker. We have $35 million for the airports
throughout the country. I hope that that will be sufficient; we will
see. The money is there, set aside for this program and for the
purpose mentioned by the hon. member.
At the same time, it should be pointed out that $125 million have
been earmarked for the same reasons, to help with the transfer to
the private sector, to municipalities. Sometimes, for example, in
ocean harbours, provincial ferries may now have a harbour under
federal authority that we want to turn over to the province.
The money is there. We will see how many requests we get. I am
certain that with the help of my hon. colleague, and of the Quebec
transport minister, we will be able to have some very productive
exchanges that will be to everyone's benefit.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we learned more about the systematic cover-up in
national defence. This is the same cover-up that government
lawyers wanted to keep the commission from investigating. It is the
same cover-up that has seen evidence destroyed and documents
hidden right under the minister's nose. It is the same cover-up the
minister has been evading since day one.
The minister has been saying that the leadership crisis in his
department is not his fault nor General Boyle's fault. Are we then
to believe that it was an act of God?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat some of the points I have raised in the House in answering
other questions over the last couple of weeks.
The commission of inquiry is an independent commission that
will hear all the evidence and will get the answers the hon. member
and other Canadians want. This government wants to get to the
bottom of the problems surrounding the deployment to Somalia in
1993 and the commission will do that. We have to allow the
commission the opportunity to do its work in an unfettered way and
not raise questions every day in the House based on the previous
day's testimony. That is a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the problem here is leadership in the department as well as in
cabinet.
After Nancy Fournier's testimony, no one can deny the fact of a
cover-up. Rightly or wrongly, General Boyle is widely seen as
involved. Surely he cannot continue to run the department while
this crisis remains unresolved.
(1140)
In light of the increasing evidence, why has the minister failed to
provide the leadership his department so desperately now needs?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have said that
we owe all those people involved in this matter the courtesy of
being allowed to give their views at the commission so that it is
done in a very systematic, calm and rational way. I think most
Canadians feel that is the appropriate way to go about it.
Contrary to the comments of the hon. member and his leader in
the last few weeks, it now seems the hon. member's leader is
coming to that view of justice. This morning on ``Canada AM''
when he was asked why he took so long in reacting to the
statements by the hon. members for Athabasca and
Nanaimo-Cowichan, the hon. member's leader from Calgary
Southwest said: ``It took us two days before reacting because we
have to give these
2309
people a hearing. We have to ask them what they really meant. If
we do not do that we would be accused of being discriminatory
ourselves''.
I think the hon. member should reflect on his own leader's
statements and in future let the commission do its work before he
makes any judgments.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Developmnet.
For the second consecutive month, a large number of concerned
and destitute seniors have not received their guaranteed income
supplement. Last week, at the Saint-Léonard office, in Montreal,
135 seniors were turned away by overburdened officials who asked
them to make an appointment even though the phone lines were
always busy. Worse still, when an official could finally be reached
on the phone, he said that he did not know when the situation would
be rectified.
Will the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
that, not only have these seniors been deprived of their guaranteed
income supplement without knowing when the problem will be
resolved, but they have also been unable to obtain adequate service
from his department?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister-my
mistake, the member-that this situation is totally unacceptable.
We have had bad experiences over the past two months with the
delivery of certain programs. There have been flaws in the system
which I find utterly deplorable.
You will understand that our department serves hundreds of
thousands of people. These people are among the most vulnerable
in our society. It is totally unacceptable to cause them concern
because of this kind of problem.
I can assure my colleague that I did all that could be done,
considering the technology involved which makes these things
very complex, to try to prevent this type of situation from occurring
again in the future. In the meantime, we took immediate action by
calling these people to explain to them what the problem was and to
assure them that they would receive their cheques as soon as
possible.
I sincerely apologize to these people who did not get good
service from my department.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would urge the
minister not to call me minister because I am afraid he will hold me
responsible, with him, for the present situation.
What guarantee can the minister give the House that seniors
affected by this problem will be reimbursed without delay?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member
every assurance that we have already begun the process. Many of
the people who have been affected by this unacceptable technical
error have already received their cheques or have been contacted
directly.
I give him every assurance we are taking every measure possible
to make sure senior citizens who have been upset by this
inappropriate kind of situation will receive the money coming to
them as quickly as we can do it.
In addition, I repeat to the hon. member that we are doing
everything we possibly can to ensure it does not happen again.
These people have enough to worry about without having to be
concerned about whether they will receive the appropriate amount
they are due each month.
I share the hon. member's concerns. I want to say to Canadians
who have had to put up with this glitch that it is unacceptable and
we will do everything we can to make sure it does not happen
again.
* * *
(1145)
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
The minister is no doubt aware that in Canada's second
submission to the NAFTA panel there is reference to the fact that
Canada should have been more specific on whether tariffs for
supply management are a GATT or NAFTA issue.
Could the minister assure the House this admission in no way
compromises our position with respect to our commitment to
protect supply management?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, media coverage in the last several
days clearly demonstrates how vigorously we are defending, as
promised, our made in Canada supply management system before
the NAFTA panel.
This defence is a truly Team Canada effort because it involves all
relevant farm organizations and all provincial governments. We are
all working very closely together.
Canada is fully convinced that on any plain reading of the words
of the FTA and the NAFTA we in Canada have the full legal right to
2310
do what we have done with our tariff equivalents under the WTO.
The United States in our view is entirely misconstruing the
negotiating history of the NAFTA and the WTO. It is now trying to
obtain by the dispute settlement mechanism what it could not
obtain at the bargaining table, and Canada will stand up for itself.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
On March 29 in a press release the minister said conservation
was the purpose of the B.C. fisheries buy back. As recently as two
days ago the minister did a flip-flop and admitted his plan has no
teeth and will not do anything to conserve salmon.
We would think that with that admission he would reconsider the
plan before turning the lives of fishermen in British Columbia
upside down. Will the minister admit conservation was just a
cynical excuse to sell his plan?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the time the hon.
member raises his question the minister is in the west. He has had
24 hours of extensive discussions with stakeholders in the fishery
industry on the west coast. He is meeting today with people for an
exhaustive study.
I thought the member's comments on the minister were perhaps
imaginative but I think we would have to read the text of what the
minister said. It has very little to do with what the member
suggested.
It is our expectation that as a result of the minister's discussions,
the plan the government has, which stresses conservation but which
recognizes conservation is the key to the survival of the industry,
will be fully implemented.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the
minister that on March 29 he said: ``A reduction of 50 per cent of
the commercial fleet in British Columbia is necessary to promote
conservation of the resource. Conservation is our top priority''.
Two days ago in the House he said: ``The plan may not result in
fewer fish caught''. He admitted the plan is a complete failure even
before it starts, yet his government is recklessly going ahead with it
anyway.
Why is the government pursuing a plan that will destroy the
livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and B.C. coastal
communities when the minister has admitted in the House that the
plan will not work?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are not in a game
of playing with words. If we were, we would look at the words
more closely.
The minister and the government are engaged in preserving an
industry that was on the point of disaster in 1996. We are making
emergency planning for 1996. The committee of which the hon.
member is a member is hearing from key experts in the field this
coming week. We are looking to long range planning as well.
The plan is not a failure. The plan is being considered in the light
of the thoughtful recommendations made by everybody, the three
categories of fishers, the union, the food processors, the wildlife
people and the habitat people. It will be a comprehensive approach
to solution of something in the best interests of the west coast.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury
Board.
Since the Liberal government took office, federal public servants
have been hard hit, despite the promises made by the hon. member
for Hull-Aylmer during the election campaign. Bill C-31 now
goes even further to undermine the rights of federal public
servants.
(1150)
Why is the minister abolishing the Public Sector Compensation
Act while, at the same time, amending the Public Service Staff
Relations Act so as to suspend binding arbitration?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year, Bill C-31 provides for the resumption of collective bargaining
and for possible wage increases for our employees. This was well
received by our employees.
We are suspending binding arbitration, because, in the years to
come, we want to be directly accountable to Parliament for wage
increases granted to public servants, so that we can meet our fiscal
objectives.
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that, by denying access to
binding arbitration in case of a deadlock at the bargaining table, he
is forcing public servants to go on strike if they cannot agree with
the government?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously, in the years to come, the government and unions will
have to take their responsibilities to Canadians, and the best way to
ensure that they do so and that the government is directly account-
2311
able to the House for its decisions is for the government to remain
responsible for approving the outcome of negotiations and to be
accountable for the outcome before our colleagues in this House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, 70 per
cent of the workers at CBC are set to strike. They listen to the
government when it says it is committed to stable multi-year
funding for the CBC, but management knows better.
The Liberals do not keep their promises because in spite of their
so-called commitment the government's 1996 budget and main
estimates cut almost $400 million from CBC funding.
Will the minister admit the government has not kept its promise,
is sowing discontent and confusion at the CBC bargaining table and
has no long term plan for the CBC?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me an
opportunity to clear the air.
There were no new cuts announced in this year's budget for the
CBC. The government has announced its long term plans for CBC
with regard to funding. Almost a billion dollars in funding, $800
million within the next fiscal year, which has been allotted to CBC
is plenty of money for it to operate.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
comparison with the Liberals, the Reform Party policy is clear and
consistent on the CBC. We call for the privatization of the CBC.
In spite of spending $2.5 million trying to come up with this
funding on the wasted Juneau report, Liberals are still going ahead
with the $400 million in cuts. They are getting into privatization
through the back door, and the union knows it because its jobs are
being contracted out to private industry.
Why will the parliamentary secretary not admit the government
is doing privatization at the CBC in spite of the fact it is saying it is
not, and this without public debate?
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we well know the policy of the Reform Party with regard
to the CBC. It wants to gut it completely. It wants to eliminate it.
The government has committed CBC funding for the next
number of years on a long term basis. We have committed to
responding to the Juneau report in the very near future. We have
committed to helping our cultural industries and there will be a
cultural fund set up that all cultural industries will be able to
access.
I can honestly say in this regard when it comes to the Reform
Party talking about cuts, here it is on one side complaining we are
not cutting enough and all of a sudden it is complaining we are
cutting too much.
* * *
(1155)
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
Serious problems have for some time disrupted the peaceful life
of the Lake Barriere community. The troubles there are quite
serious. The school is still closed, people are leaving their homes
and the community is torn apart.
Could the minister or his parliamentary secretary tell the House
what efforts the government is making to bring back harmony
within the Lake Barriere community?
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question. Last November, the Lake
Barriere community chose an interim band council by petition.
This interim band council was given the mandate by the
community to write down the band's custom for the purpose of
ratifying it. Once ratified, the custom would be used to elect new
leaders.
But a group opposed to this interim band council has control
over the road to the reservation, which is the reason why the school
was closed. Considering the continuing stalemate, the dissenting
group asked for the help of a mediator, which the interim band
council also agreed to on April 25. I can announce today to the
House that both parties have agreed on the choice of a mediator,
whose role will be essentially to work with band members to
develop an electoral code.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, who seems
eager to reply.
On November 17, 1994, during debate at second reading on Bill
C-58 dealing with labour relations whithin the RCMP, the Minister
of Labour declared: ``the purpose amendments do not change the
status of the RCMP. They only confirm the status it had prior to the
2312
Federal Court decision''. However, the Sims report says exactly the
opposite: ``the bill will have a major impact on the rigths of
management and members or the RCMP''.
The minister clearly contradicted Mr. Sims' analysis. Therefore,
is he prepared to review his position and allow members of the
RCMP to form a union and to undertake collective bargaining, like
their provincial and municipal counterparts?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to remind the Hon. members that the Sims' report
was tabled at the end of January and the bill he alluded to was
introduced a year earlier.
During consultations on the Sims' report, in Toronto, I had the
pleasure of meeting representatives of the RCMP. They made
representations about their desire to come under the Canada Labour
Code. I took note of their representations. I have completed
consultations on the issue, and I am in the process of preparing my
report to cabinet on amendments to part I of the Canada Labour
Code. I am sure that when I have completed this task, the Hon.
member will be able to learn the outcome, and he can then
comment on it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is on the Edmonton women's prison.
The eye in the sky camera was not in place when it opened. The
electronic door locks never worked and were never repaired. The
alarm systems have never worked properly. Security specialists
were not involved until just last week. Residents were promised
that maximum security prisoners would never be held there. This is
a terrible embarrassment for the government.
My question is for the acting solicitor general. Why were
maximum security prisoners transferred to a prison like this?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is true we have encountered
difficulties at that facility.
I told the House earlier this week that through discussions
between the Solicitor General of Canada and Attorney General
Evans of Alberta arrangements have been made to transfer inmates
to a provincial facility.
Steps are being taken to overcome difficulties at the federal
Edmonton facility to address some of the security items to which
the hon. member referred. We are hopeful that in due course the
facility will be ready to return to its function, housing inmates in
accordance with the law.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
In the government's original offer for the sale of grain hopper
cars it said it would consider all proposals put forward for the
acquisition of the cars and that the government would take into
account the interests of producers, shippers and railways.
Since then the committee was told yesterday that the transport
department has already protected the interests of the railways in an
agreement signed between the federal government and the railways
in 1993, which is said to give the railways not only the right of first
refusal in terms of any sale but also a virtual veto over who can get
the cars if the railways decide not to exercise that first right.
(1200 )
Can the minister tell the House and the bidders from farmer
groups why their bids must be subject to that previously secret
arrangement? Will he table the federal government railways
operating agreement so everyone can know what the rules really
are?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the remaining minute of question period it is difficult to
deal with the hour I spent with the committee earlier this week,
which apparently the hon. member did not bother to attend. It is
difficult in one minute.
Let me try to point out to him that shippers, that is the people
who move grain, the producers, the railways and other groups such
as pension funds that might want to invest in a transportation
system will all have the opportunity to bid on the hopper cars when
the time comes for us to dispose of them.
We will have open bidding. Obviously we have put restrictions
on this to protect western shippers and western grain growers, to
ensure there is an efficient transportation system. Nothing could be
more damaging to the western producer and the western shipper
than to have the railways in such a situation where they cannot
meet costs and thus will continue to operate or use equipment
which is inefficient or not in the best of condition.
The rail system in western Canada is run under adverse climatic
and geographic conditions. We have to make sure we have an
efficient system in the interests of the producers and the shippers-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to save enough time
for one last question.
2313
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the 1980s, air issues dominated the political agenda as
governments joined together to tackle the problem of acid rain.
Today, the focus on air issues should be equally important as new
evidence links air pollution to increased cases of respiratory
diseases like asthma, which is a growing problem in my riding of
Saint-Denis and in all of Montreal.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the
Environment tell the House what this government is doing to
continue to focus political attention on these crucial air issues?
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for her question.
This week I had the pleasure of participating in the clean air
conference in Saint John, New Brunswick. This conference was
hosted by Premier McKenna. It was organized for the premiers of
eastern Canada as well as the governors of New England states.
Both areas have common air pollution problems as the source of
the air pollution comes from southern Ontario and the eastern
United States.
As the the member stated, air pollution contributes to human
health concerns. The federal government is committed both
nationally and internationally to working on solving this problem.
Among many initiatives we are specifically working to
strengthen the Canada-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I apologize to all of you, but
this concludes question period for today.
_____________________________________________
2313
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (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 eight
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human
Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, May 1,
1996, your committee has considered Bill C-33, an act to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act, and has agreed to report it without
amendment.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 15th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of various committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 15th report later this day.
* * *
(1205 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-34, an act to
establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to
repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural
Products Cooperative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for
Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House and
in accordance with Standing Order 73(1), it is the intention of the
government that this bill be referred to a committee before second
reading.
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-278, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments
Act (disallowance procedure for delegated and subordinate
legislation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I actually have three private members'
bills to introduce.
The first bill I wish to introduce today, an act to amend the
Statutory Instruments Act, would establish a statutory
disallowance procedure that would be applicable to all subordinate
and delegated legislation subject to review and scrutiny by the
Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
In doing so, the bill would ensure that Parliament will have the
opportunity to disallow any statutory instrument made pursuant to
authority delegated by Parliament.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
2314
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act
(electronic voting).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Canada
Elections Act by permitting electronic voting and recognizes that
the technology of today puts many tools at our beck and call and
one of them could be used for voting.
The bill provides for electronic voting by touch tone telephone
as an alternative to casting a written ballot. Those wishing to vote
electronically would still be enumerated and would apply to vote
electronically. Having done so, they would be given a PIN number
and then could vote electronically using their touch telephone.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-280, an act to amend an act to amend the Debt
Servicing and Reduction Account Act (gifts to the Crown).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill involves gifts to the crown,
particularly when someone makes a donation to the debt servicing
and reduction account. Presently it is a bit of smoke and mirrors
and tends to result in a reduction of the deficit.
This bill would cause the crown to keep the money in a special
account where it must stay until such time as the budget was
balanced and it could then be used for debt reduction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1210)
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was not possible to reach an agreement pursuant to
Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with respect to the proceedings at
report stage and at third reading of Bill C-12, an act respecting
employment insurance in Canada.
Therefore, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House,
pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), a minister of the crown will be
moving a time allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a
specified number of days or hours for the consideration and
disposal of proceedings at that stage.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 15th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move:
That the following change be made to the membership of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs: Jim Silye for Bob Ringma.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present two petitions on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe
Centre today.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include the undefined
phrase sexual orientation. Refusing to define this statement leaves
interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.
Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that
legislation cannot be misinterpreted.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition concerns the age of consent laws.
The petitioners ask that Parliament set the age of consent at 18
years to protect children from exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by concerned
constituents in several ridings around British Columbia.
2315
They urge the government to consider extending benefits or
compensation to veterans of the wartime merchant navy equal to
that of veterans of Canada's World War II armed services.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present two petitions.
The first is signed by concerned citizens of my riding and across
Ontario. These petitioners call on Parliament to repeal section 43 of
the Criminal Code which permits parents, teachers and guardians
to use reasonable force in disciplining their children.
They are very concerned that the term, reasonable force, has
been interpreted very broadly by the courts and permits severe
physical punishment of children.
The petitioners feel that section 43 contravenes the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that children in
our society must be protected from physical abuse.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am also
pleased to present some 300 petitions signed by thousands of
concerned citizens from across Ontario.
These petitioners call on Parliament to create an environment of
justice and equality for all Canadians by amending the Canadian
Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two petitions today.
The first petition is signed by Canadians primarily from the
Calgary area. They ask Parliament to act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is signed almost exclusively by residents of the
town of Unionville in the area north of metropolitan Toronto.
They pray and call on Parliament not to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way
that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human
rights act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions today. The first one comes from Burnaby, B.C.
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 that has not been recognized for its value
to our society.
(1215 )
They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against
traditional families that make the choice to provide care in the
home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the
aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
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 comes from Vancouver, B.C.
The petitioners 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 on 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 risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to present a petition from people in my part of Ontario,
Bobcaygeon, Dunsford and the surrounding areas.
The petition requests Parliament to ensure that people who drink
and drive will be dealt with in accordance with the severity of the
crime.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 8 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 8-Mr. Hermanson:
Concerning the Western Grain Transition Payments Program (WGTPP), (a)
which specific farm organizations were consulted by the Department of
Agriculture about the program prior to and after the announcement of the WGTPP
2316
on February 27, 1995, (b) which specific farm organizations have indicated
support of the WGTPP in written form along with the date of that support and (c)
which specific farm organizations have indicated opposition to the WGTPP in
written form along with the date of that opposition?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): The issues surrounding the reform and
upgrading of western Canada's grain handling and transportation
system have been the subject of intense study and debate across the
prairies for at least 25 years. Within days of the 1993 election, the
newly elected federal government was required to begin dealing
with these issues in the context of the Uruguay round of world trade
negotiations because those negotiations were beginning the process
of eliminating ``trade distorting export subsidies'', and grain
subsidies under Canada's Western Grain Transportation Act,
WGTA, were included, in part, within that definition.
Consultations were appropriately undertaken at that time by the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food through the grain
representatives serving on the sectoral advisory group on
international trade, SAGIT. These included the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers and the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture, among others.
The consultative process has been intense and ongoing ever
since. This has included a great deal of correspondence and, more
important, dozens of face to face personal meetings and
teleconferences involving virtually every major western farm
organization, several national organizations with an interest in the
western grain handling and transportation system, untold numbers
of individual producers, grain companies and co-operatives, the
railways, municipal organizations, and provincial governments.
It would be impossible to reconstruct an absolutely all-inclusive
listing of all those consulted prior to the February 27, 1995 federal
budget, but the more prominent groups included in these
consultations were: Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Keystone
Agricultural Producers, Canadian Cattlemen's Association,
Unifarm, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities,
Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Union of
Manitoba Municipalities, Western Canadian Wheat Growers
Association, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian
Canola Growers Association, Canadian Dehydrators Association,
Western Canadian Flax Growers, Western Canada Pulse Growers,
Manitoba Pool Elevators, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Pool,
United Grain Growers, Canada Grains Council.
In addition, at the request of the minister's address to over 90
industry stakeholders in November of 1994, more than 30 other
groups provided written input on WGTA and grain transportation
reform prior to February 27, 1995. These included, most
prominently: Prairie Farm Leaders Group, Alberta Canola
Producers Commission, Alberta Cattle Commission, Prairie Pools
Inc., Saskatchewan Cattle Feeders Association, Manitoba Pulse
Growers, National Farmers Union, Canadian Special Crops
Association.
Prebudget consultations were, of necessity, general and broad
ranging, but they clearly signalled the government's direction
toward a western grain transition payments programs, WGTPP.
The nature of the WGTPP, as announced in the 1995 budget,
required ongoing postbudget discussions with farm groups about
specific aspects of the program's design and delivery and related
adjustment measures. The minister therefore continued to seek
broad producer and industry input through further correspondence,
teleconferences and personal meetings held through the spring,
summer, fall and winter of 1995.
Through all these consultations in whatever form, opinions have
been expressed both for and against the reform which have been
undertaken. While there is general agreement that the reforms were
necessary and unavoidable for trade, efficiency, diversification,
innovation and fiscal reasons, it must also be noted that few
organizations unequivocally approved of each and every aspect of
the WGTPP. Advice and reactions were typically mixed. It is
therefore very difficult to characterize any given organization as
totally supportive or opposed. In most cases they were a bit of both.
Not unexpectedly, everyone would have preferred to have more
money available for distribution through this program. On the other
hand, those consulted also acknowledged the compelling
imperative of fiscal responsibility.
One point is clear. Few other initiatives in the history of
Canadian agriculture have been subject to such open, lengthy and
comprehensive consultations before, during and after
implementation. The process continues.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2316
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting
employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee; and Motions Nos 1, 2 and 3.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am both happy and sad to rise this afternoon to
contribute to the debate on Bill C-12, an act respecting
employment insurance in Canada. I am taking this opportunity, at
report stage, to join in the discussion on the work by the standing
committee.
2317
The day when, after third reading of Bill C-12, the government
will ring the bell to call us to the House to vote, will be a day
of national mourning. All Quebecers and Canadians should fly
their flag at half mast. The government is so ashamed of its reform
that it has used very special measures at each stage, when
democracy was calling us to debate this bill here in this
Parliament.
After first reading-a misnomer, at this stage, one looks, rises,
and sits down, first reading is over-the government did away with
second reading. Usually, at this stage, the official opposition has
the opportunity to present, discuss, and debate all its objections to a
bill. It has the opportunity to do so in the House since second
reading takes place in the House.
What did the government do this time? It decided to do away
with second reading, following instead a rather odd procedure
called preliminary study; the opposition was allowed to make six
ten-minute speeches, for a total of one hour, to explain and voice all
its objections against a bill containing 190 clauses. It was then
referred to committee. In committee, the bill was again under a gag
order. Not one of the groups wishing to appear was unable to do so
for lack of time.
Usually, committees travel across Canada when the game is
worth the candle. However, this time, for an in-depth reform of the
unemployment insurance program, the government deemed it
unnecessary for the committee to travel and hear people's views on
this reform. The government preferred to stay on the hill,
completely disconnected from reality, and to go ahead with a bill
that nobody wants. Perhaps the government got a little scared,
given the strong and unanimous opposition to this legislation
across the country.
(1220)
I dare the Prime Minister to let members of his party vote freely
on this bill, as he did in the case of Bill C-33, which sought to
recognize a basic right. Should the Prime Minister do that, I think
his party would bring the government down.
The committee only had 10 hours to do a clause by clause
review. This is a big joke, given that there are 190 clauses in the
bill. The government, with its arrogant majority, could not care less
about democracy and Canadians.
Now, the minister on call wants to gag the official opposition.
When the government wants to gag us it asks the labour minister to
table a notice of motion; or at least he is the one who always did it
for this bill. The minister responsible for the reform does not even
have the courage to rise to gag us. He prefers to ask a Quebecois to
do the job for him. Barely 10 minutes before I took the floor, we
were told by the government that, on Monday, it would table a
motion to gag us once again, to keep us from speaking in this
House about a reform that does not make any sense and that
Canadians do not want.
There are 190 clauses in this bill. Since it could not stop the
train, the official opposition tried to propose amendments. Would
you believe that a total of 221 amendments, more than the number
of clauses, were proposed? A Liberal member decided to propose
one. His party will probably support it, to reward him for having
dared to say something. Eleven amendments were made by the
Reform Party, 13 by the minister, including 6 that are insignificant
and of a purely technical nature, and 196 by the Bloc Quebecois,
including several which have the support of the New Democratic
Party.
These 221 amendments were put in 15 different groups to
facilitate their discussion in the House. The first group included
Motion 9A, proposed by the Bloc Quebecois. That motion referred
to the Quebec consensus concerning Quebec's reclaiming all
manpower training programs and job creation programs, along
with financial compensation.
Unfortunately, we shall not be able to debate this matter, because
the Chair has refused to admit it, seemingly because it involves a
royal recommendation, or so I was told. I myself must admit I do
not know what that means. What are we doing here if we are
refused the right to table an amendment because it needs a royal
recommendation? Can anyone be more alienated than a people that
requires a recommendation from someone else? Why are we not
capable of dealing with the necessary amendments on our own? As
a citizen, and even less as a member of Parliament, I have no idea
what the expression ``royal recommendation'' means.
The government, however, in my understanding of the situation,
is caught in a trap. Once again, it is speaking out of both sides of its
mouth. When responding to questions in the House, or when
speaking to the public, it claims to want to get along with Quebec,
and that it is Quebec that does not want to get along with Ottawa.
This is what we have been hearing for nearly 10 years, as this
government is reforming this and that, since Meech anyway, that
Quebec is supposedly never satisfied. Yet, when the government is
invited to put its money where its mouth is, when there are
meetings with the Quebec minister, meetings cancelled with no
reason given, the minister not turning up, not submitting what he
was meant to, not responding to the Quebec consensus, when we
want to repatriate manpower training and employability
enhancement programs in Quebec, hypocritically the government
digs its heels in every time. What a farce. Mark my words, though,
the farce is nearly over. This morning's survey, as reported by
l'Actualité, was very clear. Every step this government has taken
since the last referendum has added to the popularity of
sovereignty. This morning we reached 56 per cent, the highest
since Meech Lake. You better not forget it. This is only the
beginning, the ascent to secession, as you call it, or to sovereignty,
as we see it.
2318
(1225)
The people of Canada and Quebec will recall as well at the next
elections that the old traditional parties have nothing more to offer.
They are all cast in the same mould. Whether it is the Liberals or
the Conservatives, there is no difference. In official opposition,
they criticize. On the campaign trail, they promise the world. In
government, once elected, they do nothing. They take the issues of
their predecessors and do what they had previously criticized.
For the benefit of those listening, I would just like to quote
something I find quite admirable: ``The point I am trying to make,
which many of us will have to look at seriously, is the whole notion
of trust and credibility. Canadians are prepared to share the burden,
if they think it is being done fairly. Unemployment insurance,
family allowance and old age pensions are a sacred trust. We must
not allow the trust of Canadians to deteriorate to a point where they
become cynical. I have listened to people talk about New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, and about other countries and how they do it.
There are basic standards, basic programs, universal programs, and
programs that allow people to deal with their future with some
degree of security''. Who said this? None other than the hon.
member for Gloucester, the father of the reform we reject.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on Motion
No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The recorded division on the
motion stands deferred. The division will also apply to Motion No.
3.
We now proceed to Group No. 3, which contains Motions Nos. 4,
5, 6, 200 and 201.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-12, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 28, on page 1,
lines 1 to 44, on page 2, lines 1 to 42, on page 3, and lines 1 to 8, on page 4, with
the following:
``6. Subsection 25(11) of the Unemployment Insurance Act is repealed.''
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-12, in Clause 2, be amended by adding, after line 8, on page 4, the
following:
``(5) For the purposes of sections 15 and 145, the Commission may, with the
approval of the Governor in Council, make regulations for establishing how
many weeks of regular benefits a claimant was paid, in order to take into
account benefit reductions or deductions in the calculation or payment of those
benefits.''
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 200
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 177.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 201
That Bill C-12, in Clause 177, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page
134 with the following:
``ance Act;''.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to echo the words of my colleague, the member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata. During the whole process leading to this
moment in the House, not only the official opposition, but also the
people who wanted to be heard, did not have the opportunity to
voice their concerns.
(1230)
Rarely have the people concerned been prevented from truly
speaking their minds on such an important issue as this one, which
will affect the lives of millions of people in a very practical way,
since it will deny them access to a minimum level of security if
they lose their jobs, it will reduce their benefits and it will cut the
period of eligibility for those benefits. Millions will be affected by
this bill, which has not been discussed adequately and about which
the official opposition and the people have not had the opportunity
to voice their concerns.
The government seems utterly unconcerned about what will
happen to men, women, young workers and older ones, workers
living in seasonal work areas and pregnant women. The
government could not care less about the fate of these people.
2319
This unemployment insurance system is the pillar not only of
economic stability in times of recession, but also of a minimum
security for those who do not have total job security or who cannot
rely on personal or family wealth. That affects a wide segment
of the population, and if the government had not acted as it did,
it could have designed a real system by widening the assistance
and especially by widening the base for those who can contribute
to make this system a real one.
This government did not want to have a real system. It has
preferred to reduce benefits and to make them unavailable to many
people.
We now know that time is running out for us, which is a shame.
We now know that the party in power does not want us to expose
the true nature of this bill. We will try, during what time we do
have, to repay it back in kind, because this is totally unacceptable.
All the people at home who may listen to members opposite
were told, regarding this reform, which proposed a new concept
based on hours worked, that they would get a better system, but that
is totally false. At first glance, it might seem interesting to take
hours worked into account, but the truth is the government took
advantage of this change, to a great extent, to multiply by three the
eligibility criteria.
Someone who was not in the system, a young person or a woman
who got out of the workplace to have a child or who never got into
it, or whoever has not been in the system for more than two years,
for whatever reason, could go back into the system by working
twenty 15 hour weeks. There was a threshold. The government had
said that twenty 15 hour weeks, or 300 hours, was a threshold.
(1235)
From now on, how many hours will the government require for
these same persons to become eligible? The bill stipulates 910
hours, or twenty-six 35 hour weeks in a year, instead of twenty 15
hour weeks each. Those are the facts. Some will have to wait two
years to become eligible. Even if they are in need, there is no
eligibility until they have reached the number of hours required.
In a way, those affected are really those who need the system
most. A researcher said that young people in particular must have
access to real unemployment insurance, because jobs are so scarce.
According to researchers, one of the main differences between
someone who is eligible for UI benefits and someone who is not, is
that the former will stay on UI for one more month, and use it to
look for a job, a better paid job.
Is that wrong, considering the cost of living and the fact that
young people, especially those who are thinking about starting a
family, cannot possibly do so on minimum wages and will have
trouble doing so if they are the only breadwinner and earn $10 or
$12 an hour?
Good jobs, like good bosses, are extremely hard to find.
Nowadays, what we are seeing is that businesses that provide stable
well paid jobs are more likely to be closing down rather than
starting up. Companies that paid good salaries are closing and are
replaced by small businesses which, in many cases, do not pay
salaries that allow people to live decently. This is, and will be,
extremely hard on a lot of people.
What about someone who is in the system? Since the last change
was made, when the unemployment rate was at its highest, the
person must work twelve 15 hour weeks. What will happen now?
From now on, the same person will have to work twelve 35 hour
weeks. This is for the regions where the unemployment rate is
highest.
In regions where it is lower, such as Victoria and Vancouver,
people will have to work twenty 35 hour weeks. When the human
resources development committee went there, it found out that,
yes, there are rich people, but there are also many for whom this
affluence only makes the cost of living higher, including their rent.
The result is that so-called ordinary people have a hard time. They
may lose their job and it may take time before they find another
one. Still, these people will have to work twenty 35 hour weeks.
Between these two extremes, there is a whole scale of variable
conditions. For the Montreal region, the requirement will be
fourteen 35 hour weeks, or 490 hours. The bill went from weeks to
hours worked, but the government has used the opportunity to
increase the basic requirements considerably.
(1240)
The bill does not take into account the fact that, for many people,
one hour of work does not necessarily equate with one hour of
wages. Part time teachers who often earn very little money and
work in difficult conditions need a true unemployment insurance
system between periods of employment. For these people, one hour
of work does not equate with one hour of wages.
The same is true for musicians, actors and many people in this
``new economy'', where an hourly wage is not the rule. This bill is
unfortunately legislation right out of the past. It is a pretext to make
the system more inaccessible to those who need it. It is a bill that
the population will reject.
The next government to be elected will pledge to change it. Jean
Chrétien, leader of the official opposition-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Without getting into
the issue of using titles rather than names, I must inform the House
that the member's 10 minute period is over, unfortunately.
[English]
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, being
from Atlantic Canada, it is certainly important for us to present our
views on the employment insurance act. It is particularly important
2320
to bring to the House some of the important concerns we have in
Atlantic Canada.
As Liberals, we have always prided ourselves in introducing the
original unemployment insurance bill, changing it in the 1970s and
promoting and encouraging it, and to see that Canadians who are
unable to find work are protected by legislation and by a program
that will enable them to have a satisfactory standard of living.
Since the Liberal Party formed this government, we have been
involved in discussions across the country through the HRD
committee and through our members of Parliament meeting with
constituents to discuss the ramifications and look at their concerns
about unemployment.
Jobs are the major concern of many Canadians. Many of our
young people, especially those in the 15-24 age group, have great
difficulties finding jobs. Nearly 10 per cent of our labour force at
any given time has difficulty finding work.
In Atlantic Canada, as in the rest of the nation, people do not
want to be unemployed. They would prefer to find work, to have
steady income. We as members of Parliament and as a government
must attempt to bring forward measures to encourage programs, to
develop an environment that will enable Canadians to find
satisfactory and worthwhile forms of employment.
Since the bill was originally introduced last December, most of
us went home to our constituencies and held town hall meetings.
We attempted to find the concerns with the legislation originally
introduced.
In Atlantic Canada there were two major concerns. Some people
were concerned with what is called the gap, the idea that weeks
were being presented on a consecutive basis. If one were to file for
unemployment, HRDC would look at the consecutive weeks of
work. In many cases in Atlantic Canada that was a major problem.
Others were concerned with what is called the intensity rule. It is
the concept that those who filed annually or were unemployed
annually were being penalized because jobs in their areas were not
available year round.
(1245)
In Atlantic Canada a lot of jobs are seasonal in nature. We do not
have seasonal workers, we have seasonal jobs. In the forest, the
fishery and the tourist industries people generally are only able to
work when the season is right. When three feet of ice covers
Miramichi Bay it is impossible to fish. When the snow is four feet
deep it is impossible to conduct forestry activities. Even though
New Brunswick has promoted winter activities in recreation and
tourism, this industry is basically one which is conducted in the
summer.
The committee which studied the bill when it was reintroduced
has come up with solutions to the gap in the system. The system
will apply so that one may go back 26 weeks to pick the best weeks
that will add up to the required number of weeks in order to qualify
for unemployment insurance. The committee also recommended
that the intensity rule would only apply to those with family
incomes of over $26,000.
We as Liberals are able to protect those people in society. We
have not been able to bring forward a guaranteed annual income,
but we certainly have brought forward a system of protection so
that those who are most needy are able to gain the most benefits
from the program.
There are some other positive aspects to the bill. The system of
hours of work for example will assist many people in terms of
qualifying. Many workers in the past who had small numbers of
hours in any given week were not allowed to count those hours
toward their benefits. Now all hours will qualify. For those who
might criticize that system we must point out that those who have
paid in on an hourly basis and are unable to draw because they are
students or are involved in a short term enterprise may apply for a
refund of their contributions. The hours system is good because
those who work long hours for example in the construction industry
will be able to use the 35 hours as the basis of a week.
There are five cornerstones here which will help people who are
unemployed. There is the system of wage subsidies and earning
supplements. More money is being put into the self-employment
assistance program. More than 45,000 people across the country
are involved in becoming entrepreneurs and developing their own
companies and businesses, thereby being able to employ others and
continue in full time employment. Money is going to be put toward
skills and loans grants for enabling people to further their job skills
to better qualify for employment.
There will be a fund which will enable communities to
participate in providing work. The fund will enable environmental,
community and other groups to develop programs and improve
their communities. They will use money from the fund in order to
make their area a better place in which to live.
I have listened to members opposite. I know they have many
concerns, as we in Atlantic Canada have many concerns. We are
concerned with the fact that people need jobs. By the same token
we are concerned about the fact that people need help when those
jobs are not available.
We must respect those 90 per cent of Canadians who on any
given day are working full time and who through their
contributions to the system are paying 3 per cent of their wages into
a fund which will help those who are unemployed.
2321
This week the fishermen in Atlantic Canada, especially in my
area, went out in their boats for their annual fishing season. The
fishermen's UI is separate from the major part of the program.
(1250 )
I hope when we eventually bring before the government an
unemployment insurance system for fishermen that we will be able
to have a dialogue and hear their concerns. It will bring to the
people of Atlantic Canada and those on the west coast about whom
they spoke this morning a program which will enable them to
remain a viable part of our economy. It will enable our fishermen to
go out and fish each summer. The fishery is a very important part of
our Canadian economy.
I support the bill. It certainly is not perfect. There are some
members who would like to have a perfect bill. We never have
perfection but we as Liberals try to work toward that degree of
perfection. We try to work toward the concept that we as a party
and as a government will look after those people who are most in
need. We want to assure them of our concern and support of their
best interests.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is a disgrace that the government has decided to
move a time allocation motion on such an important bill. Let me
explain why it is a bad decision.
Under the definition provision, which is part of the amendments
before us, insurable employment is defined. The definition of
insurable employment has been a major problem for several years
now: there is an incredible backlog of applications waiting for a
decision by Revenue Canada. There are more than 20,000
applications on hold.
This bill had been under consideration for two years now, and we
still have not found a solution to the problem; we have not come up
with a way to deal with this very real problem. The government has
only one goal, to recover $2 billion through this reform. That is its
only goal. To get $2 billion in cuts. In the meantime, the problem is
not going away.
Let me explain the problem with insurable employment. In some
cases, employment can be considered non-insurable because the
employee and the employer are not dealing with each other at arm's
length, and the people concerned often file an appeal. It is true that
sometimes the employment is proven to be non-insurable, but in
thousands of cases, nothing can be proven and the people are
successful in their appeal. The government has not dealt with this
problem; it has not even come up with an amendment on this issue,
even if we suggested some changes and mentioned the problem to
the minister when he appeared before the committee.
By moving time allocation, the government is only prolonging
these kinds of problems. The people affected by this issue are not
the banks, nor the individuals who make billions of dollars in
profits, but rather wives who work alongside their husbands on the
family farm, for example, or spouses who open a business together
or the sons and daughters who work with their parents. These are
the kinds of situations we see in real life. No, the government is not
ready to correct these situations, it is not ready to solve them. It
will rather gag the House by skipping debate at second reading and
limiting to ten hours consideration in committee.
As for the report stage, the government will also limit debate
next week while there are concrete examples of problems that need
to be addressed. The only way to settle these problems is to put an
amendment forward or, ultimately, to send this bill back to
committee so that it can do its job and solve these problems
because this is totally absurd.
Pursuant to the appeal process, people who are not satisfied in
the first stage must then deal with the revenue department. Across
this country, Human Resources Development Canada has
employment centres providing first line services. These centres are
close to the people and can give advice, interprete the legislation.
However, the government could not find a way to give them the
authority to make the decisions in this process. No, they wanted the
revenue department to do it, although it must deal with a
mind-boggling number of cases, more than 20,000 cases, like I
said. This is utterly unacceptable.
At the same time, on the subject of definitions, they tried to pull
a few fast ones on us. First, they decided to give the definition of an
affidavit. Do you know what an affidavit is? It is a statement which
you make when you lost a document or when you witnessed an
event that you have no proof of other than to swear it is true.
Affidavits can be made in all sectors of life. But a definition is
added here in the legislation to limit its application. And I can
assure you that, when going after persons guilty of fraud and
offenders, this legislation is a regulatory jungle.
(1255)
The Unemployment Insurance Act can be compared to a
highway on which there would be ten or fifteen different speed
limit indications on a two-kilometer stretch and police everywhere
making sure you are not over the limit. Often, it is not a question of
being dishonest, it is just a failure to understand. The definition of
affidavit will be a means to catch people, to ensure that we will be
able to catch them. It is unacceptable and we have asked the
government to withdraw it.
The same can be said of the word document. They put in a
catch-all definition of what a document is for the purpose of the
Unemployment Insurance Act. They did this to reinforce again the
principle that people who receive unemployment insurance are
trying to abuse the system. To consider that Canadians are neces-
2322
sarily trying to rob the system is an unacceptable basic element of
the government's bill.
According to statistics we have received, it is proven that fraud
amounts to no more than 4 per cent. Four per cent of 2 million UI
claimants-last year's figures-is not much. If we submitted
businesses and taxpayers to such an inquiry, I believe we would
discover a higher rate of fraud. But they decided to go after these
people because they are less organized, less resourceful. That is
where the government wants to go.
This time allocation motion will prevent us from doing an
in-depth study of this bill. It is an important piece of legislation that
will govern unemployment insurance for years to come. There will
not be such a reform every year. The government has enough
trouble as it is dealing with the impact of this reform on workers.
You can be sure that it will not impose another reform on the
maritimes because if the Liberal members from that region vote for
this bill here in the House, they will certainly pay the political price
for it in the next election.
What is the impact of this reform? It is a one-way street to
poverty. One of my constituents told me on the phone yesterday
that the Liberals argue that changing the system from weeks to
hours worked will improve the situation, but we need concrete
examples to support that. Here is a concrete example.
Previously, to become eligible for unemployment insurance, a
person had to work 20 15-hour weeks, a total of 300 hours. Now, a
new entrant on the job market will have to work 910 hours, or 26
35-hour weeks. So the government has dealt a fatal blow to CEGEP
graduates who work in seasonal industries such as tourism,
recreation and applied ecology. All those who have seasonal jobs or
even those who just started their first job will be systematically
forced onto welfare. And the present government has the audacity
to use the term employment insurance to refer to a piece of
legislation that will do nothing but send people on their way to the
welfare office.
Because that is what awaits those who went to school, who
attended primary school, high school, college, university. If they do
not work 910 hours the first year, or 26 weeks at 35 hours a week,
that is 26 weeks of full-time work, they will not be eligible. There
are a lot of seasonal industries where it is impossible to work 26
weeks. Just try working in a peat bog or in the forest for 26 weeks
to see what it is like. Just try working 26 weeks in the woods.
Yesterday, a Liberal member said that this legislation would
motivate people to work a little more. I can tell you that, where I
come from, the problem is not motivation but finding jobs. Things
will be a lot more difficult for people who, even now, must keep
two or three different jobs to accumulate the 12 weeks presently
required.
True a system based on the number of hours may be interesting
for some people. However, it is totally false to say that the
government has tried to improve the situation. Besides going from
weeks to hours, the government raised all the system's criteria and
standards to make unemployment insurance less accessible. The
savings give us an example of that.
The UI program will produce surpluses averaging $5 billion
every year. It is not an underfinanced program, but a program used
by the government to reduce its deficit. Since it was unable to get
that money from foreign markets, it decided to penalize UI
claimants without raising taxes.
(1300)
It is a sad thing to see because, in the past, Liberal governments
showed from time to time that they cared for the regional economic
development by putting in place a good regulating system in
periods of economic downturns, but the present government is
killing it. Unemployment insurance plan is supposed to help
alleviate the overly severe effects of recessions and prevent
depressions like the one we had in the 1930's.
Today, we can say without a doubt that if the measures proposed
by the government are allowed to stand, in the next recession we
will find ourselves facing situations that are going to aggravate the
economic crisis, which will have the effect of driving people from
the regions to the cities, where there will not necessarily be any
jobs. We are in the process of creating a model seen in certain
developing countries, but that we never thought we would see here.
The present government is creating this type of situation.
Another thing I find completely unacceptable is keeping the
intensity rule. Under this rule, someone who draws UI benefits for
20 weeks loses 1 per cent of his benefits, another 20 weeks, another
1 per cent. At this rate, within three years, anyone who regularly
draws UI benefits will drop from 55 to 50 per cent.
I will conclude my remarks with this. Twenty-five dollars a week
is perhaps not much for people earning $60,000, $70,000 or
$80,000. But people getting $500 a week will end up with $25 less,
which now can be used to buy things, to keep the economy going,
but especially to help people put bread and butter on the table.
Canada's present government, with its reform, will bring all this to
an end. I think it should be made very clear that gagging us will not
solve the problem. This problem will dog them for many years to
come.
[English]
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the report stage of
Bill C-12 concerning employment insurance.
2323
It is evident that a change is required to our unemployment
insurance program. The old UI program is outdated and out of
touch with today's working environment.
I have spoken with many of my constituents who are looking for
employment. Some of my constituents have over 100 CVs floating
around in the employment market. It is a very competitive market
today.
Employers can pick and choose from an enormous number of
candidates. It is not uncommon to hear that 200 or 300 people are
applying for one job opening. That is incredible. It is why
Canadians who are looking for work today need, require and
deserve protection. It is why they require a safety net called
employment insurance to help them during this critical time of job
hunting.
A growing number of Canadians are holding down more than
one job to make ends meet. In most cases, they are not permanent
jobs. Chances are they are working just as many hours per week as
the traditional full time single job worker. Their work is not insured
under the old UI program. These jobs hold no benefits if employees
are sick. They do not get maternity or other benefits. They do not
qualify for many government employment programs if they find
themselves out of work.
The reasons why this unfortunate situation occurs is because
eligibility for UI benefits in any job is based on weeks of work,
with a minimum requirement of 15 hours per week. One can work
five different 10-hour per week jobs, totalling 50 hours per week,
but as far as UI is concerned, it counts for nothing.
I am pleased that Bill C-12, employment insurance, will rectify
the situation. Employment insurance eligibility is based on hours,
and all hours count, whether one puts those hours in for one, two or
five different employers.
Working counts with EI. Many people who work two or three
part time jobs will get insurance protection for the first time. In
fact, statistics show that some 500,000 more part time workers will
be insured under the EI system than were under UI.
(1305)
Another example of improvements under the new EI system is
that a worker who holds down a full time job which pays $500 a
week and also works at a part time job which pays $100 a week will
now be better off. Under the previous program of UI only the first
full time job is insured but under employment insurance both jobs
will now be insured.
This will make a difference to a worker if he or she loses his or
her full time job. In this situation the benefits under UI would be
considerably lower than under the new employment insurance.
That is because when UI calculates the insured weekly earnings, it
ignores the part time job that pays $100 a week. That part time job
is not insured.
The new employment insurance takes that extra $100 into
account. When the calculations are done the worker ends up with
$275 per week in benefits. Under the previous system the benefits
would be reduced by $31, as a result of continuing to work while
receiving UI benefits. Therefore the benefits would fall to $244 a
week.
Under the new employment insurance system the worker will
receive $330 and the benefits would be reduced by only $18. The
worker would be able to earn up to $82 from a second job without
reducing the worker's weekly benefits. Therefore the worker's
cheque actually amounts to $68 more than under the old UI system.
Bill C-12, employment insurance, simply works better for all
Canadian workers. I believe that this new EI system better protects
working Canadians and addresses the problems that they face in a
more realistic way.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I called last week
the week of the gag. We have just be notified that there will be a
time limiting motion once again, to be announced Monday. So,
here we are headed for a second week of the gag.
This current week, however, has been the week of problems
relating to keeping or not keeping one's word. Without going into
great length, I would like to take a few seconds to read certain
paragraphs of a letter by the present Prime Minister. As I have
already read it out in the House, I will not read it all, but some parts
of this letter, written to the Mouvement Action-Chômage when he
was Leader of the Opposition, merit rereading.
On March 26, 1993, he wrote as follows:
Thank you for your fax indicating your opposition to the legislative measures
taken by the government to change unemployment insurance.
You have my assurance that the Liberal Party shares your concerns about this
attack on the unemployed, and we also do not believe that the recent superficial
amendments change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures in any
way.
Skipping several paragraphs, he goes on to say in the second-last
paragraph:
Liberals are appalled by these measures. By reducing benefits and penalising
even more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs, the government shows it
cares very little about the victims of the current economic crisis. Instead of
addressing the problem at its core, the government picks on the unemployed.
Besides, these measures will have disturbing consequences because they will
discourage workers from reporting harassment cases and unacceptable labour
conditions.
2324
Finally, rest assured that Liberals will continue to demand that the government
withdraw this unfair bill. As Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate your taking the
time to let me know your position on this issue.
Since then, he has heard plenty of ``positions on this issue''.
(1310)
It started in the human resources development committee.
During six weeks of conducting hearings across the country, we
heard a good many positions. We also witnessed a good many
demonstrations. Let me only recall what happened in Montreal. I
do not say that I approve, but at some point, people get fed up. We
have said this repeatedly. Last week, they wanted to gag us, now
they want to do it again. It will not work. We will be heard.
In summary, after the hearings held by the committee, the
Liberals decided to wait until after the referendum in Quebec. They
waited all that time. Then in December, after the referendum, they
came out with a special step called a pre-study, they eliminated
second reading, supposedly to give the committee more time. What
was done in committee? It was just before the holidays, not a
proper time to look at a bill. Not only that, people did not have
much time to present submissions. There were many submissions.
Therefore, the committee started examining them.
However, the government came up with the most brilliant idea. It
decided to have a speech from the throne. It wanted to make
something new out of old stuff. It wanted to reintroduce, and in fact
did reintroduce some ten bills, under new numbers. Bill C-12 is the
same as Bill C-111, as it was called before. So, during that time, we
waited again, because the throne speech put an end to the session
and the committee's proceedings. We resumed work hurriedly after
the throne speech.
Last week, the committee began clause by clause study. We got
as far as clause 2. The government wanted to limit study of each
clause to five minutes. In the group of motions dealing with clause
2, we ask that the whole clause be deleted. What is in that clause?
All the definitions. Take the first one for example: ``affidavit''. It is
an addition, it did not exist before and people did not know exactly
what it meant.
But there is worse than that; because I have very little time, I will
read a clause we wanted to examine more thoroughly. At the
bottom of page 3, it says:
(3) A document or other communication under this Act or the regulations
may be in electronic form.
We are talking about electronics. But what did we hear this
morning? For the second year in a row, people are waiting for old
age security payments. Last year, about 50,000 people have seen
their payments delayed. The minister admitted it this morning.
This year, the same thing happened again. Now they would like the
unemployment insurance reform to bring a similar system.
Frankly, I think we were right to voice our concerns in
committee. For the second time, the government gagged the
committee. Its imposed time allocation on a very important bill to
bring it back to the House as quickly as possible. Now, we were just
told that after a day and half of debate, there will be time
allocation, the same system used in the case of the rail strike. This
government is going to be known as the gag government, because
there are no precedents, except once under the Conservatives.
Before them, this had never happened in the history of Parliament.
There is another clause I would like to talk about and on which
we had proposed an amendment, which is to strike the two clauses
denying people the opportunity to appeal decisions relating to the
unemployment insurance bill. We find that is very important.
As an example, so that our listeners can understand, we wanted
to correct the bill so that anyone could challenge a government
decision under any program. Why did we want to do that? It is
because the Mouvement action-chômage, in Quebec city, among
others, told me that, when a decision of the unemployment
insurance commission was challenged, the claimant was found to
be right in 75 per cent of cases, and the government itself admits
that.
(1315)
I will show the House a report we asked for in which the minister
makes alarmist comments about the increase in fraud cases. So
what does the report say? In 1991-92, 130,081 people were charged
with and convicted of unemployment insurance fraud. By 1995-96,
that figure had fallen to 116,603.
Some may say: ``Wow, that is a lot of people''. True, that is a lot
of people, but the figure applies to all of Canada. The total is not so
high considering that some 3 million benefit claims are submitted
in a year-which does not mean 3 million unemployed. Some
claims may be for a short period only. Out of a total of 3 million,
the number of fraudulent claims amounts to less than 6 per cent.
The auditor general has already determined that there are always
cases of fraud in any government program, regardless of what
segment of the population it is intended for.
What is happening? We could have recovered $272 million last
year. In cases of fraud, however, only $93.4 million were
recovered. The remaining $179 million was due to honest mistakes,
occasionally by recipients but, three times out of four, by the
unemployment insurance commission.
This explodes the myth of fraud, which is, in fact, the basis for
this reform. They want stricter controls and increased mechanisms.
2325
They want better control of measures. Why? To catch more people
because unemployed Canadians are seen as potential cheats.
We object to this kind of approach, because we know that, in
many cases, UI benefits keep people from starving after they lose
their jobs.
There is something else we find quite extraordinary and
revolting. I often tell this story to help people understand.
Everyone knows the story of Robin Hood. I am not saying he was
right, but he used to take from the rich to give to the poor. But what
is the Liberal government doing by lowering the contributory
earnings ceiling from $43,380 to $39,000? It is saving $900
million. It is giving a present to the better off in our society. I am
not saying that people making $40,000 are rich. The government is
giving a present to business, to large corporations. But what is it
doing to compensate for this $900 million? It is collecting this
$900 million from those working less than 15 hours a week, who
had not been paying UI premiums. And 70 per cent of those
working less than 15 hours a week are women and young people.
This is unacceptable.
By calculating benefits based on the number of hours rather than
the number of weeks, the government is heating up the competition
for McJobs. People who want to qualify for benefits will apply left
and right to take someone else's job.
This bill is unfair. It is not an employment insurance bill, as it
ensures that fewer people will qualify for benefits, thus hurting the
most disadvantaged in our society. That is why the Bloc Quebecois
is spending all its energy fighting this bill to have it withdrawn by
the government.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had
intended to address some of the points raised by the member for
Mercier. Instead I must address some of the points raised by the
member for Lévis.
Is there a reason the member for Lévis is dealing in rhetoric
rather than in substance? What he is doing in dealing in rhetoric is
the same thing that was done at the committee hearings. They do
not want to deal with the substance because it will show what is
really in the bill, that the bill has been improved for the working
people of the country.
(1320)
Opposition parties led by the Bloc filibustered debate for
approximately 26 hours at the beginning of clause by clause
examination of Bill C-12. The filibuster took place from
approximately 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, April 23 until 4 p.m.,
Wednesday, April 24. As a result, we missed being able to debate
the substance of the issue and really get the facts out there.
Let me address the points raised by the member for Mercier, the
Bloc critic for HRD. I grant that her heart is in the right place and
that she does care, but she should look at the facts as they relate to
the bill. Her remarks were long on rhetoric and extremely short on
facts.
The member argued the issue was not debated and she alleged
the government does not care what happens. She is just plain
wrong. The social security reform committee, which I believe she
was a member of, held 600 hearings. There were public meetings
held by MPs. The idea was to hold 100 hearings, and I believe close
to 90 hearings were held.
The people of Canada showed their concern. The difference
between the Bloc, the Reform and the Liberals is that when Liberal
members heard those concerns we proposed amendments to the
bill. If we look at the Order Paper, at the positive changes made by
the minister and other members of the Liberal Party to that bill, we
looked at the concerns of Canadians and have tried to address them.
In my past life as a farm union leader I had considerable
experience dealing with legislative committees. In all my
experiences before legislative committees I have never seen such
substantial change come to a bill addressing the concerns of
Canadians. Very seldom does a minister say he recognizes there are
some problems with it. Both the previous and present Ministers of
Human Resource Development have said there were some
problems with Bill C-11 and C-12 and asked the committee to
address them.
The difference is that Liberals on the committee said ``yes, we
will go the people, we will put forward positive amendments. All
the Bloc, the Reform and some labour unions could say was scrap
the bill. That is not productivity.
Members on this side of the House have addressed the gap,
which was a serious problem. We have addressed the divisor, which
was a serious problem. We have addressed to a great extent the
problem of the intensity rule. Through the amendments we will
address the concern that there may be too much control by the
governor in council so that debate in the future on the divisor in
terms of weeks will be done in the House. We have made major
improvements. The bill has become an expression of what
Canadians want.
The member for Mercier talked about shorting access to
benefits. Let me again clear the record for the member. The fact is
350,000 claimants in low income families will get a supplement.
With regard to part time workers, 500,000 more individuals will
have their work insured; about 380,000 of these will have all their
premiums refunded; 140,000 part time workers who pay premiums
today will also have their premiums refunded. The list goes on.
Some 90,000 unemployed people who not now eligible for UI now
will become eligible for EI. Those points should be put on the
record.
2326
Again let me correct the member for Mercier on the point about
women. On eliminating the 15 hour per week job trap, to avoid
paying UI premiums some employees restrict part time workers
to less than 15 hours per week. An hour based system will
eliminate this 15 hour trap. Extending coverage to part time
workers, the hour based system broadens coverage to 270,000
women who work part time. Of these, 204,000 will have their
premiums refunded.
(1325)
In terms of women holding multiple jobs, a greater share of
working women hold multiple jobs and under the EI hours based
system all hours count toward an EI claim. This means multiple job
holders will now be fully insured should they take sick, maternity
or paternal leave or lose one or more of their jobs for another
reason.
There are exceptions to the intensity rule which will help
women. The intensity rule, which reduces the benefit rate by 1 per
cent for every 20 weeks of regular benefits claimed over the past
five years, will not apply to 108,000 women who receive the family
income supplement and have a history of past use of EI. It is
important that I put these points on the record and correct some of
the rhetoric of the member for Mercier.
I want to correct a point by the member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup on his concern about Revenue
Canada. Since 1971, for administrative and cost efficiency reasons,
responsibility for the determination of the insurability of
employment earnings and assessment of premiums was legally
transferred from the commission to Revenue Canada. The hon.
member was informed of that at the committee but because of their
filibuster it might not have sunk in.
Of some three million UI claims per year only some 60,000 or 2
per cent are sent to Revenue Canada for insurability rulings. These
requests are an important control feature to ensure UI benefits are
properly paid, thus saving the UI program some $116 million
annually.
I point out for the member's benefit as well that there are 10
Revenue Canada tax service offices in Quebec which provide
rulings on the insurability of employment. Five of these offices
handle appeals to the minister in terms of minister's determination,
and with this are the fewer than 28 human resource Canada
commissions adjudicating claims in Quebec. These are more than
sufficient to handle the 3,938 appeals to the minister in a typical
year.
The member for Mercier talked about UI as economic stability. I
point out to her that is what we see as a major important plank to
the EI system. It is an economic stabilizer in the country. That is
why we are trying to target the benefits to regions and to people
with low incomes.
We have the clawback provisions and we recognized long ago
that EI is important in terms of working men and women's lives
and in terms of having an insurance program. It is an important
economic stabilizer for the country as a well. It ensures that
workers are available and that skills are available in the various
regions throughout Canada.
In terms of the amendments in the bill put forward by the
Liberals, we will improve that and ensure economic stability so
there is prosperity in the future across the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have let the hon.
member speak have his say, but he mentioned that we, the members
of the opposition, had not made a positive contribution to the work
of the committee and that we had not proposed any amendment. I
wish to get things straight. We proposed some 15 amendments,
which were all rejected except the amendment I proposed, which
dealt with a single word.
I wanted to get things straight in order to avoid leaving the
impression-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret to interrupt the hon.
member but that was a point of clarification and, insofar as the
issue has been settled, I think it will be generous enough to say that
it was rather a matter of debate.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2326
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.) moved that
Bill C-213, the Constitution Act, 1996 (balanced budget and
spending limit), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak on Bill
C-213, which one might call the bill to prohibit deficits and limit
the size of government. In order to avoid this mouthful of a
description, from now on I will call it the taxpayers protection act.
This bill addresses one of the most fundamental problems facing
Canada and other modern democracies. It addresses a problem
which has already been taken care of by similar legislation in many
of the provinces.
It is unfortunate the government has decided all we can do is
speak about it for a few minutes today and publish an obscure text.
It will not be made a votable bill. I am very disappointed about this.
However the people of Canada will have to judge whether or not
this was justified.
2327
In the next 20 minutes I will present my arguments for the
necessity of this bill. I will provide a background. I will outline
briefly the main provisions of the bill. I will take care of the
objections which are certain to arise in the speeches the
government has prepared in response to my analyses.
The need for a taxpayers protection act has arisen since the
1970s when suddenly outside of wartime, governments in Canada
and in other western democracies began to spend money that they
had not raised through taxes. In other words, they ran deficits.
It is well known that very soon the federal debt will reach $600
billion. That amount of money is incomprehensible to most people.
Suffice it to say that very soon, in order to service the debt
approximately one-third of every dollar raised from Canadians will
go to pay the interest on the debt. This is more than a transitory
problem.
I have attended a large number of university seminars. I have
read many studies. I am personally acquainted with a man who
received the Nobel prize in economics for developing a theory
which I will sketch briefly. It explains that the deficits in the
western world run by governments have been called the Achilles'
heel of modern democracy. It is called the public choice theory.
Governments have found it to their advantage to increase
spending targeted at providing benefits to special interest groups,
groups which have assembled and organized themselves for
whatever reason. As a result of those spending allocations and tax
concessions these groups receive benefits which in the aggregate
make it very worthwhile for them to respond positively to the
government. It has also led them typically to resist any opposition
party which would promise in an election campaign to cut those
special benefits.
Those special benefits typically are not in the interests of all of
society. Clearly, they benefit the group to whom they are given but
not society as a whole. In looking carefully at subsidies to industry,
to agriculture, to wherever our money is going, we clearly see a
pattern for many. It is such that if there were a free vote and
average Canadians had been asked whether they wanted to be taxed
to serve this type of program, they would have said no.
(1335)
How do politicians get away with giving these benefits to special
interest groups? Who is paying for it? The answer of course is that
the rest of Canadians are paying for it. Why do Canadians not rise
up and say to stop this? The answer is quite simple. The cost per
Canadian for each individual program is very small. As a result, it
does not pay for them to organize and provide politically effective
opposition to these kinds of tax concessions.
What is worse, there are Canadians who will have to pay for this
bribing of special interest groups, this buying of votes and these
people cannot protect themselves. They are our future generations.
They will have to pay the interest on the debt because some
governments, rather than raising the money now to pay for the
special interest groups, have found it more convenient to let future
generations pay. Nobody is speaking for them.
This is the modern theory of public choice. It is widely accepted
as a fair description of processes that have haunted all modern
societies. While we have begun to take care of the current deficit,
there is no guarantee these problems will not be repeated in the
future. That is why we should have legislation, preferably
constitutional requirements to limit deficits and the size of overall
government spending.
In all those issues the question always arises, why did all these
spending explosions take place in the 1970s? Why were
governments suddenly able to get away with adding to the debt and
letting the unborn and unprotected generations pay for it, rather
than facing the voters and taxpayers of the day? The answer comes
in two parts.
Modern communications technology has made it possible even
for relatively small interest groups to get together and become very
effective in making themselves known to government. They make
it known that they can deliver the necessary marginal votes which
will bring about a victory in crucial electoral districts.
Also, a revolution in thinking about the nature of capitalism
which was brought about by Keynesianism removed the previously
existing stricture on deficits. Until the 1970s deficits had been a sin
for governments which they engaged in only at the expense of
severe punishment by the voters.
Then came a revolution in economics. I was a graduate student at
the time and learned and absorbed it. I was soon cured of it and
have been fighting against it ever since. Even today there is still a
generation of economists who believe that deficits do not matter,
that they can be piled on to future generations in order to maximize
output today. I believe this is also being reversed.
(1340)
Having set the stage for explaining the necessity for Canada to
have a constitutional provision or at least an act that prohibits
deficits and limits the size of government, I will sketch briefly in
non-legal form the provisions in my bill.
The first provision is that the government must balance its
budget every year. The second provision is that the size of
government must be limited to the extent that we take today's
spending and allow increases in spending only to reflect inflation
and population growth.
What is innovative in the bill is the third provision. If the
government does not meet the deficit target, that is, it does not have
a balanced budget in any year, there will be penalties. The
2328
penalties will be reductions in the pay of members of Parliament
who voted for the budget. For example, if there is a budget of $200
billion with a deficit of $10 billion, that is 5 per cent. According to
my proposed legislation, the pay for that year of members of
Parliament would be reduced by 25 per cent, the 5 per cent deficit
times five.
Similarly, there would be provisions for penalizing government
members of Parliament who voted for a budget which resulted in an
increase in the size of government going beyond that which was
specified. In other words, spending in the next year must increase
by no more than inflation and population growth.
Turning now to the topic of the objections I am sure both the
government and the opposition will raise to my proposed bill, the
first is that the sovereignty of Parliament will be violated. I must
confess that for many years I was on the side which I am sure they
will represent. In my naivety as a young man I believed that every
four years voters had the right to throw out those bastards and
therefore there was no reason at all for there to be an externally
imposed limit on government. Democracy works that way.
I have written a major study and have read a lot of different
thinking on this matter. One thinking is that all parliaments of the
world have had limits imposed on them. We could look to England
and the Magna Carta and the United States with its constitutional
amendment on freedom of speech. Yes, even Canada has put limits
on the freedom of Parliament.
Parliament is not able to pass legislation which violates the
charter of rights and freedoms. It embodies our fundamental rights
which are not to be violated by a simple majority vote in
Parliament. I believe that future generations should be protected
through a similar charter which would protect their right to their
income, unburdened by obligations incurred by past generations
over which they had no democratic influence.
(1345 )
An amendment to the Constitution is as important as the charter
of rights and freedoms. It does no more than the charter of rights
and freedoms does on certain legislation. Democracy cannot be run
by simple majority on issues which affect fundamental human
rights. It has to be limited because sometimes people, overrun by
the heat of a current debate, by a current issue, will be tempted to
ask Parliament to pass laws which in themselves will destroy the
very foundation of a democracy.
That is the justification for having freedom of speech as one of
the most fundamental rights; the right to a fair trial, to be innocent
until proved guilty. Those are fundamental rights which no
Parliament may override.
I believe that in the same vein we need protection for future
generations which cannot be overridden by Parliament.
The second objection that I know will be coming is that it is
impossible to balance the budget every year. Here too I had a
conversion. I believe the Minister of Finance in this government
has given me the clue on how it is done. The government builds in a
contingency reserve. It simply makes sure that its estimates of
spending are conservative, that its estimates of revenue expected
are conservative. If they happen to go in the wrong direction, the
government has a cushion so that it does not have a deficit.
In spite of such conservative attempts to make sure there are no
deficits, there may be unforeseen contingencies. It could be an
earthquake, it could be a war, it could be almost anything. Under
those circumstances Parliament should be protected.
I cannot go into the details here. If Parliament is asked to define
what is an acceptable contingency, it is in the same position where,
in the English style democracy, the government really is a dictator
and can say: ``We simply define it is a contingency and therefore
we can run deficits''.
Other parliaments have handled those situations by requiring
that there be a 75 per cent majority vote in favour of accepting what
is an acceptable contingency which would permit the government
to run a deficit in that year.
Similarly, on limits of spending levels I have provided a
flexibility that they must be equal only over a three-year period.
There will be a downward bias in overall government spending.
This is all deliberate because a bias is also offset by the fact that the
contingency spending every year will result in a reduction in the
debt. Therefore, more money is becoming available every year
because the interest cost on the debt decreases and therefore this
will sort of wash out.
Finally, I know a general objection which probably will never be
raised by the Liberals who have such unlimited faith in the ability
and honesty of government. The Canadian public is cynical. They
will say: ``What good does it do to pass such a bill?'' I am an
accountant and I could cook the books such that whatever the limits
are, they can be got around by redefinition and by the shifting of
expenses between periods and categories and all that kind of thing.
I was very much aware of this. Therefore I have some technical
provisions which suggest that it should not be possible to do so.
I hope we will have a lively debate on this subject and I look
forward to the comments from the other members who are here
taking their Friday afternoon to debate with me.
2329
(1350 )
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-213.
The hon. member's proposals at best reflect, as he admitted, a
fundamental mistrust of the parliamentary system and the
Canadian public, doubts I do not share. At worst, they amount to
fiscal foolishness.
This bill is really the Reform Party's zero in three budget in
disguise.
[Translation]
On February 21, 1995, the leader of the Reform Party presented
what was called the taxpayers' budget, the Reform Party's strategy
to eliminate the federal deficit in three years.
The public did not accept it. In fact, the Reform Party has
stopped making proposals in view of the response they have
received.
So, here we are today before a desperate attempt to revive this
failed budget in the form of a private member's bill.
[English]
The Reform Party's slash and burn taxpayers' budget paid no
regard to the consequences of the actions it proposed. If one is
willing to institute mindless cuts, a favourite Reform strategy,
indeed one can achieve short term savings and a balanced budget,
but only if one believes in substituting decisiveness for
thoughtfulness and fairness.
The hon. member's proposed bill would surely result in
substantial long term costs. The proposed fiscal straitjacket could
mean gutting social programs, leaving the vulnerable in society to
fend for themselves.
It could mean cutting assistance programs without giving
Canadians the tools to help them get back to work. It could mean
eliminating tax preferences for small businesses which over the
long run would result in less innovation, fewer companies and less
employment. When one's only tool is a hammer, everything one
sees looks like a nail. That would be the effect of this bill.
In short, the member's strategy would be more hardship, a
weaker economy and much greater spending pressures in the end,
sabotaging the very goal of his legislation.
The proposed private member's bill would put the government
and the economy into a straitjacket. To meet its balanced budget
goal would require that taxes be raised and spending be cut during a
recession, rather than allowing the automatic stabilizers built into
the tax system to work. The legislation would force government to
make any recession worse because it would not be allowed to take
action to assist Canadians.
The Reform Party, the hon. member, and the government have a
fundamental disagreement about the role of government.
Canadians want a government that has the flexibility to act and to
tailor its actions to meet the circumstances of the day. Canadians
will not be fooled. The Reform Party goal, reflected in the hon.
member's bill remains what always has been, to emasculate
government as an end in itself. Canadians do not want a
government that stands aside. Canadians want a government ready
and able to stand alongside them.
This legislation would put controls on total government
expenditures without any regard to whether these spending
pressures came from national or international developments, from
developments over which the government has little or no control.
Does the hon. member believe Canadians want to see their
government respond, for instance, to interest rate swings by
immediately slashing elderly benefits, unemployment insurance
benefits, transfers to the provinces for medicare and social
assistance? That is not what Canadians want and that is not the
policy actions of a responsible government.
Perhaps the hon. member is under the mistaken impression that
because the United States has balanced budget legislation, Canada
too should have the same. There is a bit of faddishness to what is
going on here. Let me remind the hon. member that our systems of
government, as he well knows, are quite different.
In the United States, the executive branch, the president and
cabinet, is separate from congress. Both prepare budget plans on
which consensus must ultimately be achieved. That consensus is
difficult to arrive at. Balanced budget legislation proposals came
about in the United States because of a lack of consensus among
legislators and the executive.
In Canada, there is no similar distinction between the branches
of government. Parliament is ultimately responsible and
accountable.
[Translation]
In 1991, the sponsor of this bill claimed, in a document entitled
constitutional limits on public spending and Canada's deficit, that
in practice deficits could not be prohibited, quite simply. It was
also not desirable to do so for reasons of economic efficiency.
I suppose if it were true then, it is still true now. We have no need
for this type of legislation. The ultimate aim of this government is a
balanced budget. We have come up with a balanced and fair
strategy to achieve this end.
(1355)
[English]
The hon. member and his colleagues have a fundamental
mistrust of government. But we are proving every day that a
govern-
2330
ment can be fiscally responsible and do it in a way that does not
gut the country in the process.
It has set two-year rolling deficit targets and it is committed to
achieving them. It is accountable to the Canadian people year after
year in meeting those targets and at every election we are ready to
be judged.
To date, the government has bettered the targets it has set and it
will continue to meet its future targets for a number of reasons.
First, for budget making purposes it is using economic assumptions
that are more prudent than the private sector average.
Second, it has built into its fiscal targets a contingency reserve
which provides an extra measure of back-up against errors and
economic planning assumptions. The proposed bill calls for a
contingency reserve to be put in the legislation. There is no need to.
It is already included in the fiscal plan.
Finally, the government is undertaking fundamental reforms to
provide for a stronger economy which in turn will lead to lower
deficits.
In closing, I would like only to say that there is no need for this
proposed bill. The member's proposal would amount to a triumph
of dogma over good sense. The government's finances are on track.
It is pursuing a deficit reduction strategy that is measured,
deliberate and responsible. I urge members of the House to reject
Bill C-213.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the bill of my colleague for
Capilano-Howe Sound, Bill C-213, The Constitution Act, 1996
(balanced budget and spending limit).
The preamble to the bill states as follows: ``Whereas section 44
of the Constitution Act, 1982-and I emphasize this
point-provides that, subject to sections 41 and 42 thereof,
Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution
of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the
Senate and House of Commons''. Then, when the actual bill
begins, it states: ``The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by
adding the following after section 57''.
After that come 11 sections focussing on regulating government
expenditures and forcing it to balance its budget. Included are all of
the mechanisms, and even-as my colleague from the Reform
Party has said-penalties set for senators, MPs, public servants and
so on. This is, therefore, a very strong commitment and a bill with a
very precise method of implementation.
We are convinced that my honourable colleague's bill is well
founded on a desire to force the government to balance its budget.
In three years, we in the House have seen Canada's debt go up by
$100 billion, and it is still rising. That debt was created by the
Liberals.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal-as my colleague is already
well aware-referred to the possibility of bankruptcy in the long
term. Our Reform colleagues, or the majority of them, have
referred to that same possibility, stating quite openly:
[English]
``If we do not do something rapidly, we are going to probably hit
the wall quite soon''.
[Translation]
This is why I think my hon. colleague is being true to himself in
tabling such a bill. Obviously, the Bloc's position is different. We
advocate an analysis of government spending budget item by
budget item along with a full review of the use of tax shelters.
We have just been promised a complete review of tax shelters.
We note that it will be done outside the House by the very people
who use them most. So there has been no follow up to what the
Bloc wanted. For the time being, the government is satisfied with
garnishing collective salary from unemployment insurance in order
to balance the books and shift part of the deficit onto the provinces.
The requirement for this government to balance its budget could
be presented by my colleague simply in legislation before the
House. However, as my colleague is a man of action, he decided to
take the bull by the horns and propose a constitutional amendment.
I think he knows what he is doing. The Constitution establishes an
obligation not just for one government, but for each successive
government, and is very difficult to change.
(1400)
The Constitution would be a very restrictive framework for the
government. The hon. member states in his bill that the
government would have to achieve fiscal balance within three
years. Given this year's deficit of $24 billion and the anticipated
deficit of $17 billion for next year, it is inconceivable that, under
the circumstances, we could have a balanced budget in three years
without making massive cuts-and I mean massive-in social
programs, which would jeopardize the future of generations to
come.
I remember the hon. member for Chambly clearly saying in this
House that the Reformers' economic or fiscal policy could often be
summarized as follows: ``If you are in debt, stop eating for a year.
It will solve the problem''.
Achieving fiscal balance in the long term is a good principle.
However, Bill C-213 is much too compelling and its provisions are
way too strict.
That being said, the hon. member is making a totally surprising
suggestion at this point in Canadian history, by proposing a
constitutional amendment. The word Constitution has almost
become taboo.
2331
In January, the president of the Bank of Montreal travelled to
Reform country, I believe it was in Calgary, and said: ``I am a
banker. I know how important the economy is. However, under
the circumstances, I think we will have to stop talking about the
economy and start dealing with the Constitution. There is not
much time left. We have 15 months to solve the issue''. This was
in January, which means that we now have 11 months to solve
an issue which seems much more important than the one being
raised here.
Following that statement, businesspeople from everywhere got
together. Some met here in the Château Laurier, others in Montreal,
to start seriously thinking about what should be done in the months
ahead, given that this milestone is fast approaching. As well,
Gordon Gibson started travelling across Canada with an extremely
well made book entitled Plan B, which I recommend to everyone.
The book provides a perfect description of the current situation, the
constitutional deadlock, and points a finger at the federal
government.
We have also seen just recently the statements made by Peter
White in La Presse, I think: ``The Prime Minister does not realize
that the constitutional problem is serious, according to the
president of the Council for Canadian Unity-he is definitely not a
member of our party. Canada has two or three years to settle the
constitutional problem. After that, it might be too late and-I quote
the exact words-if these two or three years' respite are not put to
good use, we are done for; if nothing substantial is proposed during
that period, Lucien Bouchard will have the right to win his next
referendum''.
Mr. White is fully aware of the seriousness of the situation, but I
think he is not aware of its urgency, because we do not have two or
three years to settle this problem, we have a few months.
It is therefore somewhat ironic, in light of the bill before us
today, that at a time when bankers are telling us that we must stop
talking about the economy and start talking about the Constitution,
a first in Canadian history, now politicians are telling us that we
must reopen the Constitution to sort out economic problems. The
world is full of surprises.
In his bill, my hon. colleague refers to the 1982 Constitution, and
that is the problem. Quebec is not a signatory to this Constitution.
And in accordance with the provisions included, naturally we
cannot allow anything to be enshrined in this Constitution. Quebec,
it will be recalled, was excluded from this Constitution. Federalists
or sovereignists, we in Quebec did not give our agreement. And
this unilateral patriation without Quebec's agreement was an
obvious breach of contract.
Then came Meech and Charlottetown, events everybody would
like to forget, which were supposed to get Quebec to sign the 1982
Constitution so that it could apply to all Canadians, including
Quebecers. This deadlock led to the 1995 referendum which, as we
know, was won by the skin of the teeth, but was in fact a photo
finish.
Quebec's expectations are still as urgent as ever. The
Constitution must be reviewed before April 1997. We have a few
months ahead of us.
Instead of invoking the 1982 Constitution, as my colleague did,
to deal with economic problems, I think he should see to it that
Quebec signs the Constitution to make it legally binding on all
Canadians, including Quebecers if they sign it.
(1405)
We are now faced with another deadlock and we cannot count on
the Liberals to sort this one out. That is why, I think, my colleague
from the Reform Party could perhaps help us. We cannot count on
the Liberal Party because the Liberal Party has never kept its
promises.
In 1974, it got elected by promising not to impose wage controls.
Once elected, it did the opposite. In 1979, it got elected by
promising not to tax gasoline or not to increase the tax. Once
elected, it did the opposite. In 1989, it promised, if elected, to tear
up the Free Trade Agreement. As we know, the Free Trade
Agreement is still with us today. In 1993, it wanted to scrap the
GST, we should know, we talked about it for one full week, but it
never did.
Constitutionally, and I will conclude with this, in 1980, Mr.
Trudeau was fighting for his life. The solution arrived at was the
1982 patriation, which resolved nothing, and led to promises that
have not been kept. If my colleague truly wishes to resolve
Canada's economic problems, I think he should first sort out the
constitutional problems, for only then will we be able to find
answers to these other problems.
[English]
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to debate this motion. I congratulate the member for
Capilano-Howe Sound for the work he has obviously put into his
proposal. I know he is a very reflective person, one who has studied
these matters deeply, being an economist. Being a lawyer myself I
will refrain from the usual economist jokes about the gloomy
profession and I am sure the member will be pleased that I am so
doing.
Perhaps he will forgive me if I start by saying I had some
problems with this bill from a technical perspective when I first
looked at it in terms of how it would work. Having heard the
member introduce it I now have some profound problems about
where it is coming from.
I was listening to the member and I wondered why he did not
propose we go back to the gold standard. It might have been about
the same sort of proposition to achieve the same ends, to create a
2332
rigid system within which governments cannot function, cannot
move out of straight-jackets and which is generally to the benefit
of the moneyed classes, generally to the benefit of those who have
large investments because they can be guaranteed that governments
will not impinge on them by inflation or other measures which the
member referred to.
The member began by reminding us, and quite appropriately so,
that we in Canada have become familiar with the fact that deficits
are dangerous things, that we are mortgaging our children's future
if we spend unwisely and put it into debt. I respect what the
member had to say on that.
However, the conclusion he came to was rather startling for me
coming from the Reform Party. Its members day after day in the
House hesitate to say how they are voting because it must be made
very clear that they wish the appearance at least to be there that
whenever they vote they are reflecting the immediate wishes of
their constituents. How often have the member's colleagues stood
in the House and told us ``I am not voting on this, my constituents
are voting; I have consulted my constituents and I am the
representative of direct democracy''?
The member introduces the bill by telling us he does not believe
in democracy. The bill is an anti-democratic bill. The member
wants to introduce a constitutional change which will inhibit his
constituents, my constituents and every other Canadian from
voting for individuals or governments that intend to address
economic problems in a way that would be inconsistent with the
bill. It would put a straight-jacket around government functions in
a way that is quite extraordinary. That this is coming from a party
which pretends to be in favour of democracy is quite extraordinary.
(1410 )
This party will not vote a change to the human rights code to
prevent discrimination against a class of individuals based on their
personal characteristics, but it will propose a bill which would
make it impossible for the government to affect the economic
well-being, the money they have in their pockets.
The member is assimilating the bill to the charter. The member
does not even know about the charter. The charter contains in it a
notwithstanding clause. Did the member for Capilano-Howe
Sound not realize that? It has a provision whereby if Parliament
wishes to deal with something outside the constraints contained in
the charter both the federal and provincial houses can do that.
He does not even propose that in his bill. His notwithstanding
clause is a narrow technical clause which gives war, acts of God
and revolution an opportunity to get around the provisions of the
bill, and I will come to that when I move into problems with the
way the bill operates.
I start by fundamentally pointing my finger to my real
philosophical problem with the bill. It is totally and utterly
inconsistent with every precept of government and democracy that
I have heard advanced by the members of the Reform Party so far
in the House.
That being as it is, it is passing strange but it often happens in
politics that people propose inconsistent measures. It is curious that
inconsistency from that party comes when it comes to a question of
protecting money but there is no inconsistency when it comes to
protecting basic human rights of human characteristics.
The second problem I have with the bill is its inspiration is, I
believe, fundamentally American in nature. This is an American
concept. One can understand the American concept of government.
In the congressional system one can understand why members of
Congress have proposed such a bill. They are trying to constantly
deal with that struggle between the legislature and the executive as
represented in the president. The bill which has been introduced in
the United States is a part of that dynamic of the constant fight
between Congress and presidential authority. Congress is seeking a
way to impose its will on the president and on the spending of the
president as well.
That may make sense in the American system but it does not
make sense in a parliamentary democracy like ours where we
function under very different rules.
Those are my basic problems with the bill. I now will deal with
the recognition by the member that such a strait-jacket could never
be automatically applied. Even the member has said we could not
lock a government in completely. I recognize his intellectual
honesty in that. Then we have to be straightforward and honest
about it. We have to look at the nature of exemptions which he has
provided in the bill. War is an obvious one.
I suggest that in an international interdependent world in which
Canada presently lives creating a bill as simplistic as this does not
recognize the problems that will come. The Mexican currency
crisis was one. There will be others like that. We will be called on
to be involved in many international events that will be imposed on
us.
I am not suggesting we as Canadians wish to adventure outside
the country into foreign adventures. The integrated world we live in
will be imposing things on us which are unforeseeable and
unforeseen in the bill. They will then require expenditures. They
may involve peacekeeping. These are large expenditures of billions
of dollars in order to preserve the integrity of Canada. Whether we
are talking about its security, its environment or its health, these
expenditures will be necessary.
2333
Because the bill imposes a strict limit on the expenditures of
government the inevitable consequences will be that this will be
paid for out of the domestic side of the economy and the social
programs of Canadians, their health, their unemployment
insurance. The guarantees they have for a healthy productive
society will be threatened because we have not been able to deal
flexibly with the immediate challenges which are bound to come
in 21st century.
I leave it with the member that my other problem with the bill is
I do not think it is adapted to the modern world in which we are
entering. I do not think it is adapted to the enormous complexity of
the new international world into which we are moving which will
require a great deal of flexibility on behalf of Canadian
governments.
Another problem I have with the bill is that it fails to recognize,
if I may go back to its anti-democratic roots, the nature of the
Canadian people.
(1415 )
In electing this government with the promise it made to reduce
the deficit to 3 per cent, by efforts it has been making to do so, it is
clearly foreseeable that within two years Canada will be the lowest
deficit country of any of the G-7. We are on the deficit reduction
track.
Canadians have, through the course of this lesson, learned what
are the consequences of overspending. All of us are pulling in what
we are doing. In my riding of Rosedale, which is a downtown
riding in an urban centre, there are enormous problems of social
housing, crime and issues that require a lot of government action
and attention, most of the citizens there have willingly recognized
that we have to rein in what we are doing.
We wish to discipline ourselves in an intelligent way. We do not
just wish to discipline ourselves automatically. The member from
St. Paul's called it hitting the nail with a hammer because you
happen to have a hammer in your hand and nothing else.
What we need in today's social circumstances is a surgeon's
scalpel and not a hammer. The member has provided us with a
hammer. In so doing, he will not allow us to adjust in a way in
which the government is already indicating governments can adjust
and will adjust.
I will conclude by saying that the government has a different
approach. It was shown in the last budget, and I am sure that future
budgets will show it as well.
[Translation]
In conclusion, this proposal is fundamentally undemocratic and
impracticable, and serves only the interests of the richer members
of society, not those of average citizens.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have taken note of the
request from the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound in
whose name the motion stands before the House today that, under
right of reply, if the time permitted, we could grant him up to no
more than two minutes of final comment.
We recognize the work that goes into private members' bills.
This one is not votable but the House must understand clearly that
he will be the last to speak. After his two-minute conclusion, we
will move on to the last order of business.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having two minutes. I
will be very fast. I appreciate the thoughtful comments from the
members for St. Paul's and Rosedale. It is rare that we have a
discussion at this level of intellectual rigour. Nevertheless, some
rhetoric sneaked in.
The main point I would like to make in response to what was said
is this. It was said that this is an ideological position embodied in
this bill. It is.
I have asked my colleagues, my friends, constituents, this
question. The governments of Canada are now spending over
one-half of your income. Are you getting your money's worth? I
have never yet met anyone who said: ``Yes, I am''.
The question that has to be addressed when we talk about the
ideological basis of this kind of an approach to limiting
government is, how did we get there and how can we protect
ourselves from going even further because of all of the good
sounding arguments being made for specific cases of people
needing help. Measures get put into place. They never get
eliminated. That is the main issue.
I find it somewhat below the intellectual capacity of these
individuals to call my ideas faddish or incorporating unreasonable
dogma, or go back to the gold standard or that an idea that comes
from America is the worst of all possible things.
I will write a letter to all the members of the legislatures of the
provinces in this country that have adopted a similar bill to tell
them they are faddish, dogmatic and influenced by Americans.
There was nothing about the merit of the bill itself. That is very
sad.
Almost all the objections that the members raise have been taken
care of by provisions in my bill. The fundamental difference is that
I represent that segment of Canadians who believe government is
too big, has become too bloated and we need some institutional
device for slimming it down. We cannot trust the same system that
got us here simply on the promise that now that we have learned in
the future we will not do it again.
2334
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 2.20 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday
next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.20 p.m.)