CONTENTS
Friday, May 10, 1996
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos.
7 and 8 2597
Division on motion deferred 2599
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2599
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 2604
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2604
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2605
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2607
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2607
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2608
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2609
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2609
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2609
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2609
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2610
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2610
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2610
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 2611
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2611
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2611
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2612
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2613
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 2614
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2615
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 2615
Motion for concurrence in 16th report 2616
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of report stage 2616
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 2619
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 2619
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2623
Motions Nos. 17, 20, 24, 35 and 72 2623
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2623
Motions Nos. 18, 73, 171 and 189 2623
Motions Nos. 21, 22, 25, 36 and 173 2623
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2630
Division on motion deferred 2636
Division on Motion No. 20 deferred 2637
Division on motion deferred 2637
Division on Motion No. 36 deferred 2637
Division on Motion No. 73 deferred 2637
Division on Motion No. 171 deferred 2637
Division on Motion No. 173 deferred 2637
Division on Motion No. 189 deferred 2638
2597
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, May 10, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of Bill C-12, an
act respecting employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with
amendments) from the committee; and Motions Nos. 7 and 8
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-12, as
amended. It is legislation which Canadian workers, Canadian
businesses and the Canadian economy so badly need.
Let me begin with a reminder. Bill C-12 introduces reforms that
will remove some of the inequities of unemployment insurance and
provide a more fair and balanced regime. However, while bearing
in mind that employment insurance will provide temporary income
for some 2.4 million unemployed workers this year, we should also
remember that Bill C-12 has another aim, the fundamental aim of
boosting job creation and economic growth.
It is designed to help people get back to work. It is designed to
reinforce the social safety net by ensuring adequate income for
those who are most in need, while at the same time reducing costs
and meeting the government's budgetary requirements. It retains
the structural objectives arising out of the Canada-wide
consultations on the social security review. It strengthens work
incentives and the insurance aspect of income support. It ensures
fairness. It reduces and stabilizes premiums. It provides a
simplified administration for employers. It will achieve a net
savings of $1.2 billion by the year 2001-02.
The EI system is a vast improvement over the old unemployment
insurance regime. Eligibility will be based on hours of work rather
than weeks. Weeks are a poor measure of work, particularly for part
time workers and those who hold down more than one job or those
who work intensely for short periods.
There are higher entrance requirements for new entrants and
re-entrants; a necessary provision to stop the cycle of dependency,
particularly among young people, that the UI system tends to
engender.
(1015 )
The maximum duration of benefits is reduced from 50 to 45
weeks. This is a realistic period since 67 per cent of all claimants
find a job within the first 40 weeks of unemployment. Those who
cannot find work within 45 weeks obviously need help that goes
beyond income support, once again a need the EI system will be
able to provide.
An increased clawback of benefits for high income claimants,
particularly those who collect benefits on a regular basis, will make
the system much fairer and will more accurately reflect the
insurance aspects of the benefits.
The reduced maximum insurable earnings will be brought more
into line with the average industrial wages. Premium reductions
and an establishment of a reserve in the EI account will stimulate
employment. Premium increases during the last recession were
estimated to have killed more than 200,000 jobs in Canada.
Most important, $800 million of savings achieved by the EI will
be reinvested in active re-employment benefits. It will change the
system from a passive income support system to an active program
for re-employment of Canadian workers most in need of assistance.
There are significant differences not only in the unemployment
rate but in the labour market conditions from region to region in
Canada. Bill C-12 is specifically designed to take these differences
into account.
The situation in Atlantic Canada is a case in point. Employment
insurance will help unemployed Atlantic Canadians get back to
work. The system is the product of two years of consultation with
Atlantic Canadians. Now it has been fine tuned by the Standing
Committee on Human Resource Development to ensure regional
sensitivity and adaptability.
The basis of the new system will help Atlantic Canada's
workforce. The hours based system will make it easier for many to
qualify for benefits because all hours worked are now insurable.
2598
The fact is that in the Atlantic provinces 86 per cent of UI
claimants already work 35 hours or more per week. They will find
it at least as easy and more often easier to qualify under the new EI.
Seasonal workers, of whom there are many in Atlantic Canada,
will benefit under the EI because of the fact that they tend to work
long hours each week. Remember that it is the hours that count and
not the weeks.
Part time workers will no longer be hampered by the artificial
barrier of having to work a minimum of 15 hours per week before
their work is insurable. We have all heard of employers who restrict
their workers to less than 15 hours in order to avoid paying
premiums under the current UI.
Multiple job holders too will benefit by having all their work
insured regardless of how many or how few hours they put into
each separate job. Atlantic Canadians will particularly benefit from
changes which have been made to the legislation setting out how
benefits will be determined.
Workers will be able to look back 26 weeks to find the earnings
necessary to maximize their benefits. This will be particularly
beneficial to workers in industries where there are breaks between
the periods of employment. In a high unemployment region people
can have 12 weeks of no earnings without reducing their benefit
levels.
The average earnings calculation is done by looking at total
earnings in the last 26 weeks and dividing that total by the factor or
divisor. The minimum divisor applied is the equivalent of two
weeks above the regional minimum entrance requirement or the
number of weeks worked up to 26, whichever is greater. Weekly
benefits are set at 55 per cent of the resulting average earnings.
(1020)
The divisor rule is equitable and responsive to changes in
employment conditions right across the country. It is designed to be
particularly beneficial to workers in high unemployment regions.
For all EI claimants, work incentive is boosted by the intensity
rule. Claimants with more than 20 weeks of benefits in the previous
five years will have their benefit rate reduced by one percentage
point for each 20 weeks of past benefits, to a maximum of the 50
per cent level. The intensity rule will not apply however to
claimants who receive family income support. Also claimants who
work while they are receiving EI benefits will be able to earn work
credits to reduce the impact of the intensity rule.
About 42,000 EI claimants in Atlantic Canada receiving a family
income supplement will be exempt from the intensity rule. In all,
about 53,000 Atlantic Canada claimants in low income families
earning less than $26,000 a year and with children will be eligible
for a family income supplement. On average the supplement is
worth some $800 per family. Of course, claimants will be able to
earn $50 a week or 25 per cent of their EI benefit, whichever is
greater, without affecting the benefit. As a result anyone receiving
less than $200 in EI will be able to earn more without reducing
their benefits at all.
Atlantic Canadians will benefit under EI in more ways than from
the income support benefits. The reinvestment of $800 million of
EI funds in employment benefits will greatly benefit Atlantic
Canada. Distribution of reinvested funds will ensure a fair regional
balance. EI will result in a reduction in total income support
payments across the country. But these impacts will be reduced by
a reinvestment in active measures which will be disproportionately
allocated to provinces most affected by the changes to the
insurance benefits. We must also take into account the three year
$300 million transitional jobs fund which will create an estimated
15,000 new jobs in high unemployment regions across Canada.
Another fact is benefits will still exceed premium contributions
in Atlantic Canada. More than 60 per cent of UI claimants in
Atlantic Canada claim benefits regularly. Even when the EI
reforms have been fully phased in in the year 2001-02, Atlantic
Canadians will receive substantially more benefits than they pay in
premiums. The benefits to contributions ratio for example in
Newfoundland will be $2.73 to $1 compared to 76 cents to $1 for
Ontario.
Finally we should bear in mind that the implementation of EI
will be closely monitored and adjustments will be made where
necessary. Some communities in Atlantic Canada will be selected
for in depth studies of the effects of the new system. In all, Atlantic
Canadians should welcome the advent of this fair, balanced and
effective system to support them when needed and further to
provide for their future employment.
(1025)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 8,
standing in the name Mrs. Lalonde. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
2599
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion is
deferred.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 7. Colleagues, I made a
mistake. The question on this motion will only be put depending on
how the vote goes on the other one. Accordingly, this matter is
deferred until the vote on the other one.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order adopted unanimously last week, it will not be
necessary to read out the motions; they are deemed to have been
read and moved. Resuming debate on the motions in Group No. 5.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 10A
That Bill C-12, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 39, on page
5, lines 1 to 46, on page 6, lines 1 to 44, on page 7, and on lines 1 to 27, on page
8, with the following:
``9. The Unemployment Insurance Act is amended by deleting subsections
28(1), 28(2), 28(3) and 28(4).''
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this group of
motions including Motion No. 10A, which I proposed and which is
intended to return the Unemployment Insurance Act to the state it
was before the Conservatives amended it to prevent a person
wanting to receive unemployment insurance benefits from leaving
voluntarily.
Furthermore, someone dismissed by an employer subsequent to
this amendment by the Conservatives is no longer entitled to UI
benefits, short of a series of exceptions. However, so long as this
person gets no confirmation by the employment centre that he left
his job for reasons provided in the act, he gets no UI benefits.
And if someone leaves simply because they are too tired or
cannot continue, they are not entitled to receive UI benefits.
I recall this amendment to the act by the Conservative Party,
because the Liberals, who were in opposition at the time, were
literally tearing their hair out over this amendment proposal. They
criticized it up one side and down the other. They spoke
emotionally in this House against it.
Allow me now to read extracts of a letter the current Prime
Minister, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, sent to all
groups and individuals protesting against the Conservatives'
amendment.
He said:
Thank you for your fax expressing your opposition to the legislative
measures taken by the government to amend the unemployment insurance
system.
I assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern over this blow to the
unemployed. And we do not believe that the recent superficial amendments
alter the basically unfair nature of these measures.
The Liberals are dismayed at these measures. By cutting benefits and further
penalizing those who voluntarily leave their jobs, the government has clearly
little concern for the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of attacking the
problem at its roots, it is going after the unemployed. These measures will have
distressing consequences, because they will discourage workers from reporting
cases of harassment and unacceptable working conditions.
Finally, you may rest assured that the Liberals will continue to demand the
Conservatives withdraw this unfair bill.
(1030)
Are we dreaming? That was March 26, 1993. What is the Prime
Minister doing now that he is in power? What are the Liberal
members and ministers doing? They are making the situation
worse.
They are making it worse in a way that is hard to imagine
because, by moving to an hour-based system, by forcing people to
work two jobs, they came up with a clause whose true meaning we
tried to find out from senior officials. We could not believe our
eyes or our ears, as what the clause really says is this: If someone
who works two jobs and manages to accumulate the number of
weeks of insurable employment needed to qualify for UI benefits
quits one of his two jobs, he loses all the benefits accumulated and
must start over.
Someone may have taken a second part time job as a term
position because he needed the money or thought he could manage
it. If he leaves one of the two jobs voluntarily because he cannot
take it any more, he loses all the benefits accumulated until then.
He must then start over. This means that he must find a second job
once again and accumulate the number of hours required depending
on the part of the country he lives in and on the unemployment rate.
Did we ever see a more inconsistent policy? From 1993 to
December 1995 and to this day, May 10, have we ever seen a more
inconsistent policy? Have we ever seen a more drastic shift? This
unforgivable attitude comes on top of the many changes in
direction effected by that party since it came to office.
As a result of this, how many people will be forced to continue,
for all kinds of reasons, to work two jobs? And how many people
who cannot take it any more will find themselves without any kind
of protection and vulnerable to everything, including being laid off
2600
from their remaining job, without having accumulated the required
number of hours to qualify for benefits?
This bill makes no sense at all; it does not even provide basic
justice. When I hear the speeches of my colleagues who have been
led to believe that this bill is a good bill and who claim it is just
what Canadians were hoping for, I am outraged.
(1035)
I am outraged because this bill dramatically reduces the level of
protection. With this bill, many people who used to have some
financial security, as minimal as it may have been, will lose
whatever little security they had. Yet, this security is essential in a
democratic and civilized country concerned with sparing those who
do not have the good fortune of being wealthy-and they are legion
in this country-from dire situations.
This measure will affect every person who needs two jobs to
make a living because his or her full time job does not pay well
enough. The worst hit will be those who have a part time job and
need a second job to supplement their income. To put it bluntly, this
measure will make the shift from a system based on the number of
weeks to a system based on the number of hours of work
unbearable if it means trapping people as never before in a situation
they will unable to get out of.
Against all hope, I dare hope, still, that this government will see
reason. This measure is but one of many measures that fly in the
face of reason. There is not an ounce of common sense in this bill
the people across the way are trying to sell using arguments that
have nothing to do with the actual measures contained in this bill.
I urge our Liberal friends opposite to recognize that, far from
acting on the statements and commitments made when the
Conservative amendment was debated, they are in fact doing an
about-turn, changing their tune completely. Instead of improving
on the bill and making the Unemployment Insurance Act better,
they made the act worse by increasingly shrinking the ranks of
those who will be eligible for these benefits, which are absolutely
essential. Our friends will have to account to the people for that.
I cannot wait to see their reaction when the act will take effect
and they will start feeling the huge pinch that comes from being
denied unemployment benefits altogether for having quit their
secondary jobs because they are just overworked and cannot keep
on working two jobs for any number of reasons not listed by the
Conservatives in their bill, a list over which the Liberals tore out
their hair time and time again.
They said they could not wait to be in power so they could
change this despicable legislation. They did change it, but for the
worse. But they will have to live with that and pay a political price
for it. The worst of it all is that, for the ordinary people, women and
young people who will have to live with this, it will mean having to
pay premiums without having access to the lower benefits provided
for by this bill. This is not up to the standards of what the Liberals
had promised when they were in opposition.
(1040)
I must point this out, and really rub it in, because politics is a
matter of commitment, not just a bunch of empty promises made to
get elected, which are conveniently forgotten, like so many
memory blanks, the day after the election, as are the voters to
whom the promise was made to undo what the previous guys had
done because it was so terrible.
Once in office, all of a sudden, all those terrible things the others
had done are not even enough. They are made worse yet. That is
exactly what the Liberals are doing in this bill. I look forward to
seeing them vote one after another to break the promise they made
in 1993. Not only break their promise, but do even worse.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised at the member's remark. She talked about throwing some
fat on the fire. In my opinion the member jumped from the frying
pan into the fire.
I was hoping the member for Mercier would talk about her
amendments instead of giving the usual rhetoric we heard from the
Bloc Quebec during the full course of the committee hearings and
debate.
The member did not talk about her amendment. Maybe there is a
reason for that. I would be embarrassed to talk about the
amendment proposed in this section if I were her as well.
I want to deal directly with that amendment. I want to address a
couple of points the hon. member talked about. She quoted the
letter from the Prime Minister of March 26, 1993, that ``the Liberal
Party of Canada shares your concern''.
The Prime Minister and this party do share the concerns. This is
not the same old bill the Tories of the past brought in. The member
is trying to mix apples and oranges.
This bill is a major restructuring of UI to EI. It moves away from
the kind of tactics of the past, a little patch here and a little patch
there, in which we would raise premiums one time, shorten weeks
another and move to some other provisions that usually ended up
hurting workers.
This is a major restructuring of the bill. It tries to bring better
balance to the bill and maintain the insurance concepts. It tries to
address the problems of those in low income areas, maintaining
and targeting areas where there are seasonal industries so the
program is there for not only employees but employers. It tries to
2601
maintain the economic restructuring that comes about as a result of
EI as well.
The member knows but does not want to admit this party and the
committee, of which she was a member, went out and talked to
people. The member from Carleton-Charlotte talked earlier about
some of the provisions in the bill and some of the amendments
Liberal members made to the bill which will improve it in terms of
addressing the needs of regions and of workers.
The members also should recognize this party and committee
members in committee listened constructively to what Bloc
members had to say. If they recall correctly we even adopted an
amendment. It was the only one which you brought forward that
seemed reasonable to us. You could have been more constructive in
bringing forward amendments. However, you cannot deny that we
adopted it.
(1045)
The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the hon. member that he
has to put his remarks through the Chair. ``You'' has to refer to the
Speaker.
Mr. Easter: Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I was just trying to
convince the member opposite that if she had been more
constructive we might have been able to adopt more of her
amendments. The kind of amendment that came forward from the
hon. member for Mercier on this point, to us, did not make sense.
The bill maintains the insurance features. It finds a better
balance. It targets better low income. It brings more people in. It
gets rid of the 15-hour job trap. With the amendments that have
been put forward by several government members, the bill has been
substantially improved. That is progress. That is what democratic
debate is all about.
Let me speak directly to the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Mercier. It is an amendment which the member must
be embarrassed to talk about because she did not address it in her
remarks.
The part of the motion that removes section 5 removes the whole
financial footing on which coverage under the unemployment
insurance program is based. The removed section defines the jobs
on which premiums are to be paid and establishes that the coverage
is for those who work as employees and thus cannot control their
unemployment. I might remind the hon. member for Mercier that
the removal of all penalties for quitting would require that every
claimant be paid benefits even if the claimant deliberately caused
his or her own unemployment by quitting to go skiing or by
stealing from an employer and being fired.
The motion ignores the basic premise that unemployment
insurance is to provide income support to those who are
involuntarily unemployed. It is entirely against the insurance
principle that benefit should be denied to an insured person who
voluntarily causes the loss against which they are insured.
The motion of the hon. member for Mercier is equivalent to
paying fire insurance to the person who burned down his or her
own house. That is ridiculous. Maybe that is why she was so
embarrassed to talk about her amendment. Facts speak for
themselves and that is the fact.
The motion goes further than reversing the C-113 provisions for
an indefinite denial of benefits for voluntarily quitting, it also will
prevent any temporary disqualifications of seven to 12 weeks, as
existed before 1993.
I was told, on investigation, that before the changes were made
that those who quit their jobs without just cause were taking over
$1 billion out of the fund each year. I would like the hon. member
for Mercier to try to justify taking $1 billion out of the system for
those who abuse the system and cause their own problems.
Simply put, if the government adopted the motion, persons who
quit their jobs without just cause or who were fired for misconduct
would not be subject to any penalty whatsoever. This kind of
irresponsible motion will fail to score any points with Canadians,
including hardworking Quebecers.
As I said earlier, when we get reasonable motions that make
sense, such as the one which came forward at committee,
government members are willing to consider them and, in fact,
adopt them which we did.
This motion is so absurd that it flies in the face of the common
sense provisions that have been part of the unemployment
insurance program since it began 55 years ago. If the government
adopted the motion, Canada would be one of the few countries, if
not the only one, that allows people to quit their jobs and receive
insurance benefits with impunity. Perhaps that is what the hon.
member wants, or perhaps it was just thrown in for the sake of
moving an amendment without giving it reasonable thought.
(1050)
The current UI program and the new employment insurance
program are designed to help workers who lose their jobs through
no fault of their own. That is why it is called insurance. As an
employer, I see it as an extremely important program which makes
it possible, in the industries and the region I am in, to ensure that
we have skilled workers available for the busy season. It is a
program that benefits not only employees but employers, and I
certainly want to admit that.
2602
If workers choose to quit their jobs or are fired for misconduct,
there is no way that they should expect to collect benefits. The
amendment proposed by the member for Mercier would allow that
to happen.
I have given their amendments serious thought but I have no
choice because of the lack of thought given to this one than to say
nay to that amendment. Maybe we will come to some others later
that will make more sense, but certainly that one does not.
I expect that is the real reason why the member for Mercier did
not speak about the amendment that the member proposed. Instead
she talked rhetoric, of things in the past. Again that rhetoric does
not apply.
What the member needs to admit is that this bill is a major
restructuring and improvement of the situation for employees and
employers right across the land. As the evidence becomes clear I
am sure that eventually the member will want to admit that.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on a number of
occasions since the beginning of this debate, I have had the
opportunity to speak after the hon. member for Malpeque when he
had the chance or misfortune of speaking after the hon. member for
Mercier. I listened to what he had to say.
I believe the member for Malpeque has a reading and
concentration problem. It is truly incredible to hear him say that
what the member for Mercier proposes will be terrible, that it will
take us back to the previously existing situation, when we were
losing a billion dollars because people voluntarily quit their jobs.
The member has a right to say what he thinks, but if he had
listened carefully, if he had concentrated all his attention to the
debate instead of being distracted by his parliamentary secretary,
perhaps he would have understood that the member for Mercier
was essentially stressing the fact that, in the March 26 letter he
wrote at the time, his leader, the current Prime Minister, voiced his
outrage at the Conservative government's plan to recognize fewer
valid reasons for voluntarily leaving a job, including sexual
harassment and harassment or abuse at any management level.
The member forgot about that, saying-and this is what is so
incredible-that these are words and things of the past. The
member is effectively telling his leader that the kind of
commitment he made on March 26, 1993 is a thing of the past, that
it is not proper. I hope the Prime Minister is listening and will
remember the comments of the member for Malpeque.
This is incredible. We are essentially repeating today the views
expressed by the current Prime Minister when he was Leader of the
Opposition. Now, a member of his party is telling him that these
views do not make sense, that Canadians would not accept them.
But the Prime Minister was elected to this House on the basis of
his views, as were the other members here, including the member
for Malpeque. It is difficult to believe what we hear these days,
given what happened with the GST. The Prime Minister keeps
referring to his red book, but he has a tendency to not recognize
comments he made in the past, such as when he talked about
scrapping the GST.
However, in this case, he cannot claim not to have made these
comments about UI reform. They are in a letter bearing his
signature. I have a copy of it, and I could table it if the House gave
its consent. But I am sure that it is not necessary. The Prime
Minister surely remembers this letter, which he wrote when he was
Leader of the Opposition.
(1055)
In the same vein, the hon. member for Malpeque adds that
opposition members only propose negative things. They have a
negative point of view. Let me remind the member of a small
paragraph in a letter written by the current Prime Minister:
I can assure you that the Liberal Party shares your concern regarding this
attack against the unemployed. We do not believe either that the recent
superficial amendments will change the fundamentally unfair nature of these
measures-
Unfair. These measures were unfair three years ago, but they have
now become fair. This is a simple reminder to the member for
Malpeque.
The most recent figures on unemployment, which were released
this morning, tell us that the unemployment rate has gone up in
Canada, including in Quebec. The national rate is currently 9.4 per
cent, compared to 9.3 per cent last month. In Quebec, the rate went
from 10.9 per cent last month to 11.1 per cent now. Unemployment
is on the rise.
And if unemployment is on the rise, it means there will be more
jobless and more unemployment insurance claims. But what does
the government want to do? It wants to reduce unemployment
insurance benefits. Is this a satisfactory solution? It makes no sense
at all. They should in fact be increased, accessibility improved.
In her amendment, the member for Mercier proposes to go back
to an earlier system predating even the Conservative proposal,
because the Liberals did not think it was fair at the time. It is
normal to ask for something. As things stand now, with the system
changing from weeks to hours, people will be forced to hold down
more than one job in order to reach the required number of hours.
They will have two part time jobs. We will then see impossible
situations where an employee with two part time jobs will be told
by one of his employers: ``I would like you to work a few more
hours for me. I need you''. If he agrees, he loses the other job. It
becomes a voluntary separation. Consequently his future rights to
benefits will suffer.
2603
Does the member find this normal? When we told him this in
committee, I recall that he shook his head. We raised another
objection. Someone receiving benefits and subsequently
incarcerated, for one reason or another that is not important,
obviously loses his benefits while he is in jail. But when he gets
out of jail, his rights have not suffered, because he picks up where
he left off and is entitled to receive UI benefits, unlike the fellow
who left one of his two McJobs. Is that fair?
I appeal to hon. members across the way. Is that fair? That
someone just out of jail has more rights than someone forced to
leave a job by one of his two employers. The member for Malpeque
is not reading the amendments or his bill properly.
That is why we would have liked more time. I am certain the
majority of the members opposite have not read all 190 clauses in
this bill. If they were to read them carefully, they would be against
them, as we are. I invite them to reread the Prime Minister's letter
of March 26, 1993. Then they would understand.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being approximately eleven o'clock,
we will now have Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
2603
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during National Forest Week I would like to highlight the
new science and technology network that the Canadian Forest
Service has adopted.
As many research organizations know, good research needs more
than good science. It needs strategic alliances and partnerships.
The Canadian Forest Service is committed to creating mutually
beneficial relationships around policy issues and research
priorities.
This collaboration maximizes the use of scarce resources,
bolsters research efforts and maintains Canada's reputation as a
world leader in sustainable forest management.
During National Forest Week I would like to recognize the town
of Swan River in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River for having
been chosen the forest capital of Canada for 1998. Congratulations
Swan River.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are now midway through National Forest Week, an event that has
been celebrated for the past 70 years.
For Canadians and Quebecers, forests represent both a natural
resource and a treasure which has had much to do with shaping our
lifestyle, our history and our traditions.
How could it not, when forests cover half of Canada's area,
providing 340,000 direct jobs and $19 billion of our gross domestic
product? The economy and the life of Matapédia is centred on its
forests, which provide a living to hundreds of families.
National Forest Week reminds us that we are responsible for this
precious resource, and that we must make sure it stays healthy,
drawing upon it reasonably so that it will be there for our children.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
``Compost: For the Love of the Earth'' is the theme of this year's
national awareness composting week.
During this week, May 6 to 12, the Composting Council of
Canada supports activities in communities, schools and workplaces
across Canada to celebrate the many benefits and uses of compost.
Compost, familiar to gardeners as a valuable soil amendment, is
also being used to assist in erosion control along roadsides and in
strip mine reclamation.
Here at the House of Commons an ambitious composting
initiative is one of the many successes of the greening the Hill
program. Since 1991 Food Services, in partnership with the Office
of the Environment, has diverted more than 80 tonnes of organic
waste from landfill. Currently all organic waste, including starch,
dairy and meat products, is sent to a state of the art vessel
composter located at national defence headquarters.
I encourage all Canadians to get involved in composting.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the accomplishments of the Schep family in my riding are
quite remarkable. The Schep's Thunder Bay Oak Cheese Farm
utilizes the cheese making skills the family learned in its native
Holland to operate Ontario's first and only Gouda cheese on-farm
operation.
Mrs. Schep comes from a long line of cheese makers near the
city of Gouda, Holland. Her parents still make cheese. Since the
Scheps moved to Canada in 1981 to take over a large dairy
operation they have been making the occasional Gouda cheese.
What was originally a hobby has become a full time operation.
2604
This is yet more evidence of hard working immigrants coming
to Canada and contributing to our economic growth. I am proud
of the government's positive immigration policies and especially
proud of the accomplishments of the Schep family.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
spending in the other place appears to be out of control. To
illustrate, the Senate spent more than $206,000 on a committee on
euthanasia to produce a report that has been shelved. In addition, its
Pearson airport committee ran up a bill of over $210,000.
The Senate has an annual budget of over $40 million. Now, with
no explanation, it wants another $4 million tax dollars to top up its
budget.
My motion, passed by the Standing Committee on Government
Operations, will request the Senate's board of internal economy to
appear before the committee to account for its expenses.
As with all public institutions, the Senate must and will be held
accountable to taxpayers.
* * *
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday more than 700 students, teachers and
administrative staff of St. Stephen High School in New Brunswick
celebrated Youth Canada Day.
With their theme of national unity, these students, led by their
student body representatives Heather Estey and Rob Driscoll, held
a truly Canadian assembly marked by the harmony of our national
anthem, Canadian declarations and the many Canadian flags lining
the halls of this school.
With our very large and diverse country, it is heart warming to
see today's youth lead the way toward true Canadian unity,
representing diversity and truly demonstrating what it means to be
Canadian.
Congratulations to St. Stephen High School students and staff.
They are truly leading the way for all Canadians. I am proud of
their incentives and achievements in this area.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week
we grieve the passing of Austin Bastable, a Canadian who had two
terrible battles to endure in recent months. His first battle, a
hopeless one, was against the disease which finally led to his
decision to choose death in order to put an end to his suffering.
(1105)
His second battle was against the government's lack of action to
recognize people's right to die in peace and dignity at the time of
their choosing. Unfortunately for him, and for all Canadians and
Quebecers facing horrible deaths, his government did not heed
him, nor would it even listen to what he had to say.
This Canadian had to seek self-imposed exile in the U.S. in order
to get the qualified medical assistance he needed to end his life. Mr.
Bastable himself said, only a little while before his death:
[English]
``If it had been left to the Canadian government I would have
suffered for much longer, perhaps indefinitely''.
[Translation]
The debate on this question so often promised by the government
must take place.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I congratulate Gavin Maxwell of Oakville who last Saturday
won the single man canoe race at the hemispheric qualifier in
Gainsville, Georgia.
This convincing victory guarantees Gavin a trip to the Olympic
Games in Atlanta this summer. The win was especially satisfying
because two of the paddlers in the field, the American and the
Mexican, had defeated him last fall at a pre-Olympic regatta.
Gavin Maxwell is a fine young man who not only excels in
athletics but is an outstanding example to the youth of our country.
His hard work and integrity have made him a model ambassador
for sport and for Canada.
I know the people of my riding of Oakville-Milton are
extremely proud of Gavin and will be cheering him on this summer
in Atlanta.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, more than 25,000 people worldwide are killed by land
mines every year, and thousands more are injured.
On Wednesday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said Canada is
one of the few countries that have banned outright the use of
anti-personnel land mines. This is simply not true.
Earlier this year Canada declared a moratorium on the
production, export and use of land mines. However, a moratorium
is not a
2605
ban. Although it is good, we need Canada to take the lead by
domestically banning the production, use and sale of these heinous
silent killers.
The minister was incorrect in his statement this week. Canada
has long been one of leading voices in calling for a total ban. It is
now the topic of discussion for a proposal which would establish a
land mine free zone in the Americas, which Canada supports.
It is time now for Canada to show bold leadership and send a
clear signal to the international community by declaring a domestic
ban on the import, use and production of land mines.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this morning the cities of Ottawa and Hull, the regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the communauté urbaine de
l'Outaouais announced the signing of an agreement of
understanding to establish a partnership so Ottawa-Carleton and
the Outaouais could bid on the 2001 Jeux de la Francophonie.
There are two parts to these games, which have been held every
four years since 1987: the sporting competitions and the cultural
competitions. The games also include competitions for young
people with a handicap.
The host country welcomes some 2,700 athletes and artists from
49 participating countries for a two-week period. The economic
benefits of these games are readily apparent.
I wish every success to those who proposed this initiative and I
can assure them of my solid support in the effort to obtain the Jeux
de la Francophonie.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in March,
opposition members tore at their shirts in a public expression of
disapproval of one of our budget measures aimed at reducing
certain advantages accorded risk capital funds such as those of the
FTQ or the CSN.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois wondered at the time how
Ottawa could justify, and I quote: ``an attack against a tool as
effective in creating and maintaining jobs''
Yesterday the Quebec Minister of Finance vindicated us in this
matter, because he decided to follow our lead and cut some of the
advantages accorded these funds.
This morning, the Bloc Quebecois members got off with having
to stitch up their shirts. The federal and Quebec finance ministers
decided in this area to harmonize their policies in order to reach an
objective of fairness and justice for all investors.
* * *
(1110)
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for nearly 75 years, the second Sunday in May has been a
very special day. On that day, whether we are young or old, male or
female, rich or poor, we experience special feelings for this unique
woman who, day after day, rocked our cradle, wiped our tears,
encouraged our efforts.
Because it is through their eyes that we learned to believe in life,
we rise today to wish a happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out
there.
Our wishes are directed especially to those mothers and
grandmothers who have been forgotten. Although they may be
alone, we want to remind them that the love one lavishes on others
is not lost, because it leaves a never-ending legacy of courage,
generosity and kindness. For their gift of life and love, we thank
them from the bottom of our hearts.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Quebec has announced it will balance its budget by
the year 2000, joining the chorus of responsible provincial
governments which have either balanced their budgets or
announced a plan to do so.
Why is the federal government conspicuously absent from the
Team Canada initiative?
If Canadians judge the strength of their governments and their
finance ministers by their ability to stop going further into debt,
this government and finance minister must be regarded as the most
weak-kneed of the bunch.
After two and a half years the federal government has failed to
balance its budget as have provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and New Brunswick. It has not even announced a plan to
eliminate the deficit, as have all the remaining provinces.
On this basis it is now clear the federal government is the only
distinct society in Canada. Even more leadership threatens the
financial security of ordinary Canadians, other levels of
government and future generations that will inherit a staggering
debt.
2606
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the auditor
general reports that Revenue Canada agreed to let a family trust
ship $2 billion out of the country to avoid taxes.
Canadians now have reports the government has known for two
years that Canadian banks and other large corporations are
systematically evading taxes by illegally transferring their taxable
profits into foreign tax havens.
Canadians are wondering how many hospital beds, how many
college classrooms, how many pensions could have been saved if
these corporations and trusts had paid their taxes.
Canadians ought to be told whether the government has launched
any criminal investigations into tax evasion by Canadian
corporations and will contributions from those same corporations
acting with flagrant irresponsibility continue to be accepted by the
Liberal Party. What responsibility do the higher officials bear who
approved this deal?
Small wonder we have trouble making our politicians
accountable when our highest officials sell us out.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday, May
12 is national ME/FM awareness day.
Imagine overnight changing from a vital, healthy, active person
to someone who lacks enough strength to get out of bed.
I refer to Canadians suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome
and its related illness, fibromyalgia, real and severe diseases which
impair their victims and their ability to work.
CFS can take a perfectly healthy person and create a totally
dysfunctional individual. Young people are frequent victims; lost
jobs, depression and sometimes suicide are often the effects.
Yet Canada has no federal policy framework in place to ensure
care and treatment for thousands of these individuals, nor does the
federal government undertake to fund laboratory research and
control.
The medical professionals must take a more proactive role in
diagnosis. The public must be better informed. Health Canada must
beef up its research. There are 100,000 affected Canadians who
need recognition of these diseases. Petitions bearing 15,000
signatures from all across Canada showing this illness has touched
many will be presented in the House today.
In Ottawa this weekend MESH Ottawa will hold a health fair,
and in Regina members of the medical profession supportive of
CFS sufferers were honoured on May 8.
* * *
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
draw to the attention of the House a column written by Barbara
Amiel in
Maclean's on March 18.
She repeated the most malicious statements allegedly delivered
by President Yasser Arafat, full of crude anti-Jewish slurs likely to
make any reader abominate the speaker and his people.
(1115 )
The alleged story had been repudiated by Prime Minister Peres
of Israel as well as President Arafat. The Economist of March 16
published a very effective explanation of how it was fabricated, and
many other papers followed suit.
It is surprising that Barbara Amiel or Maclean's would print such
a detrimental fabrication without verification. What is
unconscionable and disturbing is that so far neither Barbara Amiel
nor Maclean's has had the sense of justice to tell their readers that it
is a fabrication and apologize. Otherwise it borders on fostering
race hatred in Canada.
_____________________________________________
2606
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Experience Canada is the newest Liberal brain wave for
politically influencing Canada's young people. This Year 2000
version of Katimavik proposes work experience, in a form not yet
fully defined. The main cause of concern about this program is that
the budget will be administered by the Council for Canadian Unity.
How can the Minister for Human Resources Development
explain that the administration of a $21 million program
supposedly aimed at helping young people is being entrusted to a
highly political and extremely partisan organization?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without addressing all of the
details in the hon. member's comments on the Council, allow me to
point out that Experience Canada is a partnership. The bulk of the
funds to be spent on helping young people everywhere in the
country, young people in all provinces, comes from the private
sector.
Companies and stakeholders in the private sector are prepared to
assume their responsibilities and to contribute to the development
2607
of our youth throughout the country, through exchanges and
workplace learning experiences. I trust that everyone will support a
partnership of this type between the private sector, the
governments, and our young people.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is a motherhood issue; of course we have nothing
against partnerships. Quebec is, as the minister well knows, a
pioneer in such arrangements. That was not the question.
The federal government is telling us that it will be withdrawing
from the manpower field. This was a commitment made in the
throne speech, but in practice it is adding another player, the
Council for Canadian Unity, a body that is not all that neutral, and
one not generally involved in employment.
How can the minister justify one more finger in the manpower
pie? How can he justify this, except as an intention to use money
earmarked to help our young people for political ends, because the
Council for Canadian Unity is a propaganda machine, pure and
simple?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just the day before the
announcement, which once again demonstrated the private sector's
willingness to help young people everywhere in this country, who
are having a really hard time finding work, one of the key
stakeholders in the Council made some comments. What he said, in
my opinion, ought to clearly demonstrate that there is a fairly wide
range of opinions within the Council for Canadian Unity.
Peter White was the person in question, and what he had to say
demonstrates, in my opinion, the divergence of opinions about the
future of the country and about what ought to done to ensure its
survival.
The entire Experience Canada exercise is focussed on young
people, and I trust that all those who are interested in doing
something to help young people will do so, whether in the private
sector or in some coalition or other, and whether they share our
vision of Canada or that of the hon. member.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, granted there may be a whole range of opinions within the
Council on Canadian Unity but, regardless of their differences,
they are all playing the same tune. It is, after all, the Council for
Canadian Unity. It is a body involved with Canadian unity, with the
Constitution, it is as simple as that.
(1120)
I would like to ask the minister how the Council for Canadian
Unity has suddenly acquired expertise in training young people.
Let us face it, that is really a bit far fetched.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is not
trying to tell us that in my department we ought-and it is the
furthest thing from my mind-to go over all of the applications
from all of the hon. members in this House, from all parts of
Canada, with a magnifying glass. That we should scrutinize all
requests to assist organizations working with young people, in
order to find out whether these young people belong to a separatist
organization or to some organization that is working for Canadian
unity?
I have sufficient respect for young people to allow them to do
what they have to do, and to gain experience. I trust-and am not in
the least hesitant to say so-that all of the young people, whether
from Quebec or from elsewhere, will come to appreciate Canada,
as so many have before them, for so many decades.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The new federal government initiative called Experience Canada
has not done much to eliminate the numerous cases of overlap in
the area of manpower.
How can the government justify the fact that millions of dollars
officially set aside for training young people have in fact been used
to indoctrinate them instead?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, although we managed this year
to double the federal funds available to help young people, it was
obviously not enough. The demand largely exceeds our resources.
I should point out to the hon. member that, as a result of this
initiative, which comes partly under the responsibility of the
Council for Canadian Unity, we managed to double these funds in
partnership with the private sector. I think the truth is that we
receive many more applications than we have resources.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of wasting public funds in this way or financing task forces
that are not representative of young people, what is the government
waiting for to settle the manpower training dispute between Canada
and Quebec, which is the only way to give some real hope to
Quebec's young people?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member
that we must all work together to try to find a way to ensure that
young people in Quebec and elsewhere have as many opportunities
as possible to join the workforce.
That is why I reiterate that we in the Government of Canada are
developing a position which, I hope, will be acceptable to the
Quebec government. We are currently drafting a proposal that, I
2608
hope, will not only reflect the Quebec consensus on manpower but
also benefit young and not-so-young people across the country.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to get
itself out of the GST mess the government has concocted an
illusion that would put Doug Henning to shame. It said consumers
would be getting a break with the new Liberal GST, but up one
sleeve was a billion dollar payout and up the other was a whole
arsenal of new tax powers that gave the provinces room to raise
taxes in the future.
The Minister of National Revenue said it would be revenue
neutral. When is she going to admit that consumers in Atlantic
Canada and across the country are going to be paying through the
teeth for this broken Liberal promise?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question which we have heard over and over again. Maybe at some
point members will hear loud and clear that what we have done is
good for Canadians, good for consumers. The Atlantic provinces
realize and businesses throughout the Atlantic provinces realize
that a national harmonized tax as we proposed and as is being
implemented is good for Canadians.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
tax grab and it is that simple.
I want to ask the minister about her views on Quebec's plans to
present the federal government with a $500 million bill for the
costs incurred when Quebec harmonized its sales tax. It is Quebec's
opinion that if the government can find a billion dollars for Atlantic
Canada, then it can find half a billion dollars for it.
(1125 )
My question is for the same minister. Is it the intention of the
federal government to compensate Quebec for its harmonization
costs?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because he
has asked questions before about the formula of adjustment
assistance, that it provides assistance to provinces that incur losses
in excess of 5 per cent of their tax revenue under their existing PST.
That formula applies across the country. That is the formula which
has been applied in Atlantic Canada. It would result in adjustment
assistance to some provinces and not others. It is a consistent
formula.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised the government is not planning to compensate Quebec,
given how free it has been with taxpayers' money with respect to
Atlantic Canada.
The truth of this Liberal GST fiasco is that consumers are going
to end up footing the bill. New Brunswick is planning to create a
new business tax to make up for the harmonization shortfall. Nova
Scotia has already boosted its corporate taxes. Newfoundland said
that it plans to make up the revenue somehow.
The government can saw it in half, can pull it out of a hat, can try
to make it disappear, but the truth is that this harmonization plan is
bad for consumers. When will the minister admit that it is not
revenue neutral and it will cost billions in higher prices and higher
taxes for Canadians?
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the hon.
member's supplementary question. As members of the committee,
his colleagues were with us on the road when Canadians said this is
what they wanted to see, harmonized taxes, not two sales taxes in
this country.
He talks about Doug Henning the magician. A more appropriate
analogy for him is King Canute trying to roll back the waves.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Two days ago, we questioned the Minister of Defence about the
questionable circumstances under which the army arrested
Corporal Michel Purnelle to prevent him from making information
available to the Somalia inquiry. A mere five hours after question
period, seven charges were laid against him for having had the
courage to disobey an order from a superior who wanted to stop
him from speaking.
How can the Acting Prime Minister justify the fact that, a mere
five hours after the Minister of Defence stated that no member of
the armed forces would be prevented from giving information,
seven charges were laid against a member of the armed forces who
had to disobey orders so he could speak to the commission's
attorney?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has said on many occasions in this House that
no member of the Canadian forces will be penalized for testifying
before the commission. Indeed, any member with information must
come forward and volunteer that information before the
commission.
2609
That being said, part of the duties of a person in the armed
forces is to stay at their post. Until I see the details upon which
this corporal left his post, I cannot answer the member's question.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we
hear in this House and what takes place outside is equally
appalling. The chairman of the commission himself, Mr. Justice
Létourneau, expressed great concern about the turn events were
taking in this matter.
What message does the Acting Prime Minister think this is
sending to our military when anyone who attempts to give evidence
at the inquiry faces a court martial?
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the operational effectiveness of the Canadian forces
depends on a discipline based society. When members of the forces
ignore basic rules about leaving their posts without authorization,
there could be anarchy in the armed forces.
Until we have the full details I cannot answer the question.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of National Defence has just laid seven charges against
Corporal Michel Purnelle. His crime? He wanted to testify before
the Somalia commission. Yesterday the inquiry chairman said he
was troubled and strongly disappointed by the decision to detain
and charge Purnelle.
Why does the minister allow his department to intimidate
potential witnesses?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the minister has stated in this House that no member
of the Canadian forces would be penalized for appearing before the
commission. Indeed, any member who has information that would
assist this inquiry should appear before the commission.
(1130)
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
October 27, 1995 the minister told this House and Hansard states:
``Every member of the Canadian armed forces has an obligation to
come forward to that commission. The government will not
tolerate any intimidation toward any of those people''. These are
fine words but Purnelle listened to the minister and is being
punished for coming forward.
Why is the government talking out of both sides of its mouth by
publicly encouraging soldiers to come forward by permitting-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to say again that the ethos of the service is
based on a discipline based organization. People who join know
and are trained not to leave their posts without permission. As for
further details, I cannot answer that question.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Earlier this week, the auditor general said that, because of
decisions made by Revenue Canada, the government will not tax
capital gain transfers. This situation, which the government could
correct in a matter of hours, will cost taxpayers hundreds of
millions. However, the comments of the Minister of Finance and
the Minister of National Revenue indicate that the government will
not budge on this issue.
Will the Minister of National Revenue use her authority to
immediately put a stop to this tax loss which only benefits the very
rich?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate having yet another opportunity to remind the
House that we are a government of action. Let us look at what
really happened.
On Tuesday the auditor general brought to our attention that he
had concerns about particular legislation with regard to the Income
Tax Act. He wanted it clarified and we said that we wanted it
clarified so on Tuesday we asked the finance committee to put it on
its agenda to review it. He said he had some concerns about lacking
documentation. That same day I directed my department to
improve the standards for documentation. He noted that he was
glad that from now on we will be tabling our rulings for all
Canadians to see.
I do not know what more the hon. member wants. This
government has acted directly and expeditiously.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, while the minister is talking, billions of dollars are
being transferred out of the country every day.
The minister has the power to revoke the decisions made by
Revenue Canada and to collect hundreds of millions, if not billions,
in taxes owed to the federal government. Will she act responsibly
or will she condone these decisions?
2610
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general himself pointed out how difficult and
complex this tax legislation is.
We feel that the appropriate strategy is to have that tax
legislation reviewed in an open forum at the finance committee
where members of Parliament from all parties have an opportunity
to state their case, review it and make recommendations. We look
forward to those recommendations.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fisheries
minister is a flip-flop pro. First he said that the B.C. buy back
would conserve fish and then he said it would not. Then he said
there would not be a fee holiday for fishermen this year and then he
said there would. While he is flip-flopping to protect his own
career, fishermen are convinced that the government is going to do
to the west what it did to the east. I do not know whether to laugh at
the minister or to cry for the fishermen.
Why is the government proceeding with a brutal restructuring
plan when it admits that it does not know if a single fish will be
saved in the process? What is the real agenda?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know the point my colleague wants to make. All along
members have been saying that the minister should listen to the
industry, should listen to the stakeholders. That is exactly what the
minister has done.
Last week he went out there and met with groups, with all the
people who had a stake in the salmon fishery. He met with some
people again this week. As late as yesterday he issued some fine
tuning points to his plan which will reflect the preoccupation of the
people in the industry. The minister is listening. The minister has
made accommodations for those people.
The plan will work. The plan is supported by the industry. Some
people have come out this week in support of that very same plan.
(1135 )
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): All two of them, Mr.
Speaker.
More than fine tuning is required to rejig this plan. The
government wants B.C. fishermen to take hard medicine yet neither
the minister nor the premier of B.C. are interested in saving fish.
The minister is cutting the number of fishermen in half while the
premier of B.C. is giving half of the resource away, adding up to no
fish saved and fishermen's lives decimated.
Fishermen want a plan that will hurt as few people-
The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please put his question
directly.
Mr. Cummins: Mr. Speaker, will the government back off this
ill-conceived plan and come up with something that saves fish
without sacrificing fishermen?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated in my previous answer, this plan has received wide
support from the industry and many groups out on the west coast.
The members of the Reform Party might not agree with that but
the situation is that this plan will go ahead with the support of the
industry.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Industry.
All the complaints received by the official languages
commissioner concerning the language used by the federal
government on Internet came from francophones. This is not
surprising, since it is hard to see how the government would respect
the Official Languages Act there, when it cannot even manage to
do so using traditional means of communication.
Will the federal government follow up on the commissioner's
recommendation that it make a clear commitment in favour of
promoting both official languages in its information highway
strategy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
like the minister's answer, because, following his colleagues'
example, he promised to do so in November 1995 and he has still
not delivered. Obviously, this kind of response is proof to us that
the promises of this government are never kept.
When will the government make public its information highway
strategy?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I had a little trouble hearing the member, but if I
understood his question correctly, we are going to announce our
information highway strategy soon.
2611
We received a very important report from the advisory
committee on the information highway a few months ago. We will
soon be ready to reply. I would also like to point out, with respect
to the member's question, that Canada will be hosting the Inet
conference in 1996 here, in Canada, in Montreal. Canada was
chosen, but we chose the city of Montreal for this meeting of
Internet experts in order to try to come up with a plan promoting
languages other than English on the Internet.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the
past few weeks the people of Manitoba have experienced severe
flooding. News reports blame the federal government for changing
funding arrangements and for treating Manitobans less equitably
than others.
On behalf of my colleague, the MP for Provencher, who is
meeting with officials in Manitoba on this very issue, would the
acting Prime Minister please assure Manitobans affected by this
flood that they are being treated fairly under the same rules as the
rest of Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member knows, as part of the way in which this
country shares responsibility, the federal government over the last
25 years has provided well over $260 million to various
communities affected by disaster. Of that portion, Manitoba has
received 20 per cent in the last 10 years, well over $50 million.
The fact that the premier of Manitoba has been making
comments to the contrary simply shows that he is not aware of how
the agreement works or that he is not aware of the responsibilities
of the province. I simply suggest that it would be very useful if the
premier of Manitoba stopped trying to make cheap political points
and got to work with us to help the people affected by this serious
flooding problem in Manitoba.
* * *
(1140 )
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada Post has been promoting how far the corporation can send a
letter for 45 cents with full page colour newspaper ads and
nationwide household flyers.
Canada Post is a crown corporation funded by taxpayers with a
monopoly over first class mail. I question why taxpayers should be
funding advertisements when, because of the postal monopoly, no
other service is available.
Can the minister of public works explain why Canada Post is
advertising its mail service when there is no other choice available
to Canadians?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could set the
record straight and ensure that everyone is aware that there have
been no appropriations of moneys from the federal government to
Canada Post since 1988.
We looked into the fact that Canada Post was advertising the sale
of its stamps. It must promote its products because there is so much
competition from E-mail, the Internet and many other modes of
delivering messages. They compete with Canada Post. Therefore, it
must continue to promote the services it provides to every region of
the country, to every Canadian. It is a very good service. It is one
that is very much needed.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
would appear the minister is quite prepared to see Canada Post
become Canada toast.
Why would Canada Post advertise a stamp when the only place
people can get stamps is in the post office?
The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley asked this
question two months ago. The minister said that she would look
into it and respond. It would appear that her action is no action at
all. Will the minister stop Canada Post advertising today?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely
essential for the Canada Post message to get out so the taxpayer
does not have to subsidize its operations.
We are concerned with the future of Canada Post. As such, we
have a mandate review going on now. We look forward to receiving
that report at the end of July. We are concerned, as every Canadian
should be, to ensure the mail does get to everyone.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
For six years now, Treasury Board has been developing a general
classification standard for federal public servants, which was
supposed to be universal and non sexist. However, according to the
auditor general, the standard is sexist and would not pass the test of
the human rights act.
How can the Acting Prime Minister explain that, after six years,
public service officials have not been able to come up with a non
sexist general classification standard?
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we agree with the
2612
auditor general that this classification system is something to
which we should pay attention. Since 1993 we have been working
very hard in this direction.
The auditor general agrees that it is not a simple system to try to
condense some 70 different categories into one. We are working
hard on this. We have said that we would get government right and
the auditor general has already reported four times to this House.
By the next report I can assure the House that we will have made
some substantive movement on this file.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general underlined the excessive
administrative costs associated with the standard's
implementation.
How can the government allow such a loss of control over
spending in a period of major budget cuts?
[English]
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said before,
the government is using all the tools at its disposal to get
government right.
(1145 )
In every plan that we have looked at we are trying to get the civil
service to take over. We are trying to transfer these services. We
will continue to work on that file. It is not an easy file. We have 16
different unions and we are working with each one to try to
accommodate them.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, according to
today's newspapers the justice minister, with the support of his
provincial counterparts, plans to release all first time offenders
from jail. The report indicates that the minister was emphasizing
non-violent offenders.
I ask the minister's representative here today what constitutes a
non-violent offence? Is drug trafficking non-violent? Is breaking
and entering non-violent? What about white collar crime?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
The hon. member is aware that the Minister of Justice has been
moving to ensure that our homes and our streets are safe. In that
vein he is taking measures to ensure that violent offenders are put
behind bars, where they belong, for an appropriate length of time
through measures to stiffen up the Criminal Code and, through the
solicitor general, measures to stiffen up the conditional release act.
We will continue to take measures such as this to ensure that
violent offenders are behind bars to keep our streets safe.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the justice
minister has made a designation and he has given us no definition
of what non-violent offences are. With due respect to the member
who responded to my question, he did not answer it. We are not any
better informed than when I stood to ask the question.
What guarantee can the government give that the release of these
offenders will not create a threat to members of society?
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the hon. member, the Minister of Justice and his
provincial counterparts have been working on such initiatives for a
considerable length of time.
Such initiatives are consistent with what has been stated by the
minister in the past and are quite consistent with the beliefs of the
member opposite. We ought to ensure that violent offenders are
kept incarcerated for an appropriate length of time to keep our
society safe and to deal with non-violent offenders in a community
setting.
* * *
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to welcome back our colleague from Carleton-Gloucester
who is healthy and fit. On behalf of the House I wish a speedy
recovery for the House leader, the hon. member for Windsor West.
Sustainable development is a major commitment of the
government and Canadians are proud of their forest industry.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources tell the House what the government is doing to provide
national and international leadership to ensure sustainable
development in the forest industry?
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, involvement in the
criteria and the indicators process demonstrates Canada's ongoing
commitment to sustainable forest development.
Extensive consultations are ongoing between the provincial and
territorial governments, the federal department and other forest
stakeholders.
The Canadian initiative with the international criteria and the
indicators process will level the playing field by moving us closer
to a common definition of sustainable forest development.
2613
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question if for
the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday morning the minister, appearing before the transport
committee, again refused to commit to funding part of the repair
work to the Quebec bridge. His excuse was that the federal
government has already done its share, transferring lands to the CN
for one dollar, the estimated value of which is in the millions.
(1150)
Is the minister aware that the transfer of the lands concerned will
probably not be completed before the year 2000? In the meantime,
is the minister going to finally recognize that the federal
government cannot shirk its responsibilities with regard to
repairing and developing the Quebec bridge?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, ten trains a day cross the bridge, whereas it is used daily
by 25,000 cars and trucks.
The deterioration of the bridge, including the part on which
vehicles drive, is due mainly to car and truck traffic, and to using
salt throughout the winter season to make it safer.
Motor traffic in the province of Quebec is the responsibility of
the Quebec transport department; it is not a federal responsibility. I
find it rather surprising that the hon. member and his party would
want the federal government to interfere in Quebec's affairs.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not execute someone accused of murder and then
have a trial to see if he or she is guilty.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is executing his marine fee
structure plan before studying its impact. What good is a
post-mortem if the industry is dead? Has he learned nothing from
what he has done to the Canadian fishing industry?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
impression should not be left that the minister went into this
program of fees without first having studied the matter.
A study was done by a company for the coast guard before the
fee structure was considered. After we had met with the
stakeholders from one coast to the other, we decided that we would
go with the plan we put forward. This plan will certainly not have
the effect on the industry that the member opposite seems to think
it will have.
* * *
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the government and has to do with the first
ministers' conference that was announced yesterday, which the
government finally got around to bringing together.
Could the government inform us what will be the agenda of this
meeting? Is it going to transfer manpower training? Is it going to
pursue more devolution? Is it going to talk about economic union?
Is it going to live up to the commitments it made during the
referendum campaign? Since it has called a meeting, could it at
least inform us and the premiers what the agenda will be?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that the Minister of
Intergovernmental Relations has had extensive consultations with
all the provinces to determine what the agenda of the meeting
should be, how we can come together on questions of the
economic, social and political union to make this country work
better.
We do things differently than the past government. We work
with the provinces to get a common agenda that we can work on
together.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for the status of women and
public works to whom I have given notice.
In the continuing saga of the harassment case of Ann Raney, the
female engineer on the Peace Tower project and of Ray Wolf and
his project workers who followed in sympathy and solidarity, we
now see that Mr. Karmash, the offending supervisor, is back on the
site. Yesterday Colonial, his employer, refused to sign an
arbitration process to resolve matters.
Since the government has failed in all of its efforts to apply
ordinary commercial contract law to this situation, when will it
apply the full force of the human rights clauses in the contract to
resolve this ridiculous situation where Canadian human rights law
is ignored by contractors right here on Parliament Hill?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important that we
clarify exactly what the cases are about.
(1155 )
More than one case is involved here. Let me advise the House
that the discrimination case between Ann Raney, Mr. Wolf and
2614
Colonial has been resolved. All of the parties have signed an
agreement. That case has been set aside. There continues to be
another dispute which we are working at facilitating. We hope it
will be resolved in the near future.
We are extremely concerned, especially in relation to the
discrimination which did occur. We want to ensure that in future
any of our contracts are structured in such a way that action can be
taken very quickly to prevent a reoccurrence.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Export
growth has been the key to much of job creation success since the
government took office.
Can the Minister for International Trade tell the House what the
future holds for Canadian companies in new and emerging world
markets with respect to trade?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as question period draws to a close, I am happy
to bring some good news. Over the last three years since the
government took office exports have increased by 40 per cent.
Last year the trade surplus was some $28 billion. Trade has gone
up from 26 per cent to 37 per cent of GDP in just four years. The
future also indicates that there will continue to be big increases in
export and trade investment.
That means that the government is delivering on its promise of
jobs and growth because for every billion dollars of new trade
11,000 jobs are created for Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
A recent poll showed that a majority of Canadians would like to
be able to buy private health care insurance and private medical
services. Will the government do the right thing and allow
Canadians to do this by amending the Canada Health Act
forthwith?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has failed to indicate that
the same poll suggests that Canadians are overwhelmingly in
favour of the Canadian health care system as it currently exists.
There are enormous inconsistencies in the party position of the
member on health care. One day its members insist that the one tier
system is the best system and on another day they have a different
position. Today must be that day.
However, he should be aware, as all Canadians are, that the
government will maintain the integrity of the system and make sure
that it continues to provide the services required by Canadians
everywhere on the same basis and not on a per pay basis.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister has already clearly indicated to us that, despite
projected financial cuts, the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne will
continue to exist. However, it remains to be seen whether the
minister will not make an empty shell out of it.
How can the minister explain that he wants to reduce funds
allocated to the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, when we know the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans allocates only 9 per cent of its
scientific research budget to Quebec and the situation will
deteriorate further if the minister goes through with his plans?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
true that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans went through a
review of all the programs it was providing and had to make certain
adjustments.
But I want to assure the hon. member the programs at the Institut
Maurice-Lamontagne will not be affected more than those
elsewhere and the institute will continue to play a major role in
fisheries in Canada.
* * *
(1200)
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unemployment statistics released today show that the maritime
provinces, and Newfoundland in particular, have apparently
benefited the most from the 40,000 new jobs created last April.
Could the minister outline the main reasons why, in his opinion,
Atlantic Canada did so well?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all the provinces are making
every effort to find ways, in co-operation with the Government of
Canada, of resolving the unemployment problem that affects us all.
Of course, some are more successful than others.
I would like to assure my hon. friend that, in Atlantic Canada and
across the country, the indicators are nevertheless favourable.
Unemployment reduction has slowed down slightly, but I hope
that, with the private sector, the provinces and the Government of
2615
Canada working together, we will continue to reduce
unemployment in all parts of the country.
_____________________________________________
2615
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
present the government's response to several petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2) and in accordance with subsection 13(3) of
the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety
Board Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages,
the annual report of the investigation board for the 1995 calendar
year.
Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed
permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 16th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and the associate memberships of various standing
committees.
[Translation]
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence later
this day.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
bearing the signatures of about 1,500 fellow Manitobans.
The petitioners call on Parliament to establish national policies
to control and contain the incidents of myalgic encephalomyelitis,
fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities in Canada and to
ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for persons afflicted
with these illnesses.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
present a petition from 29 of my constituents who ask that peace
tax legislation be passed into law and specifically that the
conscientious objection act be made into law.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to present two petitions. The first petition is
signed by 220 New Brunswickers. The second petition is signed by
455 Nova Scotians.
The petitioners call on Parliament to establish national policies
to control and contain the incidents of chronic fatigue syndrome,
known as ME, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities in
Canada and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for
persons afflicted with these illnesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table a petition signed by 372 people from Quebec who are
asking the government to set national policies to control and
contain the incidence of chronic fatigue syndrome and
fibromyalgia, and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity
for those afflicted with these illnesses.
(1205)
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to present a petition from British Columbia with
751 names collected in order to ask the government to begin to act
on chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia and multiple chemical
sensitivities, and to take care of these people, have treatment for
them and to assure them dignity when they are afflicted with these
illnesses.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition with 10,818 signatures from people in the province of
Ontario. These people are also calling on Parliament to establish
national policies to control and contain the incidents of myalgic
encephalomyelitis, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical
sensitivities in Canada, and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and
dignity for persons affected with these illnesses.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too have
the pleasure to present a petition which calls on Parliament to
establish a national policy to control and contain the incidents of
2616
chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical
sensitivities in Canada, and to ensure care, treatment, comfort and
dignity for persons affected with these illnesses.
The petition contains 211 names from the province of Prince
Edward Island.
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf of 262
residents of Alberta.
The petitioners call on Parliament to establish national policies
to control and contain the incidents of myalgic encephalomyelitis,
fibromyalgia, and multiple chemical sensitivities in Canada, and to
ensure care, treatment, comfort and dignity for persons afflicted
with these illnesses.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have several petitions from Newfoundland asking
Parliament to establish national policies to control and contain the
incidents of chronic fatigue syndrome and multiple chemical
sensitivities in Canada, and to ensure, care, treatment, comfort and
dignity for persons afflicted with these illnesses.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 16th 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 DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I tabled a question on February 28, 71 days ago. It is
the same question that I had on the Order Paper since September 15
of last year. It was on the Order Paper when the House prorogued.
I was assured by the former parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader that the government was diligently
pursuing the answer and that an answer would be forthcoming last
year.
I asked the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Government
House Leader if progress was made and I would expect an answer
soon. He promised to get back to me a couple of weeks ago and I
have heard absolutely nothing. It has been well over half a year
since the question was initially asked. It is not a hard question. It is
information the department should have at its fingertips. I would
really like to have an answer very soon.
Mr. DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to take the
matter up with the parliamentary secretary and get back to the hon.
member as early as next week.
_____________________________________________
2616
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1210)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting
employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with amendment)
from the committee; and on Motions No. 10 and 10A.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to enter the debate on Group No. 5. It is important to put these
amendments in context.
One of the problems we had in committee was with the
opposition as it relates to amendments important for the
improvement of the bill.
One of the things we asked at the very beginning of the process
was that if members of Parliament were serious about wanting to
see improvements to the bill, that they were given ample
opportunity not only in committee but in discussions individually
with members and through the department to have their
improvements put forward and vetted through the department. It
would do an analysis and come up with recommendations about
whether the amendment we are involved with would be appropriate
under the circumstances.
The amendment by the member for Mercier is a perfect example
of the shenanigans going on in the opposition. Filibustering took
place over the number of weeks as we tried as a government to
co-operate with the opposition for it to be successful in bringing
amendments forward.
Instead of bringing amendments like this to the committee, we
get a nonsensical amendment like the one we are debating today.
This motion removes from Bill C-12 the whole clause 5, defining
insurable employment, thus removing the foundation for EI
coverage and premium payments completely.
It also proposes to remove from the UI act all references to
penalty or stoppage of benefits for quitting without just cause and
being fired for misconduct.
If we were to approve and accept this amendment it would
totally put in chaos the unemployment insurance system as we
know it today or as we are proposing under the new changes.
2617
I want to make it very clear that we are debating a motion that
is intended to filibuster the very important work of the House and
waste the time of members. This motion should be completely out
of order because it is nonsensical. If a member puts an amendment
to a bill forward, at least put one that is reasonable and has some
merit. Obviously this one does not.
It does not surprise me. I refer to other statements the member
for Mercier made on what the bill does or does not do.
Not long ago in the House the member for Mercier claimed the
bill does not promote job creation because it reduces inter-regional
subsidization, that it will make the poor regions even poorer. When
someone makes comments like that, it suggests somehow there is a
diabolical scheme that will hurt the poorer provinces.
I want to put on record today some facts as they relate to that
issue to coincide with some of the other amendments the member is
proposing to prove to all the people who are listening, particularly
in Quebec, how ridiculous this situation has become.
Look at the numbers. This is even before considering the
allocation of the $800 million reinvestment in active measures.
This relates to every dollar paid into the program in the years
2001-02. Keep in mind it relates to promoting job creation and the
inter-regional subsidization.
(1215 )
In the year 2000-01 for every dollar workers in Prince Edward
Island put in they will receive $2.77 in benefits out of the program.
Newfoundlanders will receive $2.73 for every dollar they put in.
Nova Scotians will receive $1.52 for every dollar they put into the
system. New Brunswickers will receive $1.59 for every dollar they
put into the system. In Quebec, the province members are talking
about as being so hard done by in this piece of legislation, workers
will receive $1.32 for every dollar they put in.
Keep that in mind because here is a member from Ontario
speaking on behalf of his province. In Ontario workers will receive
76 cents for every dollar they put in. As Ontarians, if we are not
sharing with the other provinces, the ones I have mentioned, then
what are we doing? If we are not distributing wealth, then what
exactly are we doing when we look at the facts?
Quite frankly, as a federalist I expect and accept that is what we
are doing. That is the way we make the disparities in the regions
disappear over time. We do it by helping the have not areas, by
lifting them up, by putting them into a position where they can
create employment, improve their training apparatus, get involved
in giving people a helping hand so they can achieve their goals in
those regions.
When the member for Mercier says that we are attacking the
poorer regions, it is not true, like so many of the other claims the
hon. member has mentioned. I go back to the particular issue of
section 5 which she basically wants to remove completely. When
we look at that we have to ask ourselves what the rationale is for
the opposition and what its motive is for making these very serious
allegations that the government is not interested in helping
Canadians.
As my colleague from Malpeque has said on a number of
occasions, which I want to emphasize in my remarks this
afternoon, this is a significant overhaul of the unemployment
insurance system in order to put us in a position to help working
men and women in the years to come in the country called Canada.
In essence this is its first major overhaul in over 25 years. The
intent of it is to look at the areas where we believe men and women
will be looking for employment in the future, the non-conventional
areas.
One of the major components of this bill is to bring part time
workers into the EI system for the first time in history. As the
House knows, part timers now account for 27 per cent of the
workforce. That is a very serious problem which has to be
addressed. They are individuals who until once this bill is passed
have not been able to collect unemployment insurance. They have
not been able to ask for help under the more active measures under
part II, the five tools we have advocated under the $800 million
which has been put forward, including the other billions of dollars
we have had before. Up to $2.7 billion will be put toward part II
and the tools that will be used to help Canadians get retrained and
re-educated.
Then we looked at something else which is very profound,
something which shows that this government understands there is a
changing environment in the workplace. We have now gone to first
hour coverage, from weeks to hours.
In a region like mine, northern Ontario, which is very similar to
northern Quebec, many Canadians work in seasonal industries.
That is the kind of environment, the kind of country that we live in.
Those individuals, especially in the summertime and in the fall, do
not work eight hours a day like people do in other industries such as
the auto industry in southern Ontario. They work 12 to 16 hours a
day.
Under the old system it did not matter if people worked 70 hours
a week or 35 hours a week, it only counted for one week. Now
under the new system people are not going to be forced to work
overtime. It is not called overtime in seasonal industries. It is called
making a dollar when the sun shines, working when you can,
making sure you make enough money in the period of four to six
months to support your family.
2618
(1220 )
For people to suggest that going from weeks to hours is driving
people to work overtime, as you and I know, Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious they have never visited northern Ontario or northern
Quebec or places where people work in the mines, forestry and
tourism. They are not in the labour force because they are
unionized or non-unionized, they are there because that is where
they make their living.
For example, people who work at tourist camps work 16 hours a
day, as they do when the tourist camps are open in my region. They
start at 7 a.m., sometimes 6 a.m., to get the fishermen out fishing
and all the activities going and they work until dark. You know this,
Mr. Speaker, because you know northern Ontario very well, that it
gets dark around 9 p.m. so people are working from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Those are long hours.
Now every single hour that those people work counts. They do
not have to work 20 weeks; they may only have to work 10 weeks
to qualify for EI. Whereas in the past they did not qualify at all,
now they will qualify. If that is not an important structural change
for the good of many Canadians, I do not know what is.
What is frustrating me and many members on the government
side is that the opposition continues to talk with rhetorical abandon
about this bill without talking about the facts.
There are women who have worked part time all their lives. I
have a sister-in-law who has two jobs and has never in her life been
able to collect UI simply because she always worked less than that
15 hour ceiling. She would work 14 hours at the local grocery store
and then another 14 hours or less in the same week at a local
restaurant. Under these changes she will now have all the benefits
whether they be maternity benefits, sick benefits, or regular UI
benefits if she is laid off. That is a dramatic improvement.
I take exception to some of the remarks made by the members
opposite that this bill is somehow going to hurt people. We can
look at the numbers, and I will speak later about those when we go
to a different group. Just look at how many more people in each
province are going to be getting into the system versus the
argument the opposition is making that this will shrink the system
significantly.
As a labour unionist, I am very familiar with what the labour
unions are saying. Quite frankly that is why they are so
marginalized in this country. They cannot tell their membership
something that is not factually correct. They have to tell them the
absolute truth, whether they are of one political persuasion or
another.
Because members opposite have a particular vision of what
Canada should look like at the end of the day, maybe they are
coming at it from a different angle. I also take exception to some of
the labour unionists who are saying we are shrinking the system. In
fact the numbers show that 52 per cent of people who are
unemployed can get unemployment insurance now. With a 2 per
cent or 3 per cent increase which is guaranteed in the next number
of years we will back not too long from now to where as high as 60
per cent of the people who end up unemployed will be able to get
UI benefits. People, the media and the labour movement are saying
it is down to 40 per cent and that is not factually correct.
We have never had the opportunity in committee to see what the
opposition would really like. We as a government held our hand out
to all members. Members on the government side took us up on the
offer and told us where they thought there were some weaknesses.
One was in the divisor. We changed the divisor. It cost the
government a significant amount of money. We looked at the gap
which is a major problem for employees who work in seasonal
industries. We changed the gap. It cost the government $265
million to make that change. If that is not good work in the
committee I do not know what is.
My colleague from Toronto worked very hard looking at what
would happen to people at the low end of the scale, poorer people.
The recommendation came forward from her that we would exempt
from the intensity rule people with under $26,000 of family
income. This is a significant change and worth some $24 million to
the poor people who cannot afford to be targeted.
What kind of amendments did we get from the opposition?
None. This place must work effectively and the government says it
is willing to do business differently than in the past. I was here
when the Tories were in power. When we went to committee we
could forget it. We were there to obstruct; we were not there to put
in amendments because we knew no one would ever take them
seriously. However, with this bill amendments were put forward
and they were accepted by this government.
I want to reiterate that if the members are going to say things that
are factually incorrect we on this side of the House are going to get
up time and time again and give the people of Canada the facts. It is
unfair. This is a complicated bill. There is no argument about that.
A lot of people, even people in the press are saying that the bill is
not getting much attention because quite frankly, most people do
not understand it.
(1225)
However, the members who have been on the committee, like
myself and the hon. member for Malpeque, have spent lots of time
in order to understand the bill thoroughly. We will stand in this
place to put the facts on the record. Members like the hon. member
for Mercier will not get away with total rhetoric. We expect her to
argue the points based on the facts. If they are not there, we will
certainly call her on it.
2619
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, since I
got into politics, I have become aware of things I never noticed
before. For instance, I have noticed to what extremes some people
will go to pull the wool over people's eyes. They tell half-truths,
until the public realizes in the end that not a word of what they have
been told is true.
A reporter in Quebec used to say: ``To tell the truth is a
challenge, but the real challenge is to tell the whole truth''. I have
been listening to my colleague opposite who is trying to say that,
yes, this bill will be very good for Canada. Also, if we were to
believe him, the Bloc Quebecois refused to do any work on this
bill. Quite the contrary. We took part in consideration of this bill,
but what we tried to do was to move amendments to improve the
legislation.
It is also important to note that the human resources
development committee travelled throughout Canada to listen to
what the public had to say about this bill. What did the government
do? It turned a deaf ear. It travelled throughout Canada to show
how democratic the whole process was, to show that, yes, the
public had been consulted and that, yes, the bill is consistent and
meets the expectations of Canadians.
When I was appointed to this committee, I was disappointed to
see that the government had held consultations, but had it really
listened to what was said? Did the committee members travelled
throughout Canada just for the sake of it? That is the impression I
am left with.
I think the problem here is that the public still does not know this
bill well enough. When people finally understand, probably in
May, when the act will be in effect and its effects will unfortunately
have started being felt, when their pay cheques are cut, then the
people will take to the streets. In fact, they have already started.
For instance, people in Jonquière and Chicoutimi took part in a
18- kilometre march recently. Do you think they did it for fun? Do
you think people demonstrate just for fun or simply to protest? No,
like the hon. member opposite said, in a region such as mine,
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, people march because they have to
deal with certain realities, with seasonal work. This bill will have a
negative impact on seasonal workers. The government would have
us believe otherwise. Fascinating.
There is another reality that I would like to mention, the one our
young people are living in. The situation is clear enough. I have
friends who are still in university and who will be working this
summer. We know how hard it is to find a first job, but people are
always hoping to find one.
With this bill, which makes it even harder to qualify for UI
benefits, we, the young, tell ourselves: ``UI is for other people, for
those who were part of the old system''. Again, young people are
hit in the knees. At least, that is the impression I get.
Another point the hon. member for Mercier mentioned this
morning is something unbelievable that people are not well aware
of, that is, the issue of double jobs. The hon. member said a little
while ago that this bill will precisely benefit those who hold down
two jobs. In a sense you always look good telling the truth, but it
must be the whole truth.
We know that this reform affects people who have two jobs, and
we know full well that it is often young people who have two jobs,
who have two McJobs. Those who have two jobs, let us say job A
and job B-and I am telling you this because it is important-will
have to accumulate a certain number of hours in order to become
eligible. I once had two jobs, as a matter of fact, when I went to
Alberta to learn English.
(1230)
I had two jobs at that time and I suddenly realized that it was too
much for me, so I quit one. Today, if a person quits one of his two
jobs, that person will be penalized in terms of the total number of
hours and in terms of benefits. These are things that my colleague
opposite has neglected to mention.
Again, I would like it so much if people who are watching us
would listen carefully to what I am saying and understand what is
really going on. This bill is scary. It takes us back 20 years. What I
find unfortunate is that the government still refuses to listen,
saying, of course, that the opposition has done nothing to improve
this bill. It is very disappointing, but we will see what happens.
Time will prove us right.
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
addressing Bill C-12, I want to emphasize the positive impact this
legislation will have on the creation of jobs in the country. The
government calculates that the change from unemployment
insurance to employment insurance should create between 100,000
and 150,000 new job opportunities.
I would like to take a minute or two to describe how these figures
were arrived at. First, the modernization of the system will have an
impact. The central change in the EI system is in the way
individuals qualify for benefits. Under the old system, an
individual had to work a certain number of weeks, called a fixed
period, at a minimum of 15 hours per week and had to earn a
minimum amount per week in each one of those weeks to qualify.
In high unemployment areas the minimum was 12 weeks and in
low unemployment areas the minimum was 20 weeks.
Once workers had the minimum number of weeks they could
apply for benefits and the benefit was calculated at 55 per cent of
the average weekly earnings up to a maximum amount. It was also
2620
based on an average of the weekly earnings in the last 12 to 20
weeks worked over a 52 week period.
The problem was there was a built in disincentive to take any
other work beyond the minimum weeks required to qualify,
particularly if the extra work paid anything less than the person was
earning in the previous 12 to 20 weeks. Taking any short term job
that paid less would cut UI benefits if a claim was made. It would
lower the average weekly earnings and, therefore, the benefit
cheque would be less.
If a person was laid off after having worked the minimum period
at the rate of $600 per week, why would a person take a short term
job for maybe two or three weeks that paid only $450 per week? Or
why would the person search out a part time job or any other work
if it meant that in the end he or she would receive lower benefits?
I should also mention the amount of work that goes unreported in
the underground economy. Some people who are unemployed and
on claims take on informal work on which no premium is paid and
no tax collected. This costs other workers in higher premiums and
higher taxes. It also distorts the true picture of the amount of work
that is actually available.
These are some of the major disincentives to work in the old
system. And not just for workers. Many employers also built their
hiring and layoff practices around the rigid weeks worked
component of the old system rather than basing their decisions on
the needs of their marketplace.
Also, in several areas many employers have real difficulty
finding people to work because the unemployment insurance
benefit payment is higher than the employer can afford to pay.
To eliminate these disincentives the new employment insurance
system is based on hours worked, not weeks. Under the new system
every hour worked in the last 52 weeks counts in determining entry.
Therefore, all work is insurable and all earnings over the last 26
weeks count in calculating benefits.
The disincentive to work for longer periods or to take on jobs
that may pay less or to avoid reporting work and earnings will be
reduced. To maximize benefit under the new system workers will
require two more weeks of work beyond the minimum entrance
requirement in each region.
(1235)
Since part time hours are now insurable, declaring them is to the
claimant's advantage. It is especially advantageous for people with
multiple jobs to declare earnings from each of them. Under the new
system individuals can now count back 26 weeks to find the
required hours of work when calculating average earnings for
benefit purposes. The average is then divided by what is called the
divisor which as a minimum is two weeks plus the minimum
number of weeks required in an individual's region. That figure is
now lower in high unemployment areas and higher in lower
unemployment areas compared to Bill C-12. The two weeks are
added to ensure that there is a continuing incentive for people to
work the full period if work is available but at the same time to
ensure that it is not overly harsh on those who have limited work
opportunities.
Another modernization feature of the new system which helps to
create jobs is that people on benefits will be able to earn up to $50
per week, or 25 per cent of their benefit, whichever is higher,
without paying a penalty.
Other features which encourage work are, one, the intensity rule,
whereby repeat claimants receive slightly lower benefits and, two,
higher hours for eligibility for new entrants and those who have
been out of the workforce force for several years.
All of these measures add up to about 150,000 more jobs. In
addition, employment offices will have a greatly enhanced ability
to link up people looking for work with job opportunities. Up to
two million Canadians a year use information and advisory
services available through the national employment service in the
job search. A new computerized job matching system is now in
place. It is called the electronic labour exchange. Located on the
Internet, it matches jobs to people and people to jobs faster than
any traditional method.
People looking for work are also going to have access to a great
deal more information on the qualifications required for different
jobs, as well as things like group information sessions, job search
clubs and other initiatives which will help them get back into the
workforce.
For example, in my riding of Oakville-Milton we have had the
job search club for a year or so and we now have the statistics
reported back as to the success rate. It is 80 percent. That is, 80 per
cent who attended the job search club have now found work.
There will also be appropriate counselling for people who need
help finding work. People will get the kind of direct help they need
to locate employment.
A second change which is going to help create more jobs is the
reduction in premiums and the reduction in the maximum
allowable earnings. The combination of these two measures means
that both employees and employers are going to save a
considerable amount of money. For employers who have
complained that payroll taxes hinder job creation, a modest
reduction means that they will have money to invest in hiring more
people. These
2621
changes will reduce premiums by $1.25 billion in 1996 and are
predicted to create up to 20,000 new job opportunities.
The third area of change which is going to create more jobs is the
new active employment benefits. The government intends to work
in concert with the provinces to help get people back to work. That
means harmonizing the new employment benefits with provincial
programs and making new delivery arrangements which could see
provincial governments delivering federal programs. A series of
federal-provincial agreements will be negotiated to work out the
options.
In reducing overlap and duplication, the government will be
building a more efficient system that will provide better and more
thorough support to unemployed Canadians. While the approaches
may vary from province to province, the primary focus is on
getting results, that is more people back into the workforce.
The government is open to discussions on how best this can be
put into place. It will be investing some $800 million of the savings
that will be achieved with this legislation into active employment
benefits. With the current $1.9 billion already budgeted for
employment services this means now a total of $2.7 billion to
actively help unemployed people get back to work.
Upwards of 400,000 unemployed workers every year will
qualify for a very flexible and innovative series of re-employment
measures.
(1240 )
Instead of getting off the shelf programs, people looking for
work will be getting the kind of direct, personalized support
tailored to get them into a job as quickly as possible. These
methods have been tested and proven. We know they work because
we have seen the results.
Wage subsidies, for example, will encourage hiring and provide
on the job experience. A claimant could arrange for a wage subsidy
with a selected employer who will provide a job that will lead to
long term employment or re-employment somewhere else. The
wage subsidy will help thousands of people move into the
workforce.
For many people, getting off social assistance and
unemployment benefits can be daunting, particularly when getting
a job could mean a less secure income. There are also older
workers facing the switch to a new industry and finding difficulty
adjusting to it. That is why there will also be wage supplements to
temporarily increase income for those who would otherwise find it
difficult to take a lower paying job.
People with the initiative and drive to start up their own
businesses will be eligible for self-employment assistance. In most
cases these new businesses employ the person starting up the
business as well as one or two new employees.
Skills loans and grants will be available for people who need to
upgrade their employment qualifications. These will only be run in
provinces which agree to have federal involvement. A series of
community job partnerships will be undertaken to directly help
people find work and experience while serving in their own
communities.
All these new measures will be in effect nationwide. As the
components of the new EI system begin to serve workers across the
country, the enthusiasm for the new program will grow.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last week I rose in this House to appeal to my colleagues across the
way. I told them we had brought out almost all the reasonable
arguments that human reason could understand, and it seems that
they still do not understood.
I appealed to their hearts by telling them that workers in Canada
and in Quebec want to work, that they are proud people who want
to produce, but unfortunately they are not being given the chance.
The motion proposes that someone who leaves his job voluntarily
would be doubly penalized. This is a disgrace.
It is very surprising to see these people, who were calling for
exactly the opposite when they formed the opposition-I do not
know on what planet or cloud they are living-today calling for
measures that are truly insulting to the workers of Canada and
Quebec.
As proof, I offer what took place yesterday. A group of about a
hundred people set out from my riding of Matapédia-Matane in
the Gaspé Peninsula. These were people who are truly not rich. One
of them told me he had had to sell his house, things were so bad.
These people, who represented 35,000 others, came to the Hill to
meet with the Prime Minister. They remembered that when he was
in opposition-he was then reasonable, I would say-he wrote
certain letters. So they said: ``At least, he will come and see us''.
(1245)
I was at the Langevin Building with them. Three people were
asked to negotiate, if you will, a meeting with Mr. Chrétien. It
appeared to be a huge favour to come and meet people from back
home, who were representing 35,000 people.
So three people from our region went to the office of Mr.
Pelletier. They came back saying: ``Mr. Chrétien is meeting very
important people today-''
The Deputy Speaker: Am I right in understanding that the hon.
member is quoting a letter or something that mentions the Prime
Minister's name? Because, if it is not a quote, he must not use the
Prime Minister's name, but rather refer to him as the Prime
Minister, as the hon. member knows.
2622
Mr. Canuel: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected.
These folks came to meet him. At that point, they were rudely
told: ``You are not important''. People had the indecency to tell
them: ``You do not count''. They were treated in a discourteous, ill
mannered and disrespectful way.
These people from back home said some things I would not
repeat in this House, although they are very polite. They said:
``Please tell your colleagues across the way that they have no
manners''. The people from the Gaspé and from
Matapédia-Matane call it poor manners when, after having
travelled on the bus for 17 hours to meet Canada's first citizen, they
get the brush off because, unfortunately, he does not particularly
feel the need to exert himself since he will not necessarily find
himself unemployed tomorrow. He will lose the next elections, but
he will not necessarily be unemployed, because he has good
connections. But the people where I come from rarely have
connections.
In addition to 17 hours on the road from the Gaspé via my riding,
they put in another 18 on the return trip to make a total of 35 hours
on the road-a solid work week. All that to come and see the Prime
Minister, who did not even condescend to meet them.
Since they could not see the Prime Minister, they thought they
would ask to see Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin was not willing either.
The first request they addressed to the Minister of Human
Resources Development was refused with the words: ``It is a very
important issue, but when people want to see me they have to ask
me a week in advance''. People from back home are not used to
doing that. Although they are very polite, they are not used to all
this red tape, because they themselves earn a living by the sweat of
their brows. They work day and night. There may be a few things
they do not know, but they do know certain things. They know how
to be polite; they know when one can or cannot be received.
We asked the people from back home to be extremely polite. To
which they replied: ``No problem. We are always polite. We know
all about politeness''. There are, however, other people across the
way, including the Prime Minister, who do not know about it.
I am speaking on their behalf today. These people have been
deeply hurt. I wish to thank my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for their hard work. They went all
the way. But the people from back home are also patient. Even
though they are both polite and patient, they said: ``If the Prime
Minister does not want to meet with us, what can we do? If the
Minister of Finance does not want to meet with us, what is left for
us to do?''
(1250)
The Minister of Human Resources Development finally said:
``Yes, I could perhaps meet with you''. So the people said: ``Look,
we have been waiting for two hours. We still have a 18-hour trip
back home to the Gaspé region''. Our leader met with them and
told them: ``This is what the Bloc has done, what we wanted to
do''. We tried in every possible way-by appealing to their minds
and their hearts-to make those people understand all this, but they
refuse to understand.
Some people from my riding talked to me, including the mayor
of Saint-Luc, who was representing a number of regional county
municipalities. She said to me: ``What more can we do? Will other
action have to be taken, like tabling petitions? You have given 120
per cent, but they just will not listen''.
The same people told me: ``We are calm, understanding people.
But to want to use this insurance money that we have been paying
for and that employers have been paying for to reduce the deficit,
that we will never understand. We will never stand for it; it is just
too cruel''. It is cruel, but not only for these people, who, on an
individual basis, could probably wait a tad longer.
In my community, often, in fairly large families, one spouse
works away from home, while the other works, perhaps even
harder, at home. In such cases, the family income is never very
high, which means that the whole family is affected. Yesterday, a
young couple told me: ``If we did not have four kids, it would not
be so bad, we could remain calm a while longer, but we do not think
we will be able to any longer''.
I would like my hon. colleagues opposite to understand. There
must be people who are having difficulties, people on
unemployment in their ridings as well. I call upon my colleagues
opposite and all members of this House to go out and talk to these
people. I am sorry to have to put it this way, but people out there are
disgusted. When I saw them off at the bus, they told me: ``We have
had it''. And when they say they have had it, they mean they have
had it up to here.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 10A.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
2623
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
A recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We are now on Group No. 6.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-12, in Clause 12, be amended by
(a) replacing lines 10 to 18, on page 20, with the following:
``(3) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a
benefit period is 15
(a) because of pregnancy;
(b) because the claimant is caring for one or more new- born children of the
claimant or one or more children placed with the claimant for the purpose of
adoption; and'';
(b) replacing lines 21 to 33 on page 20, with the following:
``(4) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid for a
single pregnancy or for the care of one or more new-born or adopted children as
a result of a single pregnancy or placement is 15.
(5) In a claimant's benefit period, the'';
(c) replacing line 39, on page 20, with the following:
``(a) to more than 15 weeks of benefits, the'';
(d) replacing line 5, on page 21, with the following:
``up to 15 or fewer weeks of benefits, the''; and
(e) replacing lines 12 to 26, on page 21, with the following:
``ceed 30.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the''.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-12, in Clause 61, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 36, on page
59, with the following:
``(2) The Commission shall not provide any financial assistance in a province
in support of employment benefits mentioned in paragraph 59(e) or support
measures under this Part without the agreement of the government of the
province.''
Motion No. 171
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 34, on page 125, the
following new Clause:
``152.1(1) The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the maximum
number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period under
subsection 12(3).
(2) The maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid shall be
the same in the case of pregnancy as in a case where the claimant is caring for
one or more new-born children of the claimant or one or more children placed
with the claimant for the purpose of adoption.''
Motion No. 189
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 25, on page 131, the
following new Clause:
``167.1 Notwithstanding any section of this Act, the Governor in Council
shall, no later than January 1, 1998, amend, by order, those provisions of this
Act that, in its opinion, require amendment in order to eliminate the concept of
``number of hours of insurable employment'' and to replace it with the concept
of ``number of weeks of insurable employment''.''
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-12 , in Clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 10 to 26 on page
22 with the following:
``tion period divided by the larger of the following divisors:
(a) the divisor that equals the number of weeks during the rate calculation
period in which the claimant had insurable eamings, and
(b) the divisor determined in accordance with the following table by reference
to the applicable regional rate of unemployment:
TABLE
Regional Rate of Unemployment Divisor
not more than 6% 22
more than 6% but not more than 7% 21
more than 7% but not more than 8% 20
more than 8% but not more than 9% 19
more than 9% but not more than 10% 18
more than 10% but not more than 11% 17
more than 11% but not more than 12% 16
more than 12% but not more than 13% 15
more than 13% 14
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-12, in Clause 14, be amended
(a) by replacing lines 2 to 6 on page 23 with the following:
``of not more than 26 consecutive weeks in the claimant's qualifying period
ending with the later of
(a) the week
(i) before the claimant's benefit period begins, if it begins on the Sunday of
the week in which the claimant's last interruption of earnings occurs, or
(ii) in which the claimant's last interruption of earnings occurs, if their
benefit period begins on the Sunday of a week that is after the week in
which the claimant's last interruption of earnings occurs, and'';
(b) by adding after line 10 on page 23, the following:
2624
``A prescribed week relating to employment in the labour force shall not be
taken into account when determining what weeks are within the rate calculation
period.
(4.1) The rate calculation period is 26 weeks, unless the claimant's qualifying
period begins on a Sunday that is less than 26 weeks before the Sunday of the
week in which the rate calculation period ends under subsection (4), in which
case it is the number of weeks between those Sundays.''
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-12, in Clause 15, be amended by adding after line 27, on page 24,
the following:
``(1.1) No reduction shall be made under subsection (1) if the claimant is
entitled to a family supplement under section 16.''
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-12, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing lines 15 to 21 on page
31 with the following:
``(b) participating in any other employment activity
(i) for which assistance has been provided for the claimant under
prescribed employment benefits or benefits that are the subject of an
agreement under section 63 and are similar to the prescribed employment
benefits; and
(ii) to which the Commission, or an authority that the Commission
designates, has referred the claimant.''
Motion No. 173
That Bill C-12 be amended by adding after line 16, on page 127, the following
new Clause:
``PART VIII.1
SPECIAL BENEFITS FOR NEW ENTRANTS AND RE-ENTRANTS TO
THE LABOUR FORCE
153.1 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Commission shall, with
the approval of the Governor in Council, make such regulations as it deems
necessary respecting the establishment and operation of a scheme to ensure that
special benefits are provided to persons who are new entrants or re-entrants to
the labour force within the meaning of subsection 7(4), including regulations
(a) for establishing requirements to qualify to receive the benefits, the duration
of entitlement to the benefits, benefit rates, disentitlement and disqualification
from receiving the benefits and benefit repayment requirements; and
(b) varying the application of any other provision of this Act in relation to
persons who have made claims under this Part and who subsequently make
claims under Part I or VIII.
(2) The scheme established by the regulations may, with respect to any
matter, be different from the provisions of this Act relating to that matter.
(3) The scheme established by the regulations may not provide special
benefits to persons who
(a) have less than 700 hours of insurable employment in their qualifying
period; or
(b) are subject to an increase under section 7.1 in the number of hours of
insurable employment required to qualify for benefits.''
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-12, in Clause 14, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 45, on page
23, and lines 1 to 13, on page 24.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have a member
who is ready to speak. The Bloc just finished so I would assume it
is our turn to start. Which motion is leading off?
(1255 )
The Deputy Speaker: The parliamentary secretary is absolutely
correct.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to
speak on Bill C-12 today, a bill that will help Canadians help
themselves.
I did not have the opportunity to speak on the previous motion
put forward by the hon. member for Mercier, but I am sure the hon.
member will be very glad, thinking back, when the motion is
defeated. I expect her premier would be very annoyed. What would
the motion do for anyone in the country?
The recent budget of our neighbouring province was designed to
help people and businesses. The motion would have cost our
neighbouring province of Quebec hundreds of millions of dollars
for businesses. It would have put us behind the eight ball, not
counting the rest of the country.
I heard great news in question period today. Exports are up by
tens of billions of dollars. The Minister for International Trade
shared with us that for every $1 billion in exports, 11,000 jobs are
created, which is good news. It is what we need to hear. I see
confidence being restored in communities across the country.
Following this, investments are made.
My riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington is
situated between Kingston and Belleville, Ontario. In the last 12
months $1 billion has been invested. This is good news for our
youth. Yet we share great concerns about our youth and future of
the country.
Where does the employment insurance bill leave youth? A major
objective of employment insurance is to provide equal coverage to
all workers, ensuring all hours of work are recognized. This is
increasingly important in a world where more and more individuals
have non-standard work patterns. Not only is the number of people
who work part time increasing, but the number of individuals who
earn a living through a number of small jobs is increasing.
The new EI system will have minimal impact on the net income
of young people but includes very important benefits for all part
time workers which includes young people. The new EI system will
reduce benefits by 8 per cent for youth under 25 years of age,
versus 11 per cent for all Canadians, and we must consider
investments made in communities.
2625
The previous speaker said no doubt we have problems and
challenges with UI in our own ridings. We do. People come into
our offices every day. The bill will help these people. The tools
will be available for people who need them.
Given the labour market characteristics of youth, various
elements of the reform will impact differently on young Canadians
than on other age groups. More stringent EI entrance requirements
will affect young workers, which will prevent the development of
dependency on insurance benefits early in their working lives and
will encourage higher levels of employment. With youth as with
other people, we can do more when we offer a hand up rather than a
handout.
The hours based entrance requirement and first dollar coverage
will ensure every hour of work will contribute toward a claimant's
eligibility. Today four out of ten part time workers are less than 25
years old. The EI system will provide income protection for more
young people if they work enough hours.
Young people working less than 15 hours a week, mainly
students, will be required to pay premiums for the first time under
the EI system. The amount will be less than $3 a week for someone
who works 14 hours at $7 an hour. There are advantages to this type
of system. Insuring everyone who works, including working
students, helps to ensure a level playing field in terms of premium
payments and access to jobs.
Making work by students insurable will give recognition to this
labour market attachment once individuals enter the labour market
on a permanent basis. After completing their formal studies, if they
have sufficient work, attachment in their last year as students, for
example 490 hours, they would not have to meet the more stringent
910 hours entrance requirement if they faced difficulty finding
stable employment.
(1300 )
Premiums will be refunded to approximately 625,000 young
people under the premium refund program for individuals with
earnings of $2,000 or less in any calendar year. This represents 48
per cent of all individuals who will receive the refund. As well,
400,000 or 31 per cent of those receiving the refund are full time
students. That represents about 40 per cent of all full time students.
It is recognized that under the first dollar coverage some
employers who primarily employ part time workers will be
required to pay more premiums. That is why it is being proposed
that a two-year premium relief measure be put in place to offset
some of the cost of the first dollar coverage for small business. As
well, 300,000 small businesses will benefit from this measure.
The youth unemployment rate is 16 per cent. It is a shameful
number. It is over one and a half times the national average. Many
young people attend school and depend on summer and/or year
round work to finance their education, as well as to obtain critical
job experience.
The government recognizes the particularly difficult situation
facing youth and students. A number of initiatives have been
announced to address these serious concerns. Youth will benefit
from EI's active employment measures. Several of EI's
employment tools will help unemployed young people get back to
work. Targeted wage subsidies will help young people get the work
experience they need to round out their résumés and to qualify for
jobs. Job creation partnerships will bring government and
community organizations together to give unemployed young
people and others the opportunities they need to develop new, job
ready skills.
Youth will remain as a top priority for federal government
programs funded from general revenues. In the 1996 budget, the
government announced the reallocation of $315 million of budget
savings to help create employment opportunities for young
Canadians over the next three years. Funding for federal summer
job placements will be doubled to $120 million in 1996-97. Most of
the remaining funds are being directed to assist young people who
have left school to find employment opportunities. It will be in
addition to existing funding of $160 million annually for youth
internship and youth service Canada.
Many of these initiatives will be targeted to those with lower
levels of education. They will also focus on providing employment
opportunities in new and emerging sectors.
Ontario is a diverse province. There is very high unemployment
in northern Ontario. In my own riding along the south shores of
Lake Ontario where $1 billion is invested there is a lower rate of
unemployment. In the north part of my riding it is a much higher
rate. Different parts of the province will have different entry levels
for EI so we can treat the people fairly according to their area.
Employment insurance will get unemployed workers back into
jobs more quickly than before. Again, workers will be encouraged
to help themselves.
Ontario has had to deal with major adjustments to the emerging
high tech economy. Many workers lost well-paying factory and
office jobs and found themselves ill-equipped to move into new
jobs with comparable wages. As a result, more Ontarians have
faced longer periods of unemployment. More targeted, proactive
re-employment measures will assist the workers to find and
maintain employment and deal with this type of structural
unemployment.
Employment insurance means a workforce better prepared to
meet the challenges of the rapidly changing job market in Ontario.
The national employment service will offer higher quality job
market information, on-line job matching services and customized
employment services. Helping Ontario get back to work more
2626
quickly means more competitive industries in Canada's economic
heartland.
I have heard people talk about these job kiosks and that they can
be a positive or a negative according to where they are. My riding
of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington has more than
5,000 miles of main road. The riding reaches from Lake Ontario to
Algonquin Park. There cannot be an HRD office in all of these
towns, yet throughout the riding there are job kiosks. This will save
people driving 50 miles to find out what is available. Statistics
prove that when people are encouraged to help themselves find
work, they find work.
(1305)
I recently stopped at North Brook, Ontario. Even I could run the
kiosk. I could punch the keys and bring up the jobs. If I could do it,
I am sure anybody can run that computer. Often there are jobs
listed. It is good for the people in local areas to find out what is
available.
The different parts of the EI legislation have to be addressed. We
will have to watch to see that it does what we want it to do. The new
system will be monitored. Across the country, we will be watching
to see what happens. We want to help people because people are the
most important part of our economy.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I respect
the hon. member, with whom I have been working for over two
years, but I respectfully submit that he is deluding himself.
Let us not kid ourselves. This bill will result in the loss of
student jobs. Members of the Association des restaurateurs made it
very clear when they came to my office. The government did not
even deem appropriate to exempt students from having to pay
contributions, at least those interested.
Students already face all kinds of cost increases. Now, they will
have to pay UI premiums and will only be repaid the following
year, when they file their income tax returns. My fellow Bloc
members will get back to this issue.
This group includes the famous amendments to the first bill,
which was so unacceptable that the government had to make
changes as a result of the public outcry. At this point, I have
something to tell members who keep saying that the opposition did
not do its job because it did not move any amendments.
Parliamentary procedure is such that a royal recommendation is
required in order to make amendments affecting expenditures or
revenues, whether in committee or in the House. So, do not tell us
that we did not do our homework.
I also want to say that, in 1993, Liberal members were
thoroughly upset and demanded that the legislation be withdrawn.
So, if your memory is failing, try at least to remember as far back
as 1993.
Let us take a look at the substance of these amendments, which
are supposed to be beneficial not only for seasonal workers, but for
all those who do not have stable jobs, jobs lasting the whole year.
This includes those who work part time, who have odd jobs, who
have contracts for a specific period, or who hold down one or two
jobs.
You will remember that the government had imposed a time
period. This measure was obviously so bad that there was strong
public protest, which resulted in a number of amendments being
proposed. However, we have to be honest here. Instead of solving
the problem of the majority, the legislation before us will facilitate
things for some.
A huge economic and social problem remains for most people.
Why? Because the government continues to propose that earnings
will be calculated over a period of only 26 weeks, out of 52. Worse
still, the last version of the bill provides for a difference of two
additional weeks in the length of unemployment period accepted,
but it also provides that any week during which wages are earned
will be included.
(1310)
This means that this will create an inflexibility not yet found in
the provinces, in the regions where there is a lot of seasonal
employment. This means that, from a strictly economic point of
view-I am not even talking about individuals-people will only
take work that gives them the weeks, the divisor they need. They
will not want to work short weeks, because short weeks would
decrease their earnings, and people are not crazy.
What it means is that employers and workers will continue to act
in an intelligent manner, in other words, they will work out
agreements. And they will do this, however much you increase the
penalties. You are upping the penalties, both in money and in time
required for eligibility.
You are in the process of creating a mindless mishmash. It makes
no sense. You talk about flexibility, but you create rigid conditions
and put people in the terrible situation of having to accept zero
earnings or place themselves in the position of being found guilty
of fraud and other awful things.
We were told in committee that, with the amendments, workers
would continue to accumulate hours in order to have decent weeks.
Essentially, this amendment does not resolve anything.
Employers who want to have employees will have to agree with
them so that a work week makes sense. This will continue to create
rigidity and, worse, many people who were able to qualify will not
be able
2627
to do so any more, because the 26 weeks are not always sufficient.
That is true for people who work in the tourism sector, and not only
in the regions.
Indeed, there are many people in Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver
and Victoria who are trying to get by and who can find term
employment at the beginning of the year. If they do not qualify,
they live from hand to mouth with their mother, their buddy or their
girlfriend and then go look for another job. This provision does not
make any sense.
The government should understand there is no rush to introduce
this reform that will mean a reduction in premiums of $1 billion for
this year. What is the rush to reduce insurable maximum earnings?
What is the rush to reduce benefits from a maximum of $445 to
$413 and to further reduce to $140 or $120 benefits for people who
barely get by with $200 per week? What is the rush?
In the maritimes, the 1994 reform and the one presently on the
table will mean $800 million less every year. Every year. Do not
tell me the $300 million over three years will make up or
compensate for that. That does not make any sense. This is not a
policy that makes sense on the economic or the social level. I see
many members smiling. People from the Gaspe Peninsula who
came yesterday had despair written on their faces, and that is not
funny.
For many years, these people have been living in difficult
conditions and having a hard time. They live through difficult and
sometimes extreme climate conditions and, for many years, they
have been accused of cheating, of milking the system; they cannot
take it any more. So, when proposals such as these are made, they
say they have had it up to here; they cannot take it any more.
I wished their colourful accent alone would be sufficient to send
us back to the drawing board. There is no rush to make a whole
bunch of insecure by taking away from them the only pittance they
can still count on, when it is feasible and possible.
I am far from talking only for Quebec. I have talked many times
for Canadians as a whole.
(1315 )
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
some regret that I do not have the time in this grouping to do an
analysis of the member's remarks.
Most of us here know there needs to be a critical analysis done
on those remarks. It really surprises me to hear the comments of the
hon. member for Mercier on basically supporting restaurant owners
who clearly do not want the current hour system in place because
they like that 15 hour trap.
As the member said and the restaurant owners are suggesting,
students should be provided with an exemption for EI premiums
because they will not qualify for benefits. Some students can
qualify for EI. Those who lose a part time job may qualify if
available for work during the same hours as before.
Members opposite have complained about the entrance
requirements. Work as a student can help someone meet new entry
requirements when they enter the labour market on a permanent
basis. Four hundred thousand full time students making $2,000 a
year or less annually would have all premiums refunded. This
represents about 40 per cent of full time students with earnings.
The government is working in other ways to help create
employment opportunities for youth, in part through the $315
million announced in the budget.
In this group of amendments in the course of my remarks I want
to give the members opposite a challenge to support more openness
and more decision making by MPs in government.
As the member for Malpeque I have an amendment at this stage
to improve the bill. Motion No. 23, if carried, will ensure that
members of Parliament will be given greater control over future
changes in the EI act. That is what democracy is all about.
Members of Parliament can be involved more in the decision
making process.
The bill in clause 14(5) reads: ``For the purpose of achieving a
uniformed divisor of 22 in subsection (2), the minister may, with
the approval of the governor in council, by regulation amend the
table in that subsection by increasing to a maximum of 22''.
Subsections (6) to (12) give the rules of procedure in terms of how
that would be done.
My rationale for deleting those clauses of the bill are this. Under
the current legislation the minister would bring forward an increase
to the divisor on the basis of a report to the minister, not
Parliament, which satisfies the minister, not Parliament, that
individuals, communities and the economy have adequately
adjusted to the changes contained in the act to the insurance and
employment assistance programs and to the effectiveness of the
employment benefits and support measures contained in the act.
The terms and conditions of the report and the process by which
is provided to Parliament are outlined in clause 3 of Bill C-12.
However, in terms of examining clause 14, as written, there is no
provision made that the minister must await a report from the
appropriate parliamentary committee before the minister can bring
forward the regulations increasing the divisor.
I always worry about what the minister may or may not do.
Increasingly the public is concerned about government by
executive council rather than by the people's representatives. By
deleting this section we ensure any changes relative to the divisor
will be
2628
made after appropriate discussion and legislative change in the
House.
(1320)
I agree with the concerns of the public of executive government
and that decisions of the magnitude of increasing the divisor should
be made only after serious debate by representatives of all parties
in the House of Commons.
There is no question there are some out there who are using that
section of the act against us right now. There are some who are
saying these are great amendments put forward, known as the
Scott, Regan and Augustine amendments, but really they are saying
these are just smoke and mirrors because after 1998 ``the minister
may''.
What this amendment will do is to ensure that those amendments
made by my colleagues in the Liberal Party will remain intact. If
further changes are to be made, they will be debated in the House
prior to any such changes being made. The public will have a
chance to have input.
There are other good reasons for this amendment. I am sure the
members opposite will enjoy this. On page 91 of the red book there
is the following statement:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable.
The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that
disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of the public business
beyond closed doors.
This amendment ensures we meet that red book commitment and
that debates are held in this place prior to important decisions being
made.
What will be required of the minister is that without the sections
currently in the bill the minister will have to table in the House the
appropriate legislation to increase the divisor. As a result of this the
bill to increase the divisor will receive first and second reading,
committee examination, report state and third reading, as all
legislation currently does.
As a result members of Parliament will have an opportunity of
debating and, if required, amending the legislation on future
divisors. The report provided to the minister under clause 3 will
then have a key role to reform in providing the government and
members with the justification for any future changes to the
divisor.
Most important, Canadians who will be directly affected by any
changes in the future will have the opportunity of submitting their
views to their MPs in a parliamentary committee.
Taking power out of regulation, out of the bureaucracy and
putting it into the hands of parliamentarians and the people they
represent is improving democracy and improving openness in
government.
I expect members opposite as well would see the amendment as
worthy of their support. This is a real opportunity for members
opposite to support openness in government and I call on them to
support this very important amendment.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleagues
across the floor speaking in support of this legislation. It amuses
me, to say the least.
We find these reforms supposedly made to the unemployment
insurance act are really cosmetic changes that in essence centralize
rather than decentralize.
This whole reform to the unemployment insurance program will
not help create any jobs. It will probably be instrumental in
bringing job loss to the part time workforce.
I would like to speak to the government's promise in the budget
speech that it would not raise any taxes. I find that quite funny
because here we have it adding a 7 per cent payroll tax through a
change in the unemployment insurance program. This 7 per cent
payroll tax will affect part time workers, the young people who are
trying to enter the workforce in part time employment while they
are going to school, many of whom are trying to help finance their
education.
(1325)
This will be a great loss to them. It will also be a loss to part time
workers who happen to be mothers trying to get some work
experience to get back into the workforce when their children are
old enough to go to school.
For these young people and moms who work part time this
change in the unemployment insurance act will reduce the number
of jobs available to them. It will add a tax burden to the employers
as well as to these part time workers. I find it a bit hypocritical that
the government said in the budget it would not bring in any new
taxes but then brings them in under program changes.
This 7 per cent payroll tax is likely to affect about 2.23 million
jobs. That is not a small number. It is a substantial number of first
time jobs and part time jobs which will be affected by the
legislation. Our party is very concerned about that.
Our party is also very concerned about the lack of changes to
maternity benefits. Presently there are two benefits, a maternity
benefit for natural parents and a parental benefit for both natural
and adoptive parents. Under the present system a natural parent
may be eligible for both benefits up to 30 weeks, whereas an
adoptive parent is eligible only for a minimum of 15 weeks.
The Reform amendments to the legislation repeal both of these
benefits and introduce one new child care benefit for which all
2629
parents, natural or adoptive, may apply. This benefit is for a
duration of a maximum of 15 weeks.
We have heard adoptive parents tell us they feel very
discriminated against under the present legislation because they are
eligible for only 15 weeks where natural parents are eligible for 30
weeks. We in the Reform Party believe there should not be any
discrimination in government legislation. Therefore we would like
to see this discrimination removed.
The Reform child care benefit would eliminate any inequities or
discrimination between these different types of parents. It would
avoid making any value judgments as to whether natural or
adoptive parents are more deserving of certain types of leave,
longer leave, et cetera. Instead they would all be eligible for the
same period of benefits, 15 weeks.
These changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act are positive
moves and something which should be supported by government
members.
We also find great difficulty in a promise by the government
during the referendum debate of last fall when it promised it would
transfer manpower training to the province. Under this legislation
it is reneging on that promise and keeping control of manpower
training at the federal level. The government has failed to meet this
promise and that changes should be made to bring the dollars for
manpower training under the jurisdiction and control of the
provinces.
The Reform Party believes that although there are changes which
need to be made to the unemployment insurance programs, the
government has fallen far short of meeting some of the great needs
the country faces. We do not feel its changes have done anything
but add more dollars to the coffers for the federal government to
spend recklessly.
It is undermining job creation. It is undermining young people in
their attempts to enter the workforce. By not addressing
discrimination of parental benefits and maternity in the legislation
it is certainly continuing the discriminatory practice.
I urge government members to consider the amendments placed
before the House by the Reform Party and give them due
consideration to improve the legislation they have put before the
House.
(1330)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the
hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and say that I also
observe the rules that members must speak in turn.
I heard the comments made by the Reform member. I share
many of her views, especially about the broken promise concerning
provincial repatriation of manpower training. But I am more
critical of the hon. member for Malpeque who, once again, decided
to correct the facts given by the hon. member for Mercier. I think
he got his figures all wrong when he said that the government
announced a $315 million allocation for young people.
As the critic for youth and training up to last month, I can say
that, according to the press release issued by the Minister of
Human Resources Development, the amount was rather $160
million. I will not make an issue of it, but it is very important.
I do commend the hon. member for one thing: his amendment
should limit the power of the Minister of Human Resources
Development by forcing him to report to the House. I recognize
that as a good point. At the same time, this suggests a certain
degree of mistrust in the overly centralized power of ministers of
Human Resources Development, present and future.
The hon. member referred once again to the red book, when he
talked about transferring powers from bureaucrats to committees
and to the House. He should not have mentioned that, since we
were gagged in committee. For only the second time in this
Parliament and the first time since Confederation, a committee got
gagged by the House.
Mr. Easter: It was a filibuster.
Mr. Dubé: There have been lots of filibusters on other
occasions, but for the first time since Confederation and the second
time in this Parliament, the government has curtailed the
proceedings of a committee. So much for that promise. The hon.
member for Malpeque was a member of that committee. He says
that they will hold more consultations and that they will avoid
holding consultations behind closed doors.
I would remind the hon. member for Malpeque that we proposed
that consultations on the Unemployment Insurance Act be held in
the field, but the Liberal majority refused, preferring to hold them
in Ottawa. However, they agreed to hear witnesses, but through
video conference, not in the field. We asked the Liberal members if
it was possible to hear several groups at a time through video
conference. They said: ``No, only one group at a time, and only two
people''. They do not want them to be in a room where people
could hear and see, even though in the Gaspé peninsula and in
many other areas people do not have access to the TV channel
broadcasting committee proceedings.
In spite of that objection, they said no and they curtailed debate.
Was that the red book promise, to start holding consultations and
then ask the House to first gag the committee, and second to limit
debate at report stage and allow only one day of debate on third
reading? We have to remember that second reading was skipped
because we supposedly had had a pre-study in committee.
2630
I would rather judge people after what they do and not after
what they say or even what they write. The red book was prepared
three years ago, and it is only this year that things get done.
In previous comments, I spoke about the unemployment rate. I
have here a Canadian Press report published by the daily La Presse.
Here is what it says: ``The unemployment rate is underestimated,
Scotia says. A study by the Bank of Nova Scotia says that the real
unemployment rate in Canada is higher that the official monthly
figures. Two economists at the bank have estimated that the real
unemployment rate in March was not the 9.3 per cent reported by
Statistics Canada, but 13 per cent. The study offers a depressing
view of an economy unable to generate enough jobs to keep up with
the number of people capable of working''.
(1335)
It goes on to say: ``-the number of employed people has grown
at only one-third the pace of people old enough to work during the
1990s. Officially, the unemployment rate has dropped from 11.9
per cent in 1992 to 9.3 per cent in March''.
The study says that some people are now being left out of
statistics. This is a serious study by the Bank of Nova Scotia.
Since we are dealing with figures, let me point out another thing,
that is the unemployment insurance fund surplus. When the
government took office in 1993, the deficit for that year was of
$1.208 billion. The following year, that is the first full year the
government was in power, there were cuts-Bill C-17 was enacted
and its effects are still being felt-and there was a $2.283 billion
surplus.
The preliminary data for 1995 show a $4.313 billion surplus.
Because of the measures the government is expected to take, the
surplus should reach $4.805 billion and we know it will go up to $5
billion. As the hon. member for Mercier said, in a surplus situation,
why was the government in such a hurry to go ahead with this
initiative? Also, this year, we are forgoing something like a billion
dollar in premiums. Why? What was the hurry?
According to the government's own documents, the
repercussions in each of the provinces are as follows: for 1997-98,
we have 13 per cent less: $43 million for Newfoundland; for PEI,
the province of the hon. member for Malpeque, it is 10 per cent
less, $15 million; for Nova Scotia, 8 per cent less; for New
Brunswick, $65 million, 11 per cent less; for Quebec, $400 million,
8 per cent less; for Ontario, $300 million, 6 per cent less; for
Manitoba, $30 million, 6 per cent less; for Saskatchewan, $20
million, 6 per cent less; for Alberta, $80 million, 6 per cent less; for
British Columbia, 9 per cent less.
I would like to remind those who believe that some economic
sectors will be winners that all of them will be losers, according to
the figures of the Department of Human Resources Development.
In agriculture, it is 12 per cent less; in forestry, 14 per cent less; in
mines, 7 per cent less; in manufacturing, 9 per cent less; in
construction, 9 per cent less; in transports, 8 per cent less; in
communications, 3 per cent less; in wholesale trade, 6 per cent
less-and I am mentioning the highest only; in the hotel industry, 8
per cent less; in other services, 7 per cent less; for an average of 8
per cent less. All economic sectors will be losers according to the
figures of the Department of Human Resources Development.
Amendments were moved. The three would add up to $365
million, of which $345 million will come supposedly from savings
made because of a better fight against fraud by the government. It
is hoped that $345 million will be recovered. Right now, fraud
recovery is estimated at a total of $90 million. How can we recover
four times that amount? We would need to catch four times as
many cheaters to get that amount. That is what the bill is all about.
I repeat, despite its name, this is not a reform aimed at creating
employment opportunities, but a reform aimed at imposing more
control on potential unemployed persons. As the hon. member for
Malpeque said, the reform should be a reform aimed at eliminating
bureaucratic errors. About $300 million were lost because of errors
and three times out of four these errors are made by the Department
of Human Resources Development.
I would like to mention the administrative errors contained in the
numbers given by the bureaucrats. The last evening of our work in
committee, I myself spotted two errors in a computer produced
table distributed by the government. One of them concerned
Quebec and, listen to this, it was an error of $4 million made by the
computers.
(1340)
It was the same thing for B.C. I cannot give you the total picture,
but the real impact for Quebec was a loss of about 6 per cent of the
total-and a loss is a loss. With the three Liberal amendments,
there are possible savings of $365 million. I do not say that it would
be the best solution, because the $2 billion in cuts will remain, but
at least, it is not as bad.
[English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lévis for editing the reports
which guided our deliberations late into the night.
I would like to explain the amendments. In order to explain the
need to make the amendments I want to put on the record why I
personally believe the legislation was worthy of amendment rather
than rejection. There are some good things in the bill that I want to
bring to the attention of the House.
2631
The shift from weeks to hours as the method of calculating
eligibility or the value of work is an improvement, in terms of
accessibility, in terms of duration, and in terms of people who
have multiple jobs, for 87 per cent of the labour force in the
province of New Brunswick. Eighty-seven per cent of the people
work more than 35 hours a week. If they work more than 35 hours
a week they benefit from the new bill.
People are entitled to employment benefits even after they have
exhausted income benefits going back three years, or five years in
the case of maternity or illness. That means all kinds of people who
lost out on UI based programs in the past will now be eligible for
up to three or five years of benefits, depending on the nature of
their previous benefits.
The people whose family income is less than $26,000 saw, even
before the amendments to which I am about to speak, an average
increase in benefits of 7 per cent.
Finally, and this is very important, I support the clawback as it
applies to people who draw on the system every year at the high
income levels. Committee members from across the way were
having difficulty with this, so I want to put it on the record. I do not
think we can sustain the program politically if there are people
making the minimum wage, working regular jobs and paying into
the program when there are people making twice as much money
and drawing every year, year over year. I just do not think that can
be politically sustained. I am not talking about someone who lost
their job; I am talking about someone who makes a large amount of
money and draws every year. I do not think it is fair.
Having said that, there are three major amendments. There are
many amendments and I thank the hon. member for Malpeque for
recognizing the need to amend the suggestion that would allow the
government to move on its incremental shifts.
There is the intensity rule. At the start we were talking about an
intensity rule which would draw down the level of benefits from 55
to 45 on 10 weeks. By the time the legislation was introduced in
December it was drawn down from 55 to 50, depending on 20 week
blocks. The amendment of the hon. member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore will protect low income families whose
family incomes are under $26,000 from the intensity rule. That
means that instead of increasing their benefits by 7 per cent, their
benefits will be increased by 13 per cent. That is a 13 per cent
average increase in benefits for people whose family incomes are
less than $26,000.
On the question of the divisor, when we originally started talking
about it a year and a half ago we were talking about something in
the neighbourhood of 26 weeks as a constant. By the time the
legislation came forward it was 20 weeks. Then it was decided, to
the credit of the former minister, that it should be done
incrementally so as not to shock the system too much. It would be
done over a period of time.
(1345 )
Finally, the fourth time the divisor was changed via an
amendment presented by the member for Halifax, the divisor
became two weeks more than the amount one would need to get
into the system. In my part of the country it is 12, 14, 15 or 16
weeks, depending on the unemployment rate, plus 2. That is the
improvement to the divisor. It is a significant improvement worth
an enormous amount of money to people who cannot afford to lose
in this program.
Third, there is the gap. I am inexplicably linked to the gap on this
issue. I have a hat. Every time the commercials come on American
television my kids say that daddy's going to be on television, they
are talking about the gap.
When the shift was made from weeks to hours, the government
had to come up with a mechanism to determine how much money a
person would get in the new system. The original proposal was that
from the time persons made their claim, they would go back the
amount of weeks as defined by the divisor. Unfortunately, the
language of the bill was that one would go back 14 weeks, or 15
weeks or 16 weeks. There was no reference to work.
Consequently, if claimants worked a period and were off for a
period, then worked enough to get their claim, when they counted
back consecutive weeks from their claim, there were many zeros. It
was because people worked in industries where they might work in
the spring and in the fall but might not work in the summer. It is
very important to recognize that space.
The amendment that I was proud to put forward states that if one
does not work for up to 26 weeks, it does not count. One can go
back from the time one lays a claim, not to weeks but to weeks of
work. By doing that $246 million was put into the system which
will go into the hands of people who are struggling to put enough
weeks together to draw employment insurance. It is very important
that Canadians understand exactly what this means. There is equity
in the program.
I would like to thank the two ministers, the present minister and
his predecessor, for having engaged this place in a very extensive
discussion. Anyone who says that this debate was closed down
should have been with the committee in Whitehorse, Edmonton,
Saskatoon, Victoria, Vancouver, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, all over the
country. Over a couple of years it received approximately 600
briefs.
This was a very well debated issue. As a result, many changes
were made. I remember the two-tier concept which we do not see
anymore. There are various amendments I have talked about today.
We went into this exercise with a twofold objective, to deal with
2632
the anomalies created by unemployment insurance of which there
are many. That has been done.
It is not over. It will never be over. It is an ongoing process to
which improvements can always be found. I am beginning to
identify some aspects of the system which need attention. On
balance it is a significant improvement which constitutes very
significant reform in the system.
Again I thank both ministers, I thank all colleagues involved
over the past two years in committees on this issue. It has been an
incredible exercise. As I said a week ago during debate on this bill,
the system, the committee and the process has served the nation
well.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the motions in Group No.
6. I believe they were moved by the Reform Party, the Liberal
Party, the Bloc and the NDP.
(1350)
The Bloc motions seek to delete many clauses of the bill, namely
clauses 12, 14, 25 and 27 to 61, which would make the bill
inoperative as far as those clauses are concerned. As my colleague
from Mercier said on several occasions, members will recall that
this strategy was used ad nauseam by the current Minister of
Human Resources Development when the Conservatives
introduced the controversial GST legislation in this House.
Members will also recall that the minister himself presented more
than 60 amendments to neutralize one by one all the clauses of the
bill on the GST.
Following that, the Liberal government promised to
``scrap''-of course, I am quoting here-the GST, and this promise
resulted in the resignation of a member, a minister and, to some
extent, in a loss of confidence of Canadians in this government.
Along with the attempt to delete some clauses, other
amendments were also moved. All that allowed us to point out and
prove to the population that our fundamental option on this issue is
a perfect match for what ought to be the population's best interests.
Our main option is to have the bill withdrawn and to start all over
from scratch.
Why? Because this bill is utterly unfair. It will result in
claimants receiving fewer benefits for shorter periods of time and
therefore being forced to go on welfare much sooner.
My colleague for Lévis earlier quoted new statistics from Scotia
Bank indicating clearly that the unemployment rate quoted, the one
given in the statistics, is not the real rate, because more and more
people are not appearing in the statistics on unemployment or
elsewhere. They have simply stopped receiving benefits and are
not yet getting welfare, although they are headed in that direction.
The bill is also unfair because it will be increasingly difficult to
obtain unemployment insurance and because the bill creates two
categories of unemployed: the ordinary unemployed and the
frequently unemployed, that is, seasonal workers who will not have
quite the same rights.
The bill is also somewhat regressive. There has been a lot of talk
about the decrease in the maximum insurable earnings from
$42,380 to $39,000. What does this mean in reality? It means that
people earning over $39,000 will stop contributing. That is, people
who earn over $39,000, before, it was $42,000, will contribute less,
and the big companies employing them will also pay less. The
difference in the amounts is estimated at $1 billion right now. This
reduction in contributions will, to be compensated, be transferred
to the base of the pyramid, to the lowliest folks, those hardest up
and those who work very infrequently. They will be taxed. Their
contributions will have to be paid the first hour they work.
So $1 billion from the upper class and the most profitable
companies will be transferred to the class of people earning the
least and to small and medium size businesses, which are the only
ones that create jobs. Therefore, this bill is anti-employment,
because employers who have workers earning more than $39,000
and who need people to work 10 per cent overtime will, instead of
hiring people who will pay premiums as soon as they start working,
prefer to ask those already employed to work overtime. This means
there will be no incentive to share work.
From a fiscal or bookkeeping point of view, the surplus of $5
billion will, as we have so often said, show up on the books as
government assets when, in actual fact, it is as though the
government were garnisheeing wages to artificially reduce its
deficit.
Each and every time they address the bill before us, the
government has been trying to find a scapegoat.
(1355)
We all remember what the Prime Minister himself said at least
twice in the House. It was two years ago, I think. When asked why
public finances were in such a mess, he answered it was the
beer-guzzling couch potatoes that were to blame. This made the
headlines for a while, but he had just singled out those in the
system who were to be targeted by the cuts and let on that they
should been ashamed.
Furthermore, my Liberal colleague for Malpeque said this
morning, among other things, since he spoke several times, that it
would be like encouraging some people to burn down their own
houses, to torch the system. But we all know that those who are
torching the system are not those at the bottom of the social scale.
2633
They are not on UI benefits. The auditor general has just identified
them.
I will just take a few minutes to read an article on what was just
found by the auditor general. It made the news for only one day, but
I hope there will be more reports on this topic, because it is the tip
of a gigantic iceberg. The auditor tells us: ``We have examined two
advance rulings concerning transfers to the United States of assets
worth at least $2 billion held by family trusts in Canada. In our
opinion, the transactions these decisions were about''- listen to
what the auditor has to say, he is the epitome of diplomac -``have
thwarted the legislator's intent''-this means that the law was not
abided by, but it is put in very kinds terms-``with regard to taxing
capital gains''.
This means that $2 billion were transferred from a Canadian
family trust to the United States. This case was under review. By
making this decision, the government created a precedent, and
now, if the decision is not rescinded, everybody will take advantage
of it.
Today we put a question to the minister on this very issue. I will
repeat the question: The minister has the authority to rescind
decisions by Revenue Canada and collect hundreds of millions, if
not billions, of dollars in taxes owed to the federal government. Is
she going to take action? Her answer was that she had taken action.
She was reviewing the case.
In the meantime, billions of dollars are going south and the
unemployed, who have hardly any means of support, are being
pointed out as parasites. I think it is a case of mistaking identity:
the ones who are torching the system are not the ones we think. As
a matter of fact, the auditor is not the only one to raise this issue. I
will remind the House that he is not a member of the Bloc
Quebecois nor the Parti Quebecois, of course.
Yesterday, the Financial Post came out with some astonishing
news based on material it obtained, apparently, from Revenue
Canada, and I quote:
[English]
A federal government report points to news of offshore tax
havens by Canadian corporations and says up to 20 per cent of
international transactions that should be reported are hidden from
Revenue Canada. Who is the problem in this country?
[Translation]
We should not be singling out the unemployed. We should start
by collecting the taxes that companies do not pay. I continue.
[English]
The study suggests as much as $60 billion-
[Translation]
We hear figures of $500 million, $200 million. We are singling
out the unemployed as one of the biggest problems in Canada. We
spend a whole week talking about that and, meanwhile, $60 billion
have left the country. We have set precedents which will allow this
practice to continue. We put questions to the minister and she tells
us that she is studying the matter.
People whose unemployment insurance will be cut-and it will
come pretty fast-should remember that if they are targeted for
cuts, if the government is appropriating the surplus of the
unemployment insurance fund to reduce the deficit, it is because
billions are leaving the country without any taxes being paid and
nothing is being done to prevent it.
I will just read a little bit more:
[English]
Total international transactions by banks and trust companies
soared to $84 billion in 1991 from $52 billion in the previous year.
[Translation]
Thus there is a constant upward trend. Since coming to the
House, from the very first weeks in fact, the Bloc Quebecois has
been asking for an exhaustive study of the Canadian taxation
system, family trusts and tax havens. What did we get? We have
absolutely no idea how many family trusts there are. We have no
idea how much money there is in those trusts. However, we know
that billions of dollars leave Canada while the unemployed are
being used as scapegoats.
(1400)
As far as tax havens are concerned, we are told the issue will be
examined in a few months by people who are the chief users of
such tax havens. You can easily understand that we are not
enthused about supporting an unemployment insurance reform in
such circumstances.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, because of the
difficult economic context of the past few years, most people must
now question how long their jobs will last and how secure they are.
Because of the economic context, even someone who has been in
the same job for the last 10, 15 or 20 years can no longer be sure of
how long he will be able to keep it.
Recent examples have shown how bad the situation is. The most
recent one is the Kenworth plant, where workers whose jobs had
seemed secure for many years suddenly learned the plant was
closing. In this kind of context, people must be much more
provident than before in preparing for what could almost be called
the whims of fate. No one today knows whether they will be able to
keep their jobs.
As a result, all the plans people were making to buy things like
houses, trips or cars have become uncertain. People can no longer
make long term plans because they feel insecure. In the old days,
their relative job security allowed them to spend or at least to think:
``If I ever lose my job because of economic conditions, I can still
2634
count on unemployment insurance to keep me at the same income
level for a certain time while I look for a new job''.
People had much more confidence in the unemployment
insurance system, which was then a true insurance policy. It was
aimed at providing a degree of security for workers; it was a
cushion protecting them against job loss. People could still afford
to buy a house on the grounds that, if they lost their jobs and were
without a salary for a few months, UI would make up the
difference. With the help of lending institutions such as banks and
credit unions, they could hope to pull through.
In the last two years in my riding office I have had the
opportunity to meet with and talk to hundreds of people having
problems with the UI system. The economic context being as I
described earlier, more and more people have trouble seeing the UI
system as a real insurance policy in case of job loss.
Not only did the unemployment insurance fund show a deficit
during those years, but the administrative process became heavier
and the claims system became more complicated to a point where
people in need were not even sure if they would qualify for
unemployment insurance.
(1405)
Here are a few examples. First, let us look at people who have a
business and who have a family, who have children. The first
people they hire are their children, which is quite normal.
Let us suppose I own an asphalt paving company. You know that,
in Canada, at least in Quebec and I think in most provinces, asphalt
paving is a summer industry. It is rather difficult to pave streets,
driveways, and so on, in the winter.
Let us suppose I own an asphalt paving company and I hire my
two sons to work for me. They work all summer but, unfortunately,
I have to tell them in November: ``I no longer have work for you.
There is no paving work done in driveways and in the streets
because snow is coming. The government has stopped all highway
construction work for the winter''.
Therefore, I advise my sons, who paid unemployment insurance
premiums during the whole period, to apply for UI benefits for the
winter. But now people at the UI office question the validity of
their claims. They think there is something fishy because they are
the owner's sons. There were no questions asked when it came time
to take the premiums, to deduct the premiums from their salary, but
now when they come to claim benefits, there is a great concern
over whether the owner's son was really in an employer-employee
relationship or whether it was not more of a father-son relationship.
All the while the UI inspectors carry out their investigation, the
kids have no income. They too, in turn, must deprive their own
children of the necessities of life because when you have no
income, the whole family suffers.
While UI is carrying out its investigation, these citizens who
paid UI premiums do not receive benefits, until it is established
beyond all doubt that they are indeed entitled to them, until it is
established beyond all doubt that if these kids had not done the
work, their father would have had to hire other people to do it.
This is the kind of thing that, in my opinion, is very unfair to
people paying for a service. If there was a desire to improve things,
instead of assuming from the outset that people were dishonest and
taking advantage of a situation, why not trust them and assume
from the outset that, in these cases, since their premiums were
accepted, they will be considered eligible for unemployment
insurance and receive the benefits claimed? If investigations are
needed, let themm be done afterward; if false claims are
discovered, people will be penalized accordingly. But taxpayers
who have made contributions cannot be made to wait for months
until an investigation is over.
That is the first example of how Bill C-12, as it stands, does not
make unemployment insurance any better.
My second example involves availability, which we would have
liked to have seen improved by Bill C-12. Someone on UI would
often like to take training, so as to improve his chances in today's
competitive atmosphere. His idea is: if I am having trouble making
a living with the knowledge, experience, skills and training I have
at present, I will try to improve my situation by taking some
upgrading courses and learning something new. This is a
completely normal reaction, and one many people have.
(1410)
Unfortunately, when a person is receiving unemployment
insurance, he does not have the luxury of doing this, for anyone
who enrols in a course is considered by unemployment insurance
officials to be no longer available for work. In other words, if you
get off your backside and take the initiative to do something, you
will get your UI cut off as no longer available for work. Not very
encouraging to those trying to help themselves.
We might have hoped that Bill C-12 would have done something
to help these people improve their situation, but no. And what is
worse yet, when there were openings for people to take courses,
they were even told: ``Sir or Madam, you have too much education
already, you have plenty of training, you are quite self-sufficient
enough, so you do not need this course. So just keep on waiting
until we find some way to help you''.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating that my time is up. I hope to
be able to continue sometime this afternoon, so as to get across my
entire message on this matter.
2635
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
enter this debate and speak on part II.
It is important to talk about part II because there has been a
significant amount of contradiction by the opposition. The Bloc has
been claiming on a number of fronts in the last weeks as we have
debated this bill both in the House and in committee that it is a do
nothing bill, that it is intended to reduce costs, that it does not
create employment or that it is not intended to help create jobs. On
the reverse of that, which is the intriguing part of this, the Bloc then
criticizes the bill for having active measures to help people get jobs
and the clear job creating measures it contains.
We all know and have heard this on numerous occasions. The
member for Mercier has asked when the Minister of Human
Resources Development is going to help people get back to work.
He has asked when certain things are going to be done as far as the
active measures are concerned. Then opposition members stand
during this debate and say there are no measures to help people get
back to work.
With the contradictions and the compounding of the confusion
the member for Mercier is putting out to the public, I thought I
would take the last 10 minutes I have today to set the record
straight.
The confusion the members have is hurting their credibility and
God only knows in this place we certainly do not need members'
credibility to be affected by making contradictions. As an example
there is the claim by the member for Drummond who said on May
6 at page 2374 in Hansard: ``There is no concrete measure for job
creation in this unemployment insurance reform''. Then there is the
member for Châteauguay who said on May 6 that this was an
anti-employment measure because it has the audacity to cut a
payroll tax that we know affects job creation.
How then do opposition members describe the job creation
partnerships that are provided in the bill? How do they describe the
transitional jobs fund of $300 million that will go to work to create
some 15,000 jobs which, once this bill finally passes the House,
will be available in the higher unemployment regions? Some of
those areas are Quebec, northern Ontario and Atlantic Canada.
I can safely say that many of us in this place are waiting for that
transitional fund to kick in so we can help people find employment.
How do opposition members explain the fact that this bill will
result in some 75,000 to 100,000 new job opportunities once it is
fully implemented?
Again those are contradictions members continue to dismiss as
irrelevant in their debate. They say that no jobs are being created,
that there is no help for anybody. At the same time they argue
asking why we are entering into provincial jurisdiction and why
there are these five employment measures. There are all kinds of
these arguments which for some unknown reason we cannot square
no matter how hard we try.
The simple fact is that employment insurance is about jobs. It
focuses on helping people get back to work with the right kind of
support, whether the help is financial through income benefits or
through employment benefits which is part II of the bill.
(1415)
Let me quote the contradiction that pops up with the BQ again.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot instructs the government
to ensure that people who find themselves in this unfortunate
situation are able, in the short or medium term, to re-enter the job
market with lasting results. He is absolutely right. That is exactly
what the government is attempting to do with part II of this EI
reform.
That is the point that members have been trying to make. Bloc
members are contradicting themselves again. Active measures are
a way to keep insurance costs down by keeping people employed
and employment up. That is the whole intent of transferring
another $800 million into active programs, to help people get
retrained and get back into the workforce. At the same time, added
to that is another $300 million, which is a transition fund to help
those high unemployment areas adjust to a very large behavioural
structural change of EI.
I want to mention something to members because we are having
great difficulty with this issue. The Government of Canada has
recognized that labour market training is the responsibility of
provincial governments and linked to the responsibility for
education. We have said this over and over again in the House but
for some unknown reason it is not to the benefit of the Bloc to say
its members have heard what we are saying.
In Bill C-12 it states very bluntly that these measures, which
include wage subsidies, income supplements, support for
self-employment, partnerships for job creation and skills loans and
grants, are all in line with the government's commitment on
training. Skills loans and grants will only be implemented with the
consent of the provinces concerned. In fact, we have said over and
over again that we will get the consent of the provinces to enter into
areas that we know are within their jurisdiction. However, our
number one objective in part II is to help people through these
kinds of programs to get right back into the workforce. If it is a
training component other than getting people back to the workforce
very quickly the government has to get the consent of the
provinces. I think the Bloc finally recognizes that that commitment
is a solid commitment.
2636
I want to stress that point because the BQ members have
claimed that the government is still in the training field. The Prime
Minister, the minister and Liberal members have said over and
over that the federal government is getting out of labour market
training. I want to continue to focus on that particular point.
Let me add to this murky mix the Bloc position on expanding
eligibility for employment benefits. Let me quote again from the
member for Châteauguay: ``Not only does the federal government
interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction''-which we
have said we are not willing to do-``such as manpower and social
assistance, but it does so with money collected as UI premiums''.
Can anyone imagine this? That comment would have made good
sense if it had come from a member of the Reform Party. However,
members have to agree that the federal government, if it does not
do anything to help people who have slipped from unemployment
insurance to welfare, then what is the point?
A significant portion of this bill deals with helping people. It is
estimated that 45 per cent of the people who are on welfare or
social assistance can apply for the five major components under
part II of employment insurance. The Bloc members, who are the
great defenders of the poor so they tell us, are objecting to that.
They say that should not be the case. The federal government
should not try to help people who are on social assistance. It should
get its nose out of it and not help those people get back into the
workforce.
The Bloc members are the authors of their own contradictions.
They demand that the government create jobs. They demand that
we follow a do nothing course on employment insurance that
would prevent us from achieving the first goal. They also demand
that the government do less for people on social assistance, the
most vulnerable in our labour market. I want to disappoint the
Bloc.
(1420 )
We are going to meet the very important obligation that was
made in the speech from the throne by the Prime Minister and the
Minister of Human Resources Development. Part II of the bill
contains clear job creating measures. Those measures will be
consistent with the policy that has been part of this program since
the very beginning. The measures are linked to our specific area of
jurisdiction and bring in a new level of collaboration. They expand
eligibility for benefits to a wider group of people. The result of part
II will be that people will get back to work.
All the juggling of claims by the opposition cannot ignore those
essential facts. The most enjoyable part for the hon. member for
Malpeque and myself is that we have had the pleasure of dealing
with the contradictions which Bloc members have brought to this
place in the last number of days as we have debated the report stage
motions. They criticize us for not doing anything, but they do not
want to talk about part II and the importance of helping people get
back to work. Whenever we do that the only message they want to
send to their constituents is that we are entering into provincial
jurisdiction.
Again we lay the facts on the table for my friends in the Bloc
who desperately need to understand that this will be a structural
change for which Canadians will thank us.
A witness who appeared before the committee a number of
weeks ago has a reputation for being an individual with vision. His
name is Alice Nakamura. He said that our children will thank us for
these behavioural changes and the restructuring of this program
because they are the most far-reaching behavioural changes which
the country has ever seen. The changes are being made because of
the new marketplace in which we find ourselves. Quite frankly, I
feel very comfortable standing in this place and saying that I agree
with Alice. When we look at the changes in the years to come
through the monitoring system we will be proven correct.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 18. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
2637
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 20. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[Translation]
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more that five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 36. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands
deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 73. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 171. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 173. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 189. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
2638
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: The recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.
Shall we call it 2.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands
adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.)