CONTENTS
Thursday, May 2, 1996
Bill C-217. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 2213
Bill C-12. Report stage 2214
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais) 2214
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2215
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2218
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2226
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2245
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2248
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2248
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2248
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2249
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2249
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2249
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2249
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2249
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2249
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2249
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2250
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2250
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2251
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2251
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2251
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2251
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2252
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2252
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2252
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2254
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2254
Bill C-12. Consideration resumed of motion 2255
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2260
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2261
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 2271
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2274
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2281
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2287
2213
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 2, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of
witnesses), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That the vote on Bill C-217, scheduled to have taken place this morning, be
further deferred until Tuesday, May 6 at the conclusion of government orders.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to ten petitions.
* * *
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to rise in the
House today to present a petition from my constituents of
Hamilton-Wentworth calling on Parliament to refrain from
implementing taxes on health and dental benefits.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 24 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 24-Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands,
Lib.):
What docking facilities, operated by the Department of Transport, are used to
provide ferry services to islands in Canada and what are the costs of operation,
maintenance and repair of such facilities (a) in dollars and (b) as a percentage of
similar costs for all docking facilities owned and/or operated by the department
in Canada?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Transport Canada advises as follows.
Ontario is the only province in which Transport Canada operates
docking facilities to provide ferry services to islands.
In the Ontario region of transport there are five ferry operations
that provide services to islands. The five ferry operations are listed
and pertinent information is included.
Tobermory to South Baymouth (Manitoulin Island): Manitoulin
Island is accessible by Highway No. 6 of the provincial highway
system, therefore the residents of Manitoulin Island do not depend
solely on the ferry for access to the mainland. Because of the
highway access, the Manitoulin Island operation may not be a good
example for a cost comparison. It should also be noted that the
ferry to South Baymouth is operated by the province of Ontario,
Owen Sound Transportation Company Ltd. and it operates for only
six months of the year.
The following maintenance and repair costs have been incurred
at the Tobermory/South Baymouth sites:
Tobermory/South Baymouth:
1990-91 Wharf repairs $4,500
1991-92 Wharf repairs $129,200
1992-93 Wharf repairs $396,300
1993-94 - -
1994-95 - -
1995-96 Electrical Repairs $500
Kingsville to Pelee Island/Leamington to Pelee Island: The Pelee
Island residents rely solely on the provincially operated ferry for
2214
access to the mainland. The operator of the ferry operations is the
Owen Sound Transportation Company Ltd.
The ferry structures at Pelee Island, Kingsville and Leamington
were rebuilt just recently in a joint federal-provincial government
agreement that was made under ministerial agreement signed in
December 1992 by Transport Canada and the Ministry of
Transportation and Communication. The project started in 1992
and was completed in 1995. The Transport Canada share for this
project is shown below:
Kingsville Ferry Terminal $2,285,000
Leamington Ferry Terminal $3,663,000
Pelee Island Ferry Terminal $4,868,000
Millhaven to Stella: The Amherst Island residents rely solely on
the provincially owned ferries for access to the mainland. The
ferries are operated by the twonship of Amherst Island. The
following maintenance and repair costs have been incurred at the
Millhaven and Stella sites:
Millhaven: 1990-91 Timber crib repairs $22,000
1991-92 Wharf repairs $46,000
1992-93 Wharf repairs $359,000
1993-94 Wharf repairs $356,000
Stella: 1991-92 Wharf repairs $34,000
1994-95 Wharf reconstruction $37,000
1995-96 Wharf reconstruction $443,000
Wolf Island to Cape Vincent, New York: The Wolf Island
residents rely on two ferries for access to mainland. The Kingston
ferry provides year round service; however, Transport Canada
provides no infrastructure for this operation. The Horne's Point
ferry is a privately operated international ferry to Cape Vincent,
New York. The following maintenance and repair costs have been
incurred at the Horne's point ferry structure:
Wolf Island: 1991-92 Wharf repairs $39,000
1994-95 Wharf repairs $50,000
1995-96 Wharf repairs $432,000
Moosonee to Moose Factory Island: Moosonee school children
rely on the privately owned ferry for transportation to and from
school each day. The ferry operates from ice out, usually the first
week of June, to freeze up, usually the last week of October each
year. Also the ferry service provides access to the hospital that is
located on Moose Factory Island. The alternative access methods
to the island are freighter, canoe, helicopter and in the winter, cars,
trucks and snowmobiles.
The following maintenance and repair costs have been incurred
at the Moose Factory site:
1990-91 Annual service contract $14,250
1991-92 Annual service contract $25,250
1992-93 New timber floats $23,000
1992-93 Annual service contract $8,750
1993-94 Annual service contract $23,000
1994-95 Float modifications $2,500
In all cases mentioned above Transport Canada owns the main
structure for the ferry operation, but it does not own the ramps for
the loading and unloading of vehicules and passengers. Part (b) of
Question No. 24, making a percentage comparison to other marine
structures may not be a fair comparison because the structures are
substantially different in load requirement and overall size. Also,
the location of a structure can have a dramatic effect on the yearly
maintenance cost, i.e., ice conditions, wind and wave action, as
well as current speed or flow.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2214
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, an act
respecting employment insurance in Canada, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There are 221
motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper of the report
stage of Bill C-12.
Motion No. 9(a) cannot be proposed to the House because it is
not accompanied by the recommendation of the governor general.
Standing Order 76(3) requires that notice of such a
recommendation be given no later than the sitting day before
consideration.
The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows.
Group No. 2: Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Group No. 3: Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 200 and 201.
(1010)
[Translation]
Group No. 4: Motions Nos. 7 and 8.
Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 10 and 10A.
[English]
Group No. 6: Motions Nos. 17, 18, 20 to 25, 35, 36, 72, 73, 171,
173 and 189.
Group No. 7: Motions Nos. 75 and 76.
2215
[Translation]
Group No. 8: Motions Nos. 80, 81, 92 and 93.
Group No. 9: Motions Nos. 111, 112 and 113.
Group No. 10: Motion No. 128.
Group No. 11: Motion No. 188.
[English]
Group No. 12: Motions Nos. 191 and 192.
[Translation]
Group No. 13: Motions Nos. 214, 215 and 219.
Group No. 14: Motions Nos. 216, 217 and 218.
Group No. 15: Motions Nos. 9, 11 to 16, 19, 26 to 34, 37 to 71,
74, 77 to 79, 82 to 91, 94 to 110, 114 to 127, 129 to 170, 172, 174 to
187, 190, 193 to 199, 202 to 213.
[English]
The voting patterns for the motions within each group are
available at the table. The Chair will remind the House of each
pattern at the time of voting.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-12 be amended by replacing the long title, on page 1, with the
following:
``An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.''
[
English]
Mr. Boudria Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in order to
enable MPs as much as possible to speak to the motions, rather than
listening to motions being read to us, there might be consent that all
the motions whose numbers have been recited just now by Madam
Speaker be deemed to have been moved, seconded and proposed to
the House. If the House gives its consent to that we could spend our
time debating the actual text of the motion rather than listening to
the titles being read to us.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-12 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-12, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5, on page 1,
with the followingL
``1. The Unemployment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following to
paragraph 6(2)(a):
``has, during the person's qualifying period, held insurable employment or
insurable employments numbering at least the number of weeks''
2. The Unemployment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following to
paragraph 6(2)(b):
``has had an interruption of earnings from his employment or employments''
3. The Unemployment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following to
paragraph 6(3)(a):
``has held twenty or more weeks of insurable employment or employments''
4. The Unemployment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following to
paragraph 6(3)(b):
``has had an interruption of earnings from his employment or employments.''
5. The Unemployment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following to
paragraph 6(2)(c):
``less than fourteen prescribed weeks that relate to employment or
employments''''.
She said: Madam Speaker, before cutting into the short 10
minute period allotted, I would like to ask why Motion No. 9A was
not accepted. Could I get an answer on this?
(1015)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In support of
the Chair's decision, I would like to quote citation 246(3) in the
fourth edition of Beauchesne:
246. (3) The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment
upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which
the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying
down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a
charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation
to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of
the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects
and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the
communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers
whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or
supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or
supplementary resolutions.
I trust this answer is acceptable to the hon. member.
Mrs. Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this excerpt from Beauchesne's
explains the absolute limits to which the opposition is subject in a
debate such as the one on unemployment insurance reform. Given
the fact that you reject the amendment, your interpretation of the
article just read implies that in no way can our proposed
amendments have the effect of changing the amounts of charges
and expenditures, even though the main point of the debate on the
unemployment insurance reform concerns precisely this issue.
This extreme constraint means that the opposition can only refer
to the current act, since the primary purpose of the bill is to lower
contributions for workers earning between $39,000 and $42,400, to
eliminate contributions from major corporations regarding such
amounts, thus reducing the tax base, to increase the tax burden of
2216
those who currently do not pay unemployment insurance
contributions by making them pay such contributions, and to force
these small earners who will now pay contributions to make up for
the $900 million shortfall, for the gift that the government is giving
to major corporations and workers earning between $39,000 and
$42,000 per year. Indeed, the idea is to make up for this loss by
making those who currently do not contribute pay premiums, that
is people who work between one and fifteen hours per week, even
though most of them will not be eligible for unemployment
benefits. The rest of the reform provides for cuts, so as to meet the
objective of $1.9 billion set out in the budget. You will understand
that, in this context, the opposition is bound and gagged, utterly.
This bill, whose title shamefully refers to employment
insurance, provides absolutely no assurance to workers that they
will have a job even if they collect benefits, which is not a sure
thing; in fact, no one is certain to collect benefits, because there is
no right of appeal regarding employment benefits.
(1020)
The bill's title does not even correspond to reality. Moreover, we
claim, and we have every evidence to support our claim, that not
only does the bill not guarantee a job, nor promote job creation, but
also that it is anti-job.
It does not promote job creation because it reduces interregional
subsidization. It will make the poor regions even poorer. When I
talk about regions, I mean the regions with seasonal work and high
unemployment rates. I mean the Gaspé peninsula as well as the
Atlantic provinces in general, but also the Montreal area.
I would like to read from a brief submitted by some very
important people, Robert Morrissey, the minister of economic
development and tourism, and Jeannie Lea, the minister of
education of Prince Edward Island. Their brief states: ``In Prince
Edward Island, the net loss in unemployment insurance benefits
would thus add up to over $15 million and increase to $24 million
by 2001-2002. Such large losses have a major impact on an
economy as small as ours, although Prince Edward Island ranked
first for job growth in 1985''.
Even though the cuts are somewhat reduced by the amendments,
cuts are the hallmark of this bill. They will have an impact on the
whole economy. If the minister of the economy in Prince Edward
Island, a province that ranks first in job creation, can claim his
province cannot cope with $15 million in cuts, what could be said
of cuts in the Montreal area, where they will represent $500 million
if the 1994 cuts are taken into account?
This is the equivalent of the definitive closure, in just one region,
of dozens and dozens of businesses. The impact on the economy
will be staggering, and the social impact will be just as severe,
because those who are excluded, many of whom do not get
benefits, will be forced to make greater contributions.
That is what they told us time and again. They also expressed
their opposition through demonstrations and sometimes desperate
protests. We can say one thing: If the government felt it had to
make minor amendments, to the tune of $365 million on total cuts
of almost $2 billion, it is because of the despair expressed in those
demonstrations.
We should not forget that those who were able to take part in
demonstrations were people who were organized and could see the
immediate impact on a whole area. Isolated individuals who have
unstable jobs, who fear for their job or are already unemployed,
and those who are on welfare, feel helpless in their isolation and do
not know how to join in demonstrations. What we have here is a far
cry from an employment insurance plan.
That is why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, want and urge the
minister to take the time to develop a real reform that will not
attack those already in trouble, like Prime Minister Chrétien used
to say-I am sorry, I should not be using his name-the former
Liberal Leader of the Opposition, who was Jean Chrétien, the
present Prime Minister, about a previous reform that was much less
drastic than this one, this so-called reform that has already made
$2.4 billion in cuts in unemployment benefits since 1995.
(1025)
Thus we will show the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Human Resources Development how they should take great care of
that instrument, which was most effective during the 1981-1983
recession and the most recent one, but which will be less and less
so because its stabilizing effect will be less and less effective. This
is true of the economy as a whole, but even more so of individuals.
How many people in our society do not even have minimum
security? Their only security is unemployment insurance, which
allows them to continue hoping to get another job. Therefore, we
have no right to change overnight this essential instrument of social
and economic stabilization.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak on the bill regarding employment insurance.
Over the past two years, the government has carried on extensive
consultations in relation to matters of social policy, in particular
the question of the unemployment insurance system which will
now be called employment insurance.
2217
It is very fitting that the new name of the system is employment
insurance. We do not talk about having death insurance although
we only get that insurance when we die. It seems reasonable not to
call it unemployment insurance since the idea to be reinforced is
that of people having employment, not unemployment. We want to
assist people in achieving employment, which is what this bill is all
about.
The bill is about helping people to get jobs. It is also about
strengthening work incentives. I do not believe this bill is perfect
which is why I am glad that the human resources development
committee over the past number of weeks has had a chance to look
into the bill, to hear witnesses and to discuss possible ways to
change it.
Two other members and I have brought forward amendments.
There are over 200 motions to amend the bill. I believe many of
them will go through and will improve the bill substantially. It is
important that fairness is ensured in the system through these
changes.
This bill will also help workers adjust to changing economic
times. One of the most important changes to the employment
insurance system will be the process of counting hours of work
rather than counting weeks of work. That seems to be a more
reasonable and accurate way to measure work. Most people work
according to the number of hours per week.
In Atlantic Canada this change will mean that the vast majority
of workers, for example, those in seasonal industries who often
work more than 35 hours a week-some as much as 70 hours per
week-will now get full credit for the hours they work. That is a
very important change that will benefit people in Atlantic Canada.
It is also important to realize that under the new bill every hour
and every dollar counts toward people's benefits. That is a change
from the past. Before, whether you had 16 hours a week or 80 hours
a week, it meant the same thing. That is surely not an accurate way
to measure work or what will be insured. The new system will
improve on that substantially.
For example, consider a person in the construction industry,
which is usually a seasonal industry. During the summer months,
the heavy months of work, people will often work up to 70 hours a
week. People in that sector will benefit from these changes. A week
in which they work 70 hours will mean the equivalent of 2 weeks
toward eligibility.
One of my original concerns about the bill was the way it dealt
with the divisor. The divisor is the number of weeks by which
people's income is divided to determine what is their income.That is then multiplied by 55 per cent to determine what their
benefits are.
(1030)
The problem I had with that was that under the original bill in the
highest unemployment regions people were required to work three
or four weeks beyond the eligibility period. Let us say it was the
equivalent of 12 or 14 weeks. In the 12 week areas they would have
to work the full 16 weeks, and about 17 weeks in the 14 week areas
in order to get the full benefit, whereas in the areas of lowest
unemployment where it would be easiest to get additional work
they would have to work no further weeks of work.
It is similar to saying that in the areas where it is toughest to get
additional work, that is, the areas of highest unemployment, an
incentive is needed to get additional work and there is supposedly
no need in the areas of highest employment where it is easier to get
additional work. It would have meant hardship for the people in
Atlantic Canada and in other high unemployment regions across
the country. I felt it was very important that we remove that kind of
hardship from the bill.
By the same token, there were various groups, even unions in
some cases, who came forward to say that it was true that there
were some people who, after getting their 12 weeks of eligibility,
would stop working. They would arrange to get themselves laid off
or whatever. I do not think it is a big number of people but they
exist. We have been told by those people and others that an
incentive is needed for people to work a little extra, to ask them to
stretch a bit but not to ask them to go off a cliff.
I put forward the idea that instead of having the addition of four
weeks in the highest unemployment areas and the addition of zero
weeks in the lowest, it should be a flexible eligibility plus two
weeks period for the divisor.
This is a complicated subject. Many people will find it a little
complex and hard to understand. The point is that it will be fairer
across the board for all Canadians. It will mean that the divisor
period will follow the rate of unemployment.
As the unemployment rate in an area goes down and it becomes
easier to find work, people will have to work a little longer to get
their full benefit. As the unemployment rate in an area goes up and
it gets harder to get those extra weeks of work, they will have fewer
weeks to work, maybe one or two, obviously depending on the
nature of the unemployment rate, to get that full benefit.
That is an important measure. It will have a cost to it. It will
mean $95 million will go back into the economy. It is a very
important measure particularly in the areas of highest
unemployment which would have been unduly harshly impacted on
by the bill as originally written.
2218
I am delighted the government has accepted my proposal. The
minister has put forward an amendment which requires a royal
recommendation since it involves the spending of funds. He has
also put forward proposals by my friend from
Fredericton-York-Sunbury and by one of the members from
Toronto.
He put forward an amendment in one case regarding the gap or
the question of weeks of zero employment. This would have been
very problematic in some areas. There was another relating to
exempting people in low income families from the intensity rule.
That is a very important measure. The other measure will give
people who are working while on UI a credit toward their next term
on UI and a credit in relation to the intensity rule.
Those are very important measures which will substantially
improve the bill. I do not claim that this system will be perfect. I
have never seen a government system that is perfect. I once heard
someone say that the thing about all human institutions is that they
have human failings. We are probably never going to create a
perfect institution.
The idea is to improve the situation as much as possible.
Certainly, the change from a weeks based system to an hours based
eligibility system will dramatically improve the employment
insurance system for the majority of people who are claimants in
my region. That is very important.
There was another thing that was very important to me about this
bill. When I first learned about the proposals on this bill last
summer, one of my biggest concerns was that there was a reduction
in the amount of funding going toward this. I recognize that there
was an increase in the cost of the program from $8 billion 10 years
ago to $20 billion today.
(1035 )
My constituents have said that people should not be making high
incomes year after year and also drawing as much as $10,000 in UI
year after year. People are very strongly against that. I told the
Minister of Human Resources Development it seemed to me that if
we were going to change the system, the way to do it was to take it
out of the high end, not the low end.
The result is that people in low income families will end up
getting about 14 per cent more because of what has been brought
forward with the family income supplement. It is a very important
progressive measure in the bill. It will mean that those low income
families who depend on unemployment insurance will get a boost,
a little more than the regular 55 per cent that others will get.
It also means that for the vast majority in the middle the system
will be maintained in a very positive way. But the fact is, for those
who make $50,000 or $60,000 a year there will be a reduction
because the employment insurance benefits of those people will be
clawed back. The vast majority of Canadians will strongly support
that change. It is one I certainly support. This is a very progressive
measure.
We saw changes to the unemployment insurance system by the
previous Conservative government which simply slashed and cut.
It increased the number of weeks required to work and cut the
amount of benefits and that was it. That was not the proper
approach. The system needed vast reform which we have done. It
will be a very strong and much better system.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
this bill which has come before the House probably represents one
of the most technical of all the pieces of legislation we have had to
deal with in this session to date. Indeed, the social and fiscal
implications for same will be felt for many decades to come.
Certainly the amendments the Reform Party of Canada is
bringing forward will add a positive element to the debate. In terms
of reasoned amendments, we have put forward 10. I mention that
because I do hope members on the government side will look at the
amendments we bring forward in the true spirit of co-operation, but
also with the intention of participating in the debate with some
reasoned thought and proposals which we feel do have validity in
today's workplace.
I would like to read into the record some elements of the
definition of unemployment insurance, as our party sees it. The
whole definition of unemployment insurance has changed radically
under the bill. We have moved away from the notion of true
insurance based principles. It is important for us to acknowledge
that fact.
The employment insurance bill which we continue to debate
today has taken us very far away from what UI was intended when
it was originally designed. Today, as we have heard from hon.
members on the other side of the House, EI is thought of as an
income supplement and not as an insurance.
The Liberal minister of labour in 1940 when he was supporting
the concept of individuals caring for their own unemployment
situation, quoted from a report that went way back to 1919 when
Manitoba Chief Justice Mathers said:
We recommend to the your government the question of making some
provision by a system of state social insurance for those who, through no fault
of their own, are unable to work, whether the inability arises from a lack of
opportunity, sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the
spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner and make him a more
contented and better citizen.
2219
I do agree with the sentiments of the then labour minister who
was concerned that UI be used to get people from one job to
another, to support them for that short transition time before they
went into the other job.
(1040 )
The minister of labour at the time was also concerned that UI
would never become a way of life for people and that measures
would be taken which would indeed avoid people becoming
heavily reliant on that kind of subsistence. To make his point he
quoted from a report by the Civil War Workers of Great Britain
who said:
-how much unemployment there will be and over what period it will last is
impossible to forecast. But, whatever it be, there must be a great deal of
unemployment which can only be dealt with in one of two ways: either by a
considered scheme of insurance-or by state doles, hurriedly and
indiscriminately issued when the moment of crisis arrives.
There can be no question which is the better way. State doles may lead
straight to pauperization. A well devised scheme of insurance preserves the
self-respect of the worker and assists and encourages them to supplement it by
provision made industrially through an association.
It is exactly this original intention of what unemployment
insurance was meant to provide and what it was meant to mean that
has slipped away from us in these major changes the Liberal
government is bringing to the House today and on which we will
vote in just a few days.
For many in Canada today, UI has indeed become a way of life.
For too many people UI is that dole to which the then labour
minister referred. With the new changes to UI the Minister of
Human Resources Development has announced there are over $1
billion of training programs for areas of high unemployment. This
is exactly the kind of dole that history in the past has repeated and
cautioned us to not endorse.
As I was reading the executive summary of the bill, I was struck
by a number of elements. The first one that made me certainly
question the relevancy to unemployment insurance and work was
the statement that ``income support is provided in a way that
reinforces work''. I have asked questions on that statement many
times and there is no one who has suggested or has even come close
to explaining exactly how income support can provide a way to
reinforce work. To me they are two discrete and very different
things.
The executive summary went on to say: ``It also permits
simplification of the reporting requirements for employees and
premium collections''. I am going to read from a very real life
example which is from the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services
Association. We are seeing that indeed simplification is not on
when it comes to this industry.
The result of the change with respect to the conversion to an
hours based system from a maximum weekly insurable system has
major financial implications for employers and especially part time
employees in Canada's food service industry because so many of
our part time students work in this area.
Using the 1996 premium rate of .0413, human resources
development officials have estimated the cost to this one industry
alone, the food service employers, to be $35 million. This is
certainly higher than what the Canadian Restaurant and Food
Services Association had originally estimated. It represents a 17
per cent increase on employer contributions of approximately $211
million.
Once again I ask: How does the statement ``it also permits
simplification of the reporting requirements for employees and of
premium collection'' really have any relevancy here when we
understand that the impact of first dollar coverage on individual
food service companies is going to fluctuate substantially
depending on the percentage of part time employees working less
than 15 hours per week? The nature of the reporting has become so
complex that an analysis of this indicates that the employer is
going to actually see an increase in employer premium costs from
15.7 per cent to 72.6 per cent.
That conversion to an hours based system not only alters the cost
structure of some companies disproportionately, it also results in
competitive distortions within the industry. It also creates a huge
backlog of extra effort administratively for these businesses. That
is something which I believe requires a great deal of clarification
on the part of the Liberal government.
(1045)
I understand my time is coming to an end, but there is another
contradictory statement here. We look at two terms here: wage
subsidy linked with reduction of dependence on income support.
Those two statements are made in the same paragraph in the
executive summary. I hope that over the course of this debate I will
be able to come back to these elements of the executive summary
because they are not the same thing. They are contradictions in
terms. They also have great implications for the unemployment
insurance scheme as it has been developed by the Liberal
government.
On that note, for this time, I will close.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on
Bill C-12.
I would like to make some comments at this stage on the changes
proposed to the original bill and in particular to the costs associated
with the changes.
It is important to focus on the amendments which were made in
committee. They are based on all the hard work that the committee
has been involved in, going back two years when the committee of
human resources development was sent across the country to hear
the views of Canadians, then when the bill was introduced in its
2220
first phase to where we find ourselves today. It is some 140 days
since we have had hearings and went clause by clause in
committee. We find ourselves in the House today dealing with
amendments at report stage of this bill.
The increased costs of the three main amendments to Bill C-12
that have been accepted by the government will be offset by
adjustments in other areas. The amended bill will still mean that a
total of $1.2 billion will be saved by the year 2001-2002 which is a
gross savings of $2 billion minus the $800 million that will be
reinvested in re-employment measures.
Hon. colleagues should by now be familiar with the amendments
proposed because the members who have proposed them, at least
from the government side, have been very up front with them, have
sent them across the country and to their own constituents.
The first amendment is the provision to lessen the impact on
workers in all industries who have gaps in their work and earning
patterns. The fixed period for calculating benefits under the
original proposal was considered to be too harsh for workers in this
situation.
Now all claimants will be able to use a full 26-week period prior
to making a claim to calculate average earnings. Average earnings
over this period, excluding gaps, will determine the level of
benefits. What it means is that workers could have several weeks of
breaks in employment during this 26-week period without having
their benefits reduced due to these gaps in employment. This
change will increase benefit payouts by about $246 million for
workers with unstable work patterns.
The second amendment changes the way the average is arrived at
and the way the benefit is calculated with those with only the
minimum number of weeks. My colleague in the Liberal Party
spoke to that issue which is what we call the divisor.
Under the original proposal the divisor was set at three or four
weeks above minimum entrance requirements in high
unemployment regions and between zero and two weeks above in
low unemployment regions. Therefore, individuals in high
unemployment regions with the least opportunity for finding
additional work exists would have been greatly penalized by these
measures.
However, the purpose of having a divisor that is higher than the
minimum qualifying requirement is to encourage people to take
extra employment and try to work more than just the minimum
required to qualify.
However, a balance between providing incentives and ensuring
fairness had to be found. With the amendment of my colleague
which is supported by the government and the Minister of Human
Resources Development, I believe we have been able to do that.
Consequently, the government has agreed to an amendment that
will set the divisor at only two weeks plus the minimum number of
weeks necessary to qualify in all regions, that is, a minimum
divisor which ranges from 14 to 22 weeks depending on the
unemployment rate in the region. It will thereby retain the
incentive to work, but will be fairer for those in truly difficult
situations. People will have a 26-week period in which to find the
weeks needed to maximize their benefits. This proposal will have a
positive impact on benefit payments for workers in high
unemployment regions and little impact elsewhere across the
country. The new divisor will increase benefit payouts by about
$95 million.
(1050)
The third main amendment is the new intensity rule. Under this
rule people who draw on the system year after year will see a
modest reduction in benefits. All future claimants who have
received 20 or more weeks of regular benefits within a five-year
period, beginning with the new bill when it is passed into law, will
have the weekly benefit rate of their next claim reduced by 1
percentage point, from 55 per cent for every 20 weeks they have
been on claim. The maximum reduction will be 50 per cent of
weekly earnings for someone who has received more than 100
weeks of benefits over a five-year period.
The amendment the government has accepted is to exempt from
the intensity rule those individuals with very low incomes who
have children. That threshold has been set at $26,000 or less.
Approximately 350,000 claimants qualifying for the family income
supplement will not be subject to this rule. We should keep that in
mind when some 2.4 million Canadians collect unemployment
insurance each year. This exemption of the intensity rule for some
350,000 people is a significant improvement. It is a way for the
government to ensure that the poorest of the poor are not affected.
Quite frankly, they do not need an incentive to work. Being poor, I
am sure, is enough incentive for anyone to try to find a job.
While the intensity rule will reduce weekly benefits somewhat
for those who use the system frequently, those with the lowest
incomes who are most in need are protected. It will increase benefit
payouts by about $24 million for 188,000 claimants in low income
families who otherwise would have been affected by the rule.
Taken together, the three amendments will increase the payouts
to individuals under the employment insurance program by roughly
$365 million over what was proposed in the unamended Bill C-12.
That shows how important committee work is. When members
make proposals, even though they have a significant cost factor,
when proven to be fair to the people we are trying to help and
protect, the government has reacted very favourably.
Now for the other side of the ledger, the changes that will be
made to tighten up the system to reduce expenditures to offset the
2221
increased payouts I have just mentioned. Those have to be put in
perspective.
The scope of potential cost reductions is very wide. For example,
if 50 per cent of EI claimants collect just one week fewer benefits
the savings would be $300 million in one year. Think of it. One
week with no benefits for individuals who happened to find an
extra week of work would save the system some $300 million
which could be used in other areas.
What the government is planning to do is tackle three
longstanding problems of the old system in order to reduce costs
and to make the operation of the system fairer for all those who
contribute to it. One of the major problems is that there has been an
inefficient early use of all means available to help claimants get
back to work as quickly as possible. In too many cases there is a
tendency to simply fill out the forms and mail out the cheques
without a concerted effort to ensure that the individual claimant has
help to find other employment. That will no longer be the case in
employment offices across the country. Now the question will not
simply be: ``Where do we mail the cheque?'', it is going to be,
``What do we need to do to get you back into the workforce right
now?''
In addition to other services provided to those who are looking
for work, a new and ongoing series of group information sessions
will be provided to claimants in specific categories. These include
claimants in demand occupations. For example, those who have
skills that employers are looking for, repeat claimants, past fraud
claimants and those affected by structural changes who may face
long periods of unemployment.
(1055 )
At these sessions claimants will be informed of all the services
available to help them get back into the workforce rather than
remain on benefits. These include the electronic hiring hall, which
we have all heard about, and will include the computerized job
search system which was introduced in the last number of years.
Approximately 400,000 unemployed workers every year will
qualify for a very flexible and innovative series of new measures
which will help more people get jobs. These include wage
subsidies, income supplements, self-employment assistance, skills,
loans and grants and community job partnerships.
These changes in the bill are intended to save a significant
amount of money. It is estimated by the year 2001-2002 if we get
more proactive in helping people find a job, we can recoup the
finances put back into the system with the three amendments that
the members have made and the government has accepted.
That is the rationale for these amendments at this point. I hope to
speak more on those amendments as the day goes on.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, we have finally made it. We still had not had the
opportunity, four months after the introduction of the bill, to
examine this issue in detail, but we will now be able to do so thanks
to the Bloc amendments included in the first group of motions.
How can the bill before us be entitled an Act respecting
employment insurance in Canada, when all it provides for really is
a lot of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act?
Let me try to explain. During the 1993 fall election, voters told
us that they thought employment should be the first priority of the
federal government. They wanted seasonal workers to have the
opportunity to work during the winter, they wanted workers
between 45 and 50 years of age affected by technological change to
have access to other jobs thanks to productivity gains, and they
wanted female workers to be able to make the most of their
potential and skills.
The government took the message the Canadian voters sent it
and turned it into what is now improperly called an Act respecting
employment insurance in Canada. As we have heard this morning,
some members believe that this bill will encourage people to work
a bit longer. They started with a bill and said: ``We will call it
employment insurance''. An employment insurance ought to help
everyone get some work and help workers who lose their jobs find
another one as soon as possible, so that their full potential is used.
Instead, what we have is a bill where workers who lose their jobs
get their knuckles rapped, since they are told they will be
encouraged to work longer, because if they do not, they will get no
unemployment insurance. This is a punitive approach that is out of
step with the current employment situation in Canada.
This title was given to the bill in answer to the public's expressed
wish to make full use of human potential, but the bill is just a
smoke screen, since its content has nothing to do with reality. The
reality is that this reform bill offers no guarantees in terms of jobs.
It also denies the workers the benefit of an income between jobs.
Unemployment insurance was established in 1935. I would like
to quote what Prime Minister Bennett said about it in a speech: ``A
series of measures that are part of a comprehensive plan aimed at
reducing the present social and economic inequities and at
distributing more equitably the benefits of capitalism between the
different groups in our society and the various regions will be
submitted to you''. This is the basis of the UI program as we know
it today.
Now, let us look at the content of the employment insurance bill,
to see if it still meets that goal. Canadians and Quebecers can be
proud of that goal. Experts who appeared before the committee told
2222
us that the UI program is the best program to stabilize the economy
during a recession.
The amendments to the UI program being brought in by the
government will do exactly the opposite: they will reduce this
stabilizing effect and it will be a step backward that will eventually
lead us to a situation similar to that of the Depression of the 1930s.
The UI program was established at that time to help us overcome
the crisis and to soften the effects of recessions. I will give some
examples of the adverse effects of this bill.
(1100)
The first thing that is not good for job creation is the lowering of
maximum insurable earnings. We are encouraging businesses, big
corporations in particular, by giving them a present, to hire people
who can earn more than $39,000, who can do lots of overtime,
because above $39,000 businesses will not pay premiums anymore.
So given the choice between hiring someone at $39,000 and asking
him to do more than $10,000 worth of overtime in one year and
hiring a part time worker, what will the company choose? To
realize economies of scale, the big corporation will say: ``Instead
of paying $10,000 to 10 part time employees, we will pay overtime
instead, which will make for corresponding savings in terms of
unemployment insurance premiums we will not have to pay''.
When a gouvernment suggests such measures in a bill, it cannot
call it employment insurance. In fact, it is an anti-employment bill.
We cannot give such a title to a bill. At least, the government
should have had the decency to consider it as a series of
amendments to the Unemployment insurance Act, and let us
determine whether or not they are in accordance with what the
people want.
Another significant element is that everybody will have to pay
premiums from now on, starting with the first hour of work. The
principle of making everybody insurable can be interesting, but it
means that many people, including students, will pay premiums.
We heard representations by restaurant owners associations,
people who are responsible for McDonald's franchises and others,
throughout Canada, and who cannot be accused of not trying to
protect the economy. They told us it would have a major negative
impact on student employment. Once again, there is a negative
impact on employment. So, we cannot say it is an employment
insurance bill.
The other element, maybe the most tragic one, at least in my
riding, is the way they are killing regional economies. Next year, in
my riding, the changes will take away $10 million from the
economies of Kamouraska, Rivière-du-Loup, Témiscouata, Les
Basques and the surrounding area. In Lower St. Lawrence, it will
be $20 million.
And you would have me believe that those cuts will create
employment? How could that be? How can the government
guarantee that these savings will be used to create new jobs? There
is no way it can because it is using the UI fund to supplement its
budget. It is using it to show the world that Canada's deficit is not
that high, but that does nothing for job creation. So, it is not an
employment insurance bill but an anti-employment bill, a bill
representing a step backwards for all unemployment insurance
rules. I for one think it is unacceptable.
Another example of the negative impact of the so-called
employment insurance bill, which is just an amendment of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, is the rule prescribing 910 hours of
work for new entrants to the labour force. Just think, previously, a
new entrant needed 300 hours of work to be eligible, that is 20
weeks at 15 hours a week. From now on, it will be 910 hours.
What effect will that have on new entrants, on young people
entering the labour market? After trying for a year to accumulate
910 hours, young people who just graduated from school in applied
ecology, in animal health, in tourism, in recreation or in any other
field related to seasonal industries will realize that this 910-hour
requirement cannot be met. By imposing such a requirement, the
federal government is encouraging those people to do clandestine
work and is forcing them onto welfare.
Do you think you are encouraging high school, college or
university students to work when you tell them that the job they
will get after graduating will lead them straight to welfare? This
situation is unacceptable, and it is totally misleading to say that this
legislation is about employment insurance.
What should the government have done instead? It should have
introduced a true reform and not seize this opportunity to tighten
all eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance. For this
to be a real employment insurance bill, the government should
have included in it the right or the obligation to set a goal for
reducing unemployment, just as it did for the reduction of the
deficit. It said: ``We will bring the deficit down to a certain
percentage of the GDP''. If the government really wanted to
address the problem of unemployment, should it not have included
in this bill a goal for reducing unemployment so that all
government action could be geared toward this goal? There is no
such thing in the bill.
(1105)
Are there measures in the bill to encourage job-sharing? Are
there employment oriented tax incentives? No. All the government
has come up with is a technical committee to evaluate the effects of
taxation on employment. Before you know it, we will be in the next
recession and we will still not have found any solution, although
we will have had the opportunity. If the object was to come up with
an employment insurance bill, to define and produce rules such
2223
that businesses are encouraged through taxation to keep
employees, to train them, to ensure that they will continue to work
for them rather than leave.
It should also have included incentives to reduce overtime. But
the opposite is true, as I explained with respect to maximum
insurable earnings. Here again, there is nothing favouring job
creation, in particular by reducing overtime.
Another thing that could have been done was to increase the
effectiveness of training. This means doing the right things in the
right places. Why can the government not understand that people
throughout Quebec are saying that the waste in this sector is
outrageous, that the fact that both governments are operating in the
same sector is unacceptable?
Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is up. I
will conclude in one minute by saying that this bill is not an
employment insurance bill, but a bill to amend the Unemployment
Insurance Act, unfortunately for the worse, as the basic criteria are
no longer even met. The result is that unemployment insurance is
becoming a luxury in our society.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was
expecting to speak a little later today in this debate. But seeing that
our friends across the way, and those next to us, have decided to
pass, I shall jump in now.
It is somewhat strange to see the Liberals, now they are in power,
adopting an attitude so completely opposite to their attitude when
in opposition. Without going over all of them we could say this is
unkept promises week.
It would be worthwhile repeating a certain number of points
relating to unemployment insurance. First of all, I would like to
quote the present Minister of Human Resources Development,
during the debate on the Borrowing Authority Act on May 1, 1989.
He said: ``The point I am trying to make, which many of us will
have to look at seriously, is the whole notion of trust and
credibility. Canadians are prepared to share the burden, if they
think it is being done fairly. Unemployment insurance, family
allowance, and old age pensions are a sacred trust. We must not
allow the trust of Canadians to deteriorate to a point where they
become cynical. I have listened to people talk about New Zealand,
the United States, and about other countries and how they do it.
This country is very special in how it deals across the board with
men and women in every part of the country. There are basic
standards, basic programs, universal programs, and programs that
allow people to deal with their future with some degree of
security''. Those are the words of the present Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Better yet, I will read from a 1993 letter addressed to the
Mouvement Action-Chômage by the present Prime Minister, who
was the Leader of the Opposition at the time. I think the whole
thing needs to be read.
Thank you for your fax indicating your opposition to the legislative measures
taken by the government to change unemployment insurance.
You have my assurance that the Liberal Party shares your concerns about this
attack on the unemployed, and we also do not believe that the recent superficial
amendments change the fundamentally unfair nature of these measures in any
way.
I shall skip the next paragraph since it only gives statistics. He
goes on to say:
In light of the gravity of this crisis, the Liberals have called upon the
government-Conservative at the time-to take steps to encourage economic
upturn and job creation. Yet, according to the Minister of Finance, he will not
only continue the same taxation, monetary and trade policies which have
plunged us into this recession, but will also dump on the unemployed under the
pretext of reducing expenditures. . . .
Liberals are appalled by these measures. By reducing benefits and penalising
even more workers who voluntarily quit their jobs, the government shows it
cares very little about the victims of the current economic crisis. Instead of
addressing the problem at its core, the government picks on the unemployed.
Besides, these measures will have disturbing consequences because they will
discourage workers from reporting harassment cases and unacceptable labour
conditions.
Finally, rest assured that Liberals will continue to demand that the
government withdraw this unfair bill. As Leader of the Opposition, I appreciate
your taking the time to let me know your position on this issue.
(1110)
This letter is signed by the current Prime Minister. It was signed,
it is not something he said on television. As we know, the Prime
Minister is rather inconstant in that regard, but it is there, he signed
it. I do not know if I can call him by his name. I cannot, but the
letter bears his signature.
I also reread several speeches. I could, for instance, talk about
the speeches the current chairman of the human resources
development committee made in the House. If I may, since you are
now in the chair, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to a
statement you made in February, when you said that if the bill
remained in its present form you would not be able to support it.
You are now in the chair. I simply wanted to mention it.
If you felt uneasy about this bill I can tell you that many
members from the maritimes were-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I would
remind the hon. member that the Chair is not to be involved in this
situation. Please continue your debate.
Mr. Dubé: Madam Speaker, I wanted to take every precaution,
but if it still creates a problem, I withdraw my words if that is
necessary.
Nevertheless, even after the amendments, I question the
members opposite because, last week, we had 40 hours of debate in
committee, three quarters of which concerned the motion on time
allocation we opposed. We opposed it because we wanted to use all
2224
our time to study this important bill. I recall especially clause 2,
which contains the definitions.
To prove the merit of our point of view, I pointed out that a
number of clauses required more than five minutes just to read
them. I did not go very far. I chose clause 5 to make the simple
point that it took over five minutes to read it. In fact, it took me 12
minutes to read clause 5. So we fought over this and that was the
end of it.
This is the second time in this legislature, under this Liberal
government, that the work of a committee has been gagged. Here
we are at report stage. Unfortunately, we were told that the
opposition was not making any amendments. Out of the
considerable number of small amendments we submitted-I just
want to point this out-, only one-I know because it was
mine-on ``community agency'' was agreed to, despite all the
hours we spent trying to respond to the minister's invitation to
present amendments. All the amendments by the member for
Mercier and the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup were
defeated.
Obviously, all the government amendments were accepted. My
amendment concerned only two words. The three amendments
presented by the Liberals have a budget impact; we are told that
there are $365 million in improvements. I say, so much the better.
However, a half measure is a compromise. Something that is
unacceptable is unacceptable.
Just to make a point-you cannot be half pregnant. You are
either well and truly pregnant or you are not. When a measure is
unacceptable, it is not by improving it somewhat that you make it
more acceptable. You just make it a little less bad, that is all.
(1115)
So this is more or less what we were offered. I also remind the
House of what was done last week, concerning another bill, to
make the maritimes accept the GST agreement. A $960 million
goodie was given to offset GST, in the hope of making the
maritimes support the bill.
I could quote speeches of present government members when
they were in opposition. There are many of them and I could as
well remind them of all those who came before the travelling
committee and submitted briefs. I even call on Liberal Party
members to ultimately reconsider their project. Since I have only
30 seconds left, it is important to recall the Prime Minister's letter.
Please read it again and think about it while there is still time. This
is an unfair, regressive and anti-job measure.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is a sad
day. The debate on the Unemployment Insurance Act-now called
employment insurance by the government-is coming to an end. I
am trying to find out exactly where in the documents before me, in
Bill C-12, the way jobs will be created is defined.
I cannot see it anywhere. That is why I cannot understand why
they want to change the name. I think the purpose of this bill is
rather to change the old Unemployment Insurance Act. To call it
employment insurance is deceitful. I have publicly and repeatedly
proclaimed that this has nothing to do with employment insurance.
Rather, this bill-whose real purpose is to reduce operating costs,
benefits, the number of beneficiaries, who are the victims of the
lack of jobs-is a kind of deficit insurance for the government.
Let me explain. I have certainly said so before, but I will say it
again. Sometimes, when you say something often enough, people
in this House eventually understand. With the serious-and
hidden-cuts it has made, the government is going to save nearly
$5 billion on the backs of victims of the lack of jobs. The governing
party was rather straightforward about it. The purpose of this bill is
solely financial. They should have called it deficit insurance. I
think Canadians would understand that, they would see that the
government is trying to address the deficit. Instead they save
money at the expense of the unemployed and call it employment
insurance. This is not making much progress.
Yet, as my colleagues have often pointed out many of the
members across the way used to be form the opposition. I suppose
they were closer to their constituents then. I suppose they listened
more then. So, what happened the night of October 25, 1993? If I
am allowed a joke, should not the members opposite carry the
warning ``best before October 25, 1993'' since these elected
representatives are making cuts on the back of their constituents?
I am saying that because I feel a little sad. I am looking at the
members from the maritime provinces, I know that many of them
were paid a visit by their constituents during the holidays. I can see
a few smiles, but I know that things got pretty rough some
evenings, and these members were not smiling then. I fear for them
when they go back to their constituencies for the next recess.
People watch TV, listen to the news and they can see that not too
many changes have been made to this bill. They can see that the
much criticized irritants are still in there for the most part. I cannot
understand why it remains so.
(1120)
I would like to mention something which just came out in the
media-since he is no longer a member of this House, I can
mention his name. Mr. Brian Tobin, the former fisheries minister,
is said to have made the following statement: ``The reform of
Unemployment Insurance, which is aimed at reducing benefits paid
out to claimants, deals a severe blow to Atlantic Canada where
thousands of fishermen, loggers and other workers are relying on
this federal program to supplement their seasonal income''.
I have not had the time to read the whole thing yet, but we know
how high and mighty Mr. Tobin can sound; I am happy to see that
2225
he has now come to his senses and appears ready to stand up for
people in his province. Is he now going to preach common sense?
He has acknowledged that people who go on UI have to do it to
supplement their income because there is no other way. Naming a
few noble occupations, he recognizes that in the maritimes people
cannot work year-round at their job.
Madam Speaker, you and I, since we are stuck here in Ottawa,
we cannot fish to feed ourselves. We cannot cut our own firewood.
Somebody else has to do it for us. Why is it that these people are
being hurt? Will each one of us here think about it when we light a
fire in our fireplace tonight? Will each of us think about that the
next time we buy fish? Will we think about those who will be
bludgeoned by this bill and, as fellow Canadians and consumers,
will we say: well, fish was not too expensive today and the federal
government is really picking on fishermen.
I want to warn all consumers and all fish eaters, especially now
that spring is back and that the lobster season is upon us. I like to
give the following example: the next time you go out to buy lobster
or fish, would you be ready to pay five times the current price for
the product? If you are not ready to do so, I warn you that there will
be serious social upheaval. Those who agree to catch and sell the
fish, those who cut the wood for your fireplace, are limited to about
ten weeks of work in the year, not because they are lazy, but
because nature makes it so.
How many times will we have to repeat it? I can only feel sorry.
How come people dare to say the truth only when they get out of
the House, out of government? Who is the real boss in this
business? Who? How come, when people cross over to the other
side of the House, they do not see things in the same light? When
will Canadians and Quebecers have representatives in this place
who will use common sense and listen to the population, whatever
happens?
All the people we heard, the unions, said: ``Yes we recognize that
something should be done''. They were willing to lend a hand. I
acknowledge that as opposition we protested, but we also tried to
lend a hand. What is truly missing is the partnership, the spirit of
co-operation, which is necessary for a far reaching reform. The
government needs co-operation, the government needs everyone to
believe that the program is being changed for the good of
everybody.
(1125)
To participate, people need to see a spark. They need to know
that they will be listened to. They have to feel that, at the end of the
process, they will not be scorned, that maybe the government will
succeed in meeting part of its objectives and, as for themselves,
they will see something in the bill that they recommended. But
such is not the case now.
Therefore, you will understand that on each and every motion I
will get up in this House, as long as the government will allow me,
and express my disagreement loud and clear. I hope that eventually
people across the floor will understand. Between individuals of
good will there is always the possibility of an agreement. I will
continue to play the parliamentary game, to hold out my hand, but
eventually the people will remember what is going on and they will
let the members on the other side know when the time comes.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the important Bill
C-12.
Before I start, I would like to give sincere congratulations on
behalf of the members of the Bloc Quebecois caucus. I would like
to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. members for Mercier,
Lévis and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for the remarkable work
they have done and continue to do in denouncing this bill.
I am not telling you anything new by saying these colleagues
have worked day and night. Day and night, that is saying
something. Indeed, they were subject to the insult of the guillotine
by this federal government.
What we are talking about here is once again the credibility of a
government. With all the outcry surrounding the GST across
Canada, which has led to Sheila Copps' resignation, we see once
again that, depending on whether you are in opposition or in
government, the language is different. About us, you could say:
``You, of the Bloc, we could give you exactly the same attribute''.
No, Madam Speaker, because we, of the Bloc, were elected here to
defend the interests of Quebec, and that is why we present
candidates only in Quebec, in order to play our role of
representatives of the interests and defence of Quebec.
We will not be able to contradict ourselves once we are in
opposition and once we are in power, because we will always be in
the opposition for the time we are staying within Canada.
I would like to go back to some statements that were made
earlier by members of the Liberal Party. On February 18, 1993, the
hon. member for North York, while in opposition, was protesting
against the first unemployment insurance reform by the
Conservatives and mentioned in a speech he made here, in the
House of Commons, a demonstration that had taken place in
Montreal at minus 25 degrees. ``Those were not lazy, freeloading
people. They were not sitting home watching videos or skiing in
the Laurentians. They were demonstrating against an unfair
government that does not have a plan to help them get back to
work.''
2226
To continue quoting the hon. member for York-North: ``We were
shown the real world that day at the demonstration, a world of
frustration, anger and hopelessness. The government's response
has been scornful and insulting. The government called the
demonstrators separatists.''
The last person who called demonstrators separatists was Sheila
Copps, the former member for Hamilton East. It is therefore
obvious how scornful this government is. This was doubly evident
in the statements made by the present Minister of Human
Resources Development, then Minister of Transport, at an official
dinner in West Park, when he commented on the whole issue of
railway labour negotiations. Today, this same person is expected to
protect the interests of the unemployed and, to some degree, the
financial interests of workers. He stated:
(1130)
[English]
Railway workers with grade eight or nine education cannot be
blamed for negotiating excessive labour contracts.
[Translation]
This same person is now Minister of Human Resources
Development. Is this not edifying? This statement was an insult to
the 62,000 railway workers in Canada. This same minister was in
opposition on May 1, 1989. It was an insulting thing to say. After
that, should one wonder why Canadians have lost faith in
politicians and politics? Why are Canadians so fed up? Well, faith
and credibility must be deserved, they cannot be bought. Deserving
them takes years, but they can be destroyed in a few moments. Ask
Sheila Copps, she knows something about it.
This same Minister of Human Resources Development said on
May, 1, 1989, and I quote: ``The point I am trying to make, which
many of us will have to look at seriously, is the whole notion of
trust and credibility. Canadians are prepared to share the burden, if
they think it is being done fairly. Unemployment insurance, family
allowance and old age pensions are a sacred trust. We must not
allow the trust of Canadians to deteriorate to a point where they
become cynical. I have listened to people talk about New Zealand,
the United States, and about other countries and how they do it.
This country is very special in how it deals across the board with
men and women in every part of the country. There are basic
standards, basic programs, universal programs, and programs that
allow people to deal with their future with some degree of
security''.
After that, how can we have faith in this minister, who is
responsible for getting this reform through and who has the
effrontery to call it employment insurance, when no
encouragement is given to employment.
I do not want to use the time of my colleague for Québec, who is
our critic on women's issues, but I remind her of what appeared in
the daily Le Soleil this morning. I am sure she has read it. On page
A-10, on the subject of unemployment insurance reform, the title
reads: ``Women get it''. The article goes on to say: ``A coalition of
women's groups is criticizing the unemployment insurance reform
on the grounds that it would put part time workers-primarily
women-at a disadvantage. The new method of calculating
eligibility for benefits would limit these workers' access to the
plan, according to the coalition, at its press conference held on May
1. According to a spokesperson for the Fédération des femmes du
Québec, people working fewer than 35 hours a week and women
seeking maternity benefits will lose out''.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois is not
opposed to social program reform. It defends the consensus
reached in Quebec to the effect that the province alone must be
responsible for manpower and job training. In order for it to do so,
Quebec must take control of all manpower policies and budgets.
They must be the responsibility of the Government of
Quebec-unconditionally.
Until there is political sovereignty in Quebec, our party will
continue to call for the withdrawal of this anti-worker, backward
and anti-development legislation.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-12. I have done so on
several occasions and I would have liked the government to accept
the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to improve this
piece of legislation.
(1135)
No later than yesterday, in a committee, I met the Secretary of
State for the Status of Women; she told me this bill was good for
women, sensitive to people working part time and that they were
going to benefit more from UI.
I welcome this opportunity to speak this morning because, as my
colleague for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans said, yesterday,
women, major women groups in Quebec and Canada, the
Fédération des femmes du Québec, the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women, the Canadian Daycare Association, the
National Association of Women and the Law condemned this
unemployment insurance reform. These women came to tell the
government this bill was going to penalize women. Why? Because
69 per cent of women have part time jobs. Of these 69 per cent, 40
per cent could not find a full time job and 20 to 30 per cent have
family responsibilities. They are the ones who are going to be
penalized.
The Secretary of State responsible for the Status of Women
claimed to be very sensitive to women's economic situation. She
cited alarming figures on women's poverty, on equality between
men and women, since we know that it is men who hold full time
jobs, who usually work more than 35 hours a week and who will
2227
receive UI benefits. Linking benefits to the number of hours rather
than the number of weeks will penalize this category of working
women-and working men since young people are included.
Second, part time employees working the same number of weeks
will receive benefits for a much shorter period. Their benefits will
be reduced and they will have to work for longer periods.
What about women who work less than 35 hours a week? For
women working in part time jobs for 15 weeks, one year will not be
long enough to qualify for unemployment insurance. Part time
workers will pay the same premiums as full time employees, but
their benefits will be only half of those received by full timers.
This government should be ashamed of introducing this bill; it
does not care about women's economic situation, about the
situation of women who work part time, about the situation of
women who had to spend several years away from the workplace.
What will they have to do to qualify? What will these women and
young people going back to work or looking for their first job have
to do? They will have to work harder in an economic context where
jobs are scarce.
Those who work part time may do so by choice, but they may
also be unable to find full time jobs.
What about those who will have to change jobs periodically
because they cannot get full time employment? They, too, will be
penalized. Why? Because they will not be lucky enough to hold full
time positions.
This bill would create two classes of workers. That is why
women are outraged by it and want to condemn it. This is a major
setback for the status of women. Requiring people to work
twenty-six 35-hour weeks makes it twice as hard for them, and
women will not be able to meet that requirement; it will mean 910
hours of work a year, at a time when, as we all know, it is hard to
find a full time job.
(1140)
Quite often, people will have to work for more than one year just
to qualify. That is why I am very pleased to see that other
organizations besides the Bloc have made the same analysis,
organizations that the government might find more credible than us
and that will be able, we hope, to convince the government that its
bill, in its current form, will not help to improve the fragile
financial situation of both women and young people.
I would also like to remind the government of the loss of the
Canadian advisory council on the status of women, which could, on
a day like today, point out to the government that it is going in the
wrong direction. In fact, I reminded the minister as recently as
yesterday that it was her government that abolished this major
advisory council that could recommend government priorities on
the status of women.
There are two categories of unemployed workers. Members of
the first one who often claim unemployment insurance benefits
will be penalized. Their benefits will be reduced by 1 percentage
point for every 20 weeks. So, they will have to work longer for less.
In the meantime, the government is setting aside for itself a very
generous $5 billion fund at the expense of contributing employees
and employers. Employees thought they were insured, but that
insurance no longer exists because the federal government, which
does not contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, is
keeping these $5 billion to reduce its deficit or to give out a few
small grants as it pleases in order to make its presence felt in the
provinces.
The government is also insensitive to the consensus in Quebec to
regain control over the budgets for manpower training. In fact, it
used the name employment insurance to interfere even more in job
training and policy control. This is exactly the opposite of what was
requested by Quebec's social and economic community, and that
includes not only the Bloc Quebecois, not only sovereignists, but
also federalists who want a true employment policy.
To create a true employment policy, one must have the necessary
budget. This government increases its spending power, which is a
shame since unemployment insurance is funded by the provinces
but it is the federal government that tells the provinces what kind of
programs and what kind of measures must be implemented to help
those who cannot find a job.
I would like this government to respect the purpose of
unemployment insurance, which is to ensure that workers will
receive benefits while they are without a job. In tough times, we
should do the opposite. If we did not have any money, if we did not
have a surplus, I would understand why the government would
want to establish such criteria, but not when it is keeping $5 billion
to spend as it pleases.
(1145)
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the report stage of Bill C-12, an
act to amend the employment insurance act.
I want to speak on the intensity rule. The government believes
steps had to be taken to protect the integrity of the employment
insurance system, to ensure the millions of workers who contribute
premiums continue to have confidence in a system which is both
equitable and sustainable.
2228
In seeking a solution which is fair and balanced I have proposed
two very necessary amendments to Bill C-12. I am pleased to stand
before the House today to report on these two amendments and to
encourage opposition support for these two necessary amendments.
These amendments will increase fairness and will help those
people most in need. Those are the people the opposition members
also should care about.
The first amendment I proposed would exempt claimants in
receipt of the family income supplement from the intensity rule.
This would affect claimants and families with annual earnings of
$26,000 or less.
The second complementary amendment would see the provision
of a credit to those who receive a reduced benefit as a result of
working while on claim. An example of this would be if individuals
claimed benefits for 24 weeks but due to working while collecting
benefits their actual benefits are reduced by 50 per cent. These
individuals would then be assumed to have accumulated only 12
weeks of benefits for the purpose of the intensity rule. Therefore
the next time they file for employment insurance benefits they
would not be affected by the intensity rule.
When considering this legislation we examined carefully ways
to introduce reforms that are fair to people facing hardships. We
tried to maintain incentives that would encourage people to take
work when it is available, while at the same time ensuring all
regions in the country are treated fairly and equitably.
It is worthy to note that to achieve this balance and fairness
minimal cost is involved. We sought a way to ensure this
legislation would help those people most in need. Other
amendments to Bill C-12 will bring changes to the gaps in
earnings, to the divisor, which will mean people with low incomes
and in high unemployment regions are not punished for
circumstances often beyond their control.
As a part of this package of amendments, my colleagues agreed
with me the intensity rule change was necessary. I believe that rule
was treating too harshly low income families, particularly those
living in high unemployment regions. Under the original proposal
the intensity rule would reduce the benefit rate by 1 per cent for
every 20 weeks of regular benefits collected in the past five years
up to a maximum of 5 per cent.
The family income supplement will benefit 350,000 Canadians. I
consider this supplement to be one of the many positive features of
this legislation. It will ensure that claimants most in need of
assistance will have the means to fulfil their family
responsibilities. It will mean that low income claimants, perhaps
with young families, will be able to obtain employment insurance
benefits worth up to 80 per cent of their work income instead of the
55 per cent normal benefit rate.
Having fought for and won the inclusion of this basic income
benefit level for low income families, I did not want to see this
value undermined. We did not want to subject vulnerable members
of our workforce to an intensity rule that would erode the value of
their benefits by as much as five percentage points.
Studies show that 188,000 claimants, ,or 54 per cent, receiving
the family supplement would be affected by the intensity rule.
(1150 )
While accepting the importance of maintaining the integrity of
our employment system, it is important that we exempt family
supplement recipients from the intensity rule, therefore protecting
those Canadians most in need. To my mind, any family living on an
income of under $26,000, which is the threshold for the family
income supplement, has because of its difficult circumstances,
sufficient incentive to take whatever work is available.
The object of this reform is to help Canadians find and keep
work. By exempting them from this rule, these claimants would on
average see their total benefits increase by $128. Overall benefit
payouts would increase by $24 million.
The family supplement, by providing a somewhat larger benefit
to low income claimants with children, will mean a bit of extra
money available for those individuals to spend on such things as
child care, in order to participate in employment benefits or to take
additional training that would lead to a good job.
We have also recognized the intensity rule is meant to provide an
extra incentive for people to work as much as they can. It is a
reality that many people work while they are collecting insurance
benefits. Over a period of time claimants on EI may collect half of
what they are entitled to because they may have earnings from part
time work or small jobs.
Under the initial bill, if a claimant collects 50 per cent of what
the claimant is entitled to collect while on EI for 24 weeks, the
entire 24 weeks would count when the intensity rule is applied to
this person's future claim. We have agreed this part of the intensity
rule is not only unfair but is an unintended disincentive to work.
My Liberal colleagues have agreed with me on this.
My second amendment to Bill C-12 would give people credit for
work while on claim. By changing the intensity rule to account for
work while on claim, we are encouraging claimants to accept
whatever work is available, whenever it is available. This
recognizes the principle that no matter how little or how much
work is actually available, it has to pay people to work.
The vast majority of people would rather be working than
receiving benefits. I see this change to the intensity rule as a
positive and fair measure. Claimants subject to the intensity rule
who work while on claim will earn work credits which will be
prorated to reduce the impact of the intensity rule on future claims.
2229
This amendment will encourage a trend toward a greater work
effort creating more jobs for Canadians.
These amendments agreed to by my Liberal colleagues show that
if we fix the gap, if we adjust the divisor, if we change the intensity
rule, we will have a better bill. We will do something for
Canadians.
I am encouraging support from my opposition colleagues. We
will come a long way to increase fairness in the employment
insurance system both to individuals and to regions, to provide
additional incentives to work, recognizing the lack of work
opportunities in high unemployment regions.
An amended Bill C-12 with the gap, the divisor, the intensity
rule all amended will create a system that will help create more
jobs, that will help get more people back to work, that will support
the federal job strategy. An amendment to the intensity rule will,
most of all, create a system that is fairer for those in the workforce
and for those who are not.
I urge my colleagues to please support these amendments, which
will make this a fair and equitable bill for all Canadians in the
workplace.
(1155)
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, here
we are again discussing Bill C-12, a bill which in committee was
subjected to time allocation, or at least limited debate. I would not
be very surprised if we came up with another time allocation
motion some time today to speed this bill along.
The name has changed. I suppose that was thrown in as a sort of
an appeasement to the Reform Party. We kept saying
unemployment insurance should be more like employment
insurance. It should be more like insurance.
The Liberals said ``maybe we will just change the name and that
will give the illusion that we have actually made an insurance
policy out of this, that the emphasis now will be on employment
rather than on unemployment''.
Insurance means insurance whether it is called unemployment or
employment insurance. That is perhaps the reason the bill should
go back to the drawing board. Maybe we can get it right. In its
present form it does not really resemble insurance in any way.
Let us talk about insurance in the manner with which most
Canadians are familiar. If you operate a motor vehicle, for instance,
provincial law requires automobile insurance be purchased and
maintained. If you have accidents regularly or if your car is stolen
and you have to utilize insurance, you will find your rates will be
increased according to the compensation paid by the insurance
company.
If it were a true insurance policy, why would it include training
programs and make work programs that really are not make work
programs at all? Anybody who benefits from the make work
programs as they stand now are the bureaucracies.
As far as training, we have heard from our colleagues in the Bloc
they are most anxious to take over the manpower training
provincially. If the government were to seek this, it would find the
provinces agree that job training would be an area in which all
provinces would be interested.
When I asked the minister of HRD last December about changes
to the delivery of the training programs, he said we really should be
transferring resources to the people, to the private sector, to
communities.
If the minister agrees with that philosophy, if the provinces are
willing to take on the training, if the private sector is willing to get
involved, what is the stumbling block? The opposition certainly is
not holding the government up on this. Why does it not go ahead
and transfer these properties to the provinces where they would
readily be accepted?
How does the minister reconcile the department's continued
involvement in training programs when the Prime Minister
announced that labour training programs would be the sole
responsibility of the provinces? This is very difficult for me to
understand.
A group of people in the fast food industry in my constituency
wrote to me. They were very concerned about some of the
provisions in this bill. One constituent basically said his costs will
increase significantly if Bill C-12 becomes law. It is well on its way
to becoming law.
This operator employs around 90 people, many of whom are
students, part time workers. They are still going to school. Part of
the idea is that they earn enough money to defray part of their
university tuition. He said: ``My customers are very price sensitive.
I will have no choice but to cut back on employee hours and reduce
the number of new hires in my business''. He went on to say that
implementing this payroll tax runs counter to the government's job
creation objectives and is inconsistent with its position that payroll
taxes kill jobs. As a matter of fact the government's position is that
by reducing the premiums by five cents per $100 of wages earned
that thousands of jobs would be created.
(1200)
In light of the fact that the fund is predicted to increase to an $8
billion surplus this year, why will the government not reduce the
premiums by $1 per $100 and create millions of jobs? I am using
the government's map here. If one reduction of five cents per $100
will create so many jobs, why not create 20 times as many jobs?
Why not go that route?
2230
The Minister of Finance and other members of the government
have admitted that the real killer of jobs is high taxes. Taxation is
the killer of jobs. This gentleman who runs a fast food business in
my constituency agrees with that statement but he cannot
understand why the minister, the committee and the government
does not see fit to reduce payroll taxes even more, bearing in mind
that there will a huge surplus in this fund.
What possible reason could the government have to maintain
such a high surplus? It says that times are not going to stay as good
as they are. Perhaps the government is just creating a cushion for
the downturn in the economy and the resulting jobs that may be
lost. I do not know about that. Perhaps some creative bookkeeping
is going on there. It seems to me that there never is a time when
there is a surplus that one can actually put one's finger on. These
surpluses seem to flow back and forth, and mostly forth into
general revenue.
We are confronted today with over 200 amendments. If we
debate those amendments one at a time, it is certainly going to take
a lot of time. However, it will be time well spent. We should be able
to debate this bill so that we actually dissect it. Eventually we will
wind up putting it back together in a form that will be acceptable to
Canadians, not only to the people who have to use UI from time to
time but to those people who are employing the workforce of
Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak today with great regret and sadness at the direction being
taken by Bill C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in
Canada.
First of all, I would like to speak about this government. The
federal government has brought in time allocation, allowing only
10 hours to study these numerous amendments to a regressive,
anti-employment, poverty creating bill whose effects are complex.
(1205)
This government wants to rush its reforms through on the backs
of workers and the poor, while relieving the more fortunate
members of our society of the social and financial burden. Its often
arbitrary measures, which do not respect the democratic right of
opposition members, make it more difficult for us to do the job for
which we were elected.
I would also like to draw attention to an excellent article that
appeared today in Le Devoir, that is a very good analysis of the
situation that Bill C-12 will create. This article says that the reform
is part of a policy that consists in using the unemployment
insurance fund to finance a growing number of activities other than
the payment of benefits.
I invite the public to take the time to read it. It will give them a
very good idea of what Bill C-12 is going to mean for us.
The article can be broken down into eight sections: 1)
constitutionality; 2) federal jurisdiction; 3) federal disengagement;
4) the federal government's financial participation; 5) the
disadvantaged; 6) a regressive tax; 7) the provinces' responsibility;
and 8) the conclusion.
I will read parts of the article to give members an idea of what it
is about. First of all, this article was written by lawyers specializing
in social law, meaning that we can easily use it as a reference. On
constitutionality, the article says: ``The employment insurance bill
is part of a policy which consists in dipping into the unemployment
insurance fund to finance a growing number of activities other than
payment of benefits. Not only is this injurious to a growing number
of contributors' right to benefits, but its constitutionality is far
from certain as well''.
In the second part of the article, to which I would give the title
``federal jurisdiction'', we can read the following: ``In 1940 when
the provinces consented to having this social insurance scheme
placed under federal jurisdiction, as an exception, the
constitutional amendment was to be precisely worded so as to turn
over to the federal level only the creation and administration of an
unemployment insurance plan''.
The third part deals with federal disengagement. It speaks of
``disengagement of state responsibility with respect to the
unemployed, coupled with a growing use of the unemployment
insurance account for purposes other than payment of benefits''.
The fourth part deals with financial participation: ``In 1977,
various measures relating to job sharing, job creation and training
were introduced into the legislation, and these were funded from
the financial contributions of the federal government to the UI fund
for the purpose of paying for those measures in future''.
Succinctly, what the article tells us is that the federal
government sloughed off its responsibility at some point. Initially,
it was paying for the measures it imposed upon us, while now it no
longer contributes to the UI fund. Only the employers and
employees do.
On the subject of the disadvantaged, we can read as follows:
``Moreover, a 1990 study commissioned by the Quebec department
of manpower and income security concluded that female single
parents were particularly affected by these legislative changes to
the unemployment insurance program. A large number of these
women would have to go on welfare''.
(1210)
Regarding the regressive tax, they write: ``By using UI
premiums to pay for things other than benefits, the federal
legislation turns them into a regressive tax due to the fact that the
maximum pensionable income is $29,000 a year. With regard to
provincial responsibilities, not only does the federal government
interfere in
2231
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, such as manpower and
social assistance, but it does it with money collected as UI
premiums, and not through its spending power. When it comes to
unemployment insurance, Parliament's responsibility is to collect
premiums in order to compensate insured workers should they be
become unemployed. It cannot use this money for other things,
thus depriving contributors of the protection they are entitled to''.
The conclusion reads as follows: ``This new direction taken by
the plan is more harmful to certain members of society. From now
on, some will be excluded from the plan, among them a majority of
women and young people. Because of their precarious position at
the bottom of the labour market scale, women and young people
are especially affected by the current restructuring of the labour
market, which has resulted in higher unemployment. Any decrease
in basic UI coverage, especially tightening the eligibility criteria, is
particularly harmful to these groups''.
In short, these experts, these lawyers specialized in social law,
give a very good summary of all the elements, all the cases brought
to your attention. The bottom line is that Bill C-12 will do much
more harm than good.
This sums up the many hours the Bloc Quebecois spent
questioning the government. Why? Why introduce a bill aimed at
cutting benefits, a punitive bill that does not take the new labour
market into consideration? Why reduce the insurable maximum
earnings from $42,380 to $39,000, at a cost of $900 million to the
fund? Why? Why should workers earning $39,000 or less and their
employers be the only ones sharing costs between them, especially
since the surplus is being used to reduce the deficit?
Why introduce this fixed period mechanism to determine
earnings, if not to cut benefits? Why introduce the intensity rule, if
not to penalize workers whose jobs are not permanent and who are
having a hard time making ends meet by working on contract or
taking temporary, part time or, again, seasonal jobs? Why cut
insurable weekly earnings and annualize premiums?
This unfair, regressive, anti-employment bill creates poverty and
discriminates against women and young people. It creates a strong
tendency to increase overtime and cut wages at a time when the
social and economic impact will be devastating. It completely
overlooks the strong growth in self-employment. If the bill changes
the system's name from unemployment to employment insurance,
why is the $5 billion surplus being used for something else than job
creation?
(1215)
In conclusion, this bill is a faithful reflection of this government.
It touches on everything yet solves nothing.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise at this
time because of what I see are points raised by members opposite
which are off the mark especially relative to manpower training. I
want to set the record straight as it relates to Bill C-12.
The Government of Canada does recognize that labour market
training is a responsibility of provincial governments, linked to
their responsibility for education.
The proposed employment insurance act, Bill C-12, provides for
a range of employment measures which opposition members well
know are to help unemployed Canadians find and keep work. These
measures could include: wage subsidies, income supplements,
support for self-employment, partnerships for job creation and skill
loans and grants. In line with the government's commitment to
training, skill loans and grants will only be implemented with the
consent of the province concerned, including Quebec.
This bill is a major step beyond the path of the UI program of the
past. It focuses on jobs in providing unemployed workers with the
tools they need to get back to work. One of the great strengths of
the bill is that it clarifies more than ever before federal
responsibilities in this area. It commits the federal government to
work in concert with the provinces and territories to help people
find jobs.
With employment insurance, the federal government will phase
out training purchases, apprenticeship programs, co-operative
education and workplace based training. Any employment measure
that involves training such as skill loans and grants to individuals
will only be used in a province with the province's consent.
The Government of Canada will seek formal agreements with
each province on the design and delivery of the new employment
benefits to harmonize these with provincial programs and eliminate
overlap and duplication. These agreements might take many
different forms depending on the priority of each province. If a
province wants more control, the bill allows the federal
government to delegate administration of federal employment
measures to a province or even to fund provincial programs in
place of federal ones if they achieve the same results.
Results are what really matter to Canadians, no matter who
delivers the employment benefits. Flexibility, co-operation and
partnerships are the key to getting results.
Employment insurance through Bill C-12 allows new
partnerships to develop and evolve for the future. It will lead to a
more effective labour market development better matched to local
market realities. It will get rid of wasteful overlap and duplication.
It will focus all our resources and energies on the real challenge at
hand, helping Canadians find and keep jobs. That is the important
purpose of manpower training. It is to give people the skills so they
can have the skills in place to attract business to their province and
2232
regions, and then have the opportunity to take on those new jobs in
the marketplace of the future.
Canadians want their governments to work together.
Employment insurance reflects the commitment of the
Government of Canada to work with the provinces, a commitment
to a federalism that will work for all Canadians.
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the hon. member for Malpeque, but I did not understand the
allusion he made to the bill at the beginning of his comments. I will
simply remind him that, when his government formed the
opposition and the former Conservative government proposed an
unemployment insurance reform, Liberal members made a big fuss
to show that they could not support the Conservative government.
Today, this bill includes just about the same measures. Today, the
Liberals feel that these changes are appropriate, while before they
fought them tooth and nail. This is a case of double standard; the
Liberals' outlook changes depending on where they sit in this
House. Such is the true face of this government.
When legislation is introduced, it should apply to all concerned.
However, this bill will not apply to all jobless people in this
country, since more than half of them will not be eligible for
unemployment benefits. More than half are excluded. What will
happen to these people?
These 50 per cent will find themselves in pretty dire straits, and
will include people from all groups, including young people,
women and single parent families. Again, what will happen to
these 50 per cent of unemployed people who will not be eligible for
unemployment benefits? They will end up on the welfare rolls, of
course.
And who will have to pay for this reform? The taxpayers in every
province concerned. Consequently, in Quebec and elsewhere in
Canada, governments will have to increase social assistance
budgets to deal with this new problem.
If the bill is passed, it will be disastrous for the country as a
whole. Year after year, my region and my riding win the prize for
the highest unemployment rate in the country. On behalf of my
constituents, I have to say that enough is enough. We can no longer
tolerate this situation.
The unemployment insurance issue has much more to do with
the current lack of jobs. Did the members opposite propose
programs, initiatives or ways to create jobs? No. The government
prefers to introduce measures such as this one, which, incidentally,
will not cost it anything, since employers and employees are the
ones making direct contributions to the unemployment insurance
fund.
(1225)
Of course, all the money collected does not necessarily go to
those to whom it belongs, the people who contributed. A fair
proportion of it is even used to reduce the deficit and the debt of our
country. That is something the people in my riding will not put up
with. What the people want most is a bill or programs that will
create jobs. The bill before us does not deal with the real challenge
we face concerning our social programs. The real challenge is, of
course, to create jobs.
How do you expect our young people to complete their education
in a decent fashion if we do not make it possible for them to find a
good job when they graduate, not a precarious and low paid job like
we see too many of these days, but a worthwhile job? They should
be able to get jobs that will allow them to work enough hours to
earn a decent salary, enough to pay back their student loans and live
normally. By that I mean being able to take on new responsibilities,
such as having a family of their own and being able to provide for
their children's education. I do not mean having children just for
the sake of having children and not giving them anything, or just
leaving them with a debt and deficit; I mean giving them the
collective tools they need to grow and prosper.
In my region, this bill has been criticized by community,
humanitarian and social groups, by workers, by unions, by less
organized people, by everyone. Does the government not hear all
these people? Despite what the government would like the public to
believe, these people are not all extremists, they are not all
militants and they are not all lazy. They are not all separatists
either. There are federalists who have opposed this legislation.
Why are we unable to reach those people across the way? Why
do they not listen to their hearts instead of engaging in a reform that
will involve so many technicalities that the most experienced
officials will have difficulty finding their way through them? They
will have difficulty solving problems that are submitted to us on a
regular basis. We are the ones who deal with people who have
problems and who do not know where to go to be treated fairly.
In closing, I would like to share with you an experience from the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. Alcan workers there have
implemented a formula that creates jobs, and I urge the government
to take advantage of that experience. It is a job sharing formula that
will create, in the short term, close to 110 jobs and, of course, many
indirect jobs.
2233
(1230)
If the job sharing formula initiated by Alcan workers was
applied to all businesses of 20 employees or more in Quebec, it
could create 120,000 direct jobs.
The government could follow this example and implement a job
sharing formula without dipping into the unemployment insurance
fund. We could then spend the unemployment insurance fund
surplus. I am sure all Canadians would support such measures
which would help us create jobs.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-12
concerning unemployment insurance, or, if you prefer, to use the
government's misleading terminology, the bill concerning
employment insurance.
At this stage, I would like to remind you of the Bloc's position
concerning unemployment insurance reform and its
transformation, as if by magic, into an employment insurance
program. Like the majority of Quebecers, like the majority of
Canadians who have already demonstrated their dissatisfaction
with the planned reform throughout the country, like the witnesses
who appeared before the human resources development committee,
75 per cent of the witnesses, 75 per cent of the briefs submitted to
the committee, we are strongly opposed to Bill C-12.
We are asking, and we will continue to ask until the last possible
minute, because that is what Quebecers and Canadians want, that
this bill be withdrawn, scrapped, and that there be a real
unemployment insurance program, a real program concerning the
job market, a real comprehensive policy combining the income
security needed by men and women who may find themselves
unemployed, which can happen anytime to anyone, with job
training and active employment measures.
In other words, it is important to come up with a real
unemployment insurance reform corresponding to the present job
market, and 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.
What the reform presents us with is not really that. We are faced
with an unfair bill. A regressive bill. An anti-employment bill. We
are faced with a bill with the potential to create more poverty than
it alleviates.
Changing a bill's name from unemployment insurance to
employment insurance is easily done, but the reality is that
employment has never been a concern of this government. The
precarious job situation has never been the focus in any way of this
government's concerns, nor has the unemployment situation been
the object of any really serious efforts by this government.
How can this government have any real credibility, when even
the Prime Minister stated some months ago to a select audience in
Toronto that he considered Canada's unemployed to be lazy
beer-drinkers?
(1235)
How can we think that this government can focus in any way
whatsoever on the situation of the least advantaged in society, when
only a few weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources
Development told us that those demonstrating their displeasure
with the government were extremists, separatists? I would remind
you that such displeasure was being shown even in his own riding,
that there were demonstrations in his riding, unless of course his
constituents include sovereignists and separatists, or were
supported by them.
But for him it boiled down to that: people were extremists
because they would not stand still to have their legs chopped off, as
Bill C-12 proposes, or separatists, or what the Prime Minister
called lazy people who ought to be out working instead of
demonstrating. So that is the vision of this government as far as the
most disadvantaged members of society are concerned.
This bill which, among other things, raises the number of hours
worked required in order to collect UI, while decreasing the
amount of benefits considerably, ought to simply be withdrawn.
The government must admit that it has made a mistake with this. It
needs to get back to the drawing board, to rework a real
employment insurance plan, one which suits the work force's
needs.
The other day, I was listening to the Minister of Economic
Development for PEI, Robert Morrissey. He said that for Prince
Edward Island alone, the loss of revenue for the 1996-97 fiscal year
would be $15 million. This is a disaster for such a small province.
I was discussing this issue with my colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and, according to him, the Lower
St. Lawrence area, where under-employment is most serious, will
lose $20 million this year if the minister's bill is implemented.
I remind the House that last year this government had already
deprived Quebecers and Canadians of about $2,4 billion by
shamefully slashing UI funds, benefits paid to the most needy in
our society.
Bill C-17 we considered last year was less harmful than the
reform proposed today, so you can imagine the results if it is
implemented. I remind members that, in Quebec alone, some
46,000 people were totally excluded from the labour market last
year because of the policy of restraint already announced in the
finance minister's budget.
I find unacceptable that a government which ran on the promise
of job creation and supposedly on the basis of a social vision for the
most disadvantaged, could take 46,000 people out of the labour
2234
force with the stroke of a pen, by adopting brutal measures that did
not meet the needs of the most needy of our society.
Meanwhile, this government prides itself on having built up
surpluses in the UI fund. It boasts about accumulating a minimum
of $5 billion annually from employers' and employees'
contributions. What is this government doing with this $5 billion,
when it has dipped into Canadians' and Quebecers' pockets,
literally robbed them of more than $2 billion since last year along
with another several hundred million dollars this year with new
measures? During this time, it takes an accumulated surplus of $5
billion annually to reduce its deficit so that the Minister of Finance
appears to be a good manager by controlling the course of the
deficit. This way of operating is unacceptable.
And when things start to heat up, and the lid on the pot is lifting,
the government has three courses of action. It tries to buy people,
just as the Minister of Finance did recently with the three maritime
provinces when he offered $961 million for a pseudo reform of the
GST, which has really left his government squirming of late.
(1240)
When buying people does not work-I hope the people of the
maritimes will not be foolish enough to swallow the GST reform,
take $961 million in compensation and permit a reform that will
spell catastrophe for their community in the coming years-this
government becomes cynical, gets carried away and tries to trick
people as to its intentions or its actions.
We heard all that was said by the Minister of National Defence in
response to questioning on the many scandals in his department
and by the Prime Minister in an attempt to convince us, Quebecers
and Canadians, that he had resolved the problem of the GST, when
the problem remains intact, even with the resignation of the Deputy
Prime Minister. And when that does not work either, the
government has a third approach to getting or trying to get people
to swallow what it is pushing and that is by gagging the opposition
and this Parliament.
Since last week, we have been gagged three times and thus
prevented from debating, until basic issues like Bill C-12 die.
The first gag was applied to this bill, and the time for members'
debate in the House of Commons was limited. This time serves to
help Quebecers and Canadians, who are being had by this
government, understand that it says one thing and does another.
The second was applied to Bill C-31, which included a section on
the scandalous agreement between the federal government and the
three maritime provinces on the GST. The third was applied to
human rights, and a gag was also imposed on that debate yesterday.
This way of operating is unacceptable and we are voicing,
through this analysis at report stage of Bill C-12, our
dissatisfaction with the intentions of the government in its
shameful reform of the unemployment insurance system.
[English]
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this bill and have an opportunity to correct the
record. I feel it necessary also to reflect on the comments of my
colleague opposite. At some point all discussion has taken place.
Canadians expect government to get on with the business of doing
business. I do not think closure in this case is an unacceptable
measure.
Some questions have been raised about why the government is
funding employment measures through the employment insurance
fund. It is important that people recognize that these are active
measures that help Canadians prepare for, find and keep jobs.
These measures are a long term investment in the reduction of
unemployment which I believe are a legitimate way to spend
contributions collected from employers and employees.
The federal government is mindful of the responsibility it has to
safeguard the EI fund. Therefore there are some legitimate
eligibility requirements. There is access to the fund. Ceilings to the
fund will be put in place, and checks and balances to make sure
there is an accountability framework to ensure monitoring of the
results. Some of the consolidated revenue fund moneys will be
available for groups or individuals who may not be eligible for EI
funded measures such as youth and aboriginals.
There are two other areas I will speak on, the issues that have
been raised with regard to the new employment insurance system,
and how it will impact on women and low income parents. A great
deal of misinformation has been spread on this issue.
Let us set the record straight and get some facts on the table.
Mothers and low income people will benefit from the employment
insurance system the government is proposing to put in place.
Employment insurance is much more inclusive than the old system.
Under EI, all part time work will now be insured, which is a major
boost to women who comprise nearly 70 per cent of the part time
workforce.
For the first time about 270,000 women who hold down part time
jobs of fewer than 15 hours each will have their work insured.
Under EI all the hours count toward a claim. Consider women who
work at several jobs, perhaps three jobs of 13 hours a week each.
Their take home pay would be based on 39 to 40 hours. They will
be fully insured if they suddenly become sick or they take parental
leave or should they lose one or two of those jobs. For those women
who just work 13 or 14 hours a week that income is critical to the
2235
success and the livelihood of their family. They too if they lose that
job will have EI benefits. That family will continue to have a
source of income while she goes out and looks for a second job.
(1245)
EI provides opportunities for women to increase their work by
lifting that 15 hour glass ceiling. Some people want to work more
than the 15 hours but some employers restrict part time workers to
fewer than 15 hours to avoid having to pay premiums. That is not
acceptable.
EI provides special help for mothers and low income parents. It
recognizes the importance of providing income protection to
women who are raising families. The family income supplement
for low income families with children will raise weekly benefits up
to 80 per cent of average earnings. By the year 2001 when EI is
fully implemented, they will receive 12 per cent more than they do
today.
The changes which I am going to discuss next are as a result of
one of the backbenchers who has made a difference here in the
House, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. She brought in
several worthwhile amendments at the committee stage and she
should be commended for her work on that front.
Because of the amendments of the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore the intensity rule will not apply to 108,000
women who receive the family income supplement and have a
history of past use. The intensity rule reduces the benefit rate by 1
per cent for every 20 weeks of regular benefits claimed over the
past five years.
Because of the amendment of the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore single parent families, most of whom are
headed by women, with incomes below $26,000 will receive an
average of 13 per cent more benefits under EI. More women will be
able to continue working while on claim. All claimants will be able
to take temporary work and earn at least $50 a week without
reducing their benefits. We provide that encouragement to people
to add to their family income.
Women who earn $2,000 or less a year will have any premiums
they pay refunded through the income tax system which is another
important change.
EI will mean that more mothers and low income families will be
eligible for employment benefits to help get them back into the
workforce. I am constantly faced with cases in my riding where
people cannot get back in. They do not have access to those
opportunities because they were not receiving in the past.
Women who return to work after caring for children will have
access to EI special employment benefits if they have collected
parental benefits or maternity leave in the past five years. Under EI
women who have exhausted an EI claim within the past three years
will be eligible for help through these active employment benefits.
About 45 per cent of social assistance recipients currently in
Canada will meet these eligibility requirements. These will make a
difference for people. EI's employment benefits will help low
income Canadians and women re-entering the workforce to acquire
the skills that they need to find work.
Jobs for Canadians is the fundamental objective of our federal
job strategy. We campaigned on jobs and growth. We are trying to
create an environment where businesses can go out and create jobs,
where people can get themselves skilled so they can be the best
employees and they can find meaningful work.
These employment benefit measures that we are talking about
have been field tested with great success. They are proven to help
women who have been unemployed for long periods to get back
into the workforce and increase their earnings. The best social
security system we have in this country is a job. These tools will
help women to boost their earnings. They will contribute to their
job stability and blaze new trails in non-traditional occupations.
For example, the targeted wage subsidies to employers can help
level the playing field for people facing disadvantages in the
workforce, like women. Studies show that this approach does work.
It can mean an increase of $5,000 a year on average in earnings. Of
course child care support will be available for women receiving
employment benefits. That is something I welcome as great news.
One of the things we talked about was the employment benefits
and how this new system will help people get jobs. About 400,000
unemployed workers each year may qualify for new employment
insurance benefits, things like these wage subsidies or
self-employment assistance, things that have been tested and
proven to help people get back to work.
(1250)
Part II of Bill C-12 sets out the basic principles for these
employment benefits and measures but they will be highly flexible.
They will be easy to use. They will be easy to adapt to an
individual's needs and circumstances. They will focus first and last
on getting results no matter how they are delivered.
That is something all members of Parliament face every day in
their constituencies. Some remarks from people are: ``I am just
falling through this system. I just missed this eligibility
requirement. If only I had this, then I could take this program. I am
taking a program that is completely unspecific to what I want to do
in the future but it is the only thing I am qualified for and my
family needs this income''.
These EI changes will make a difference to them. The old
programs as I have implied are rigid, inefficient or just do not
work. They will be eliminated. Instead, we will have a simpler set
of tools designed to work at a grassroots level.
2236
Importantly, and I think constituents are looking for this kind of
co-operation, we are putting the old turf wars behind us and
concentrating together with the provincial governments on getting
Canadians back to work. Bill C-12 commits the Government of
Canada to work in concert with provincial and territorial
governments in delivering employment benefits to Canadians.
New partnerships in delivery arrangements will match
employment measures to local labour market needs and will
eliminate the overlap and confusion over delivery by different
levels of government. That will mean more effective help for
unemployed Canadians. Is that not what we are here for?
Bill C-12 also sets the foundation for a better, more effective
national employment service, the information and advisory service
that currently helps about two million Canadians a year. A stronger,
automated job information and labour exchange will tell people
where the jobs are. More effective job search services will help
insurance claimants return to work as quickly as possible.
This is the kind of employment insurance system Canadians
want and it is the kind of system they need. It is more active. It will
get results. It is what Canadians have been asking us for. It is an
affordable, stronger, modernized system that focuses on jobs. It
will do a better job of helping Canadians. It will help to keep
Canadians working. Surely that is the fundamental objective of the
federal government's jobs strategy and something all of us should
be committed to.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill with great speed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on this bill at report stage and also
to join forces with the Bloc members who worked so courageously
on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.
This appears to be ``forget about past promises week'' for the
government. After the GST and after a free vote on such a
fundamental piece of legislation as the one adding sexual
orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination, when the
government had promised a party vote and instead let its members
vote freely on the bill, now we are asked to swallow hard and let
this unemployment insurance reform be rammed through the
House.
I am pleased to join in the debate because, on April 9, I held a
special information day in my riding on UI reform. About fifteen
organizations took part in this review of the reform, based on
government material. Most groups told us that this reform could in
no way be considered a possible basis for changes to the plan.
As usual, the government would have us believe that it is driven
by the determination to reform social programs. However, this was
not part of its election platform. Sometimes, you have to read
between the lines instead of only looking at broken promises such
as the scrapping of the GST; the Prime Minister does not seem to
know that scrapping does not mean harmonizing, he remains the
only one to believe he is right when his own finance minister and
deputy prime minister, under public pressure, have made amends.
(1255)
Besides, a very interesting statement of the Minister of Human
Resources Development was quoted in La Presse of March 16,
1996. The article said: ``The Minister of Human Resources
Development is willing to consider all the women's groups'
concerns about the unemployment insurance reform, but he warned
everyone that any amendment to the plan would have to be
implemented within the existing financial framework''. There you
have it: what counts is the financial framework and not the reform.
The article went on to say: ``The government intends to fully
respect the financial parameters set for the unemployment
insurance reform''.
Before I talk about unemployment insurance as such, I would
like to say a few words about the five proposed measures which
will replace the 39 back to work programs.
All the organizations I have consulted reminded me that there is
a certain amount of cynicism, if not hypocrisy, in this amendment.
In the throne speech, it was said that the federal government was
committed to transferring the responsibility for vocational training
back to the provinces.
We reminded the government about the consensus in Quebec and
about the minister who, at the Quebec conference on economic
development, tried to call the Quebec organizations to order, even
saying that the Conseil du patronat du Québec was not part of the
consensus. The consensus is very real and it applies not only to all
vocational training measures but also to all active unemployment
insurance measures.
Therefore, it must be said again that, first of all, the official
opposition and all interested parties in Quebec want Quebec to
have exclusive jurisdiction over all vocational training and
manpower training policies.
All the organizations consulted said it is clear that the purpose of
the reform is to cut a further $2 billion, and that this government is
behaving exactly like the previous Tory government: it is cutting
social programs in order to reduce the deficit.
When he announced $300 million worth of changes in the
amendments, he said that would be offset by stronger re-entry
measures. If he had so much confidence in his measures for
re-entry into the labour force, why would he cut unemployment
insurance? The number of unemployed would go down by itself
and so would program costs. But no. He has so little confidence in
his measures that he will cut the program anyway, to be sure to
2237
save $2 billion. These measures are not fair and should be
condemned.
As to the insurance program, it is clear to us that it is a social
program reform done at the expense of the neediest in our society,
that is the unemployed, welfare recipients, the young, women and
new entrants. On the whole, the unemployment insurance reform,
as proposed, is unfair, regressive, job-killing and poverty-inducing.
Eligibility requirements have been tightened. In order to be eligible
to the program, people now have to work 420 and 700 hours,
instead of 180 and 300 hours, more than double what it was.
For their part, new entrants to the labour market will need three
times as many hours of work, that is to say 910 hours, to be eligible
for the program. There are therefore two categories of unemployed:
ordinary unemployed and frequent unemployed. And it no only
applies to the regions; it also applies to people in Montreal, to self
employed workers and part time workers.
I started in the labour force in a weekend corner store job to pay
for my studies, and I feel affected by that. We are not talking only
about workers in the regions, Montreal will also be affected by
these measures.
Those who received payments in the past will see their benefits
reduced from 55 to 50 per cent, in negative increments of 1 per cent
for each 20-week period of benefits previously received. On the
one hand, we are told that every hour of work will count, even the
first 15, to allow these workers to have access to unemployment
insurance but, on the other hand, we are making eligibility rules so
tough they will not have access to the program.
(1300)
It says that the first $2,000, those who earn $2,000 and less
during the year will be able to receive a tax refund. The weakest,
the neediest in our society will have to finance the federal
government for one year. How nice. People will have to work
longer to receive less benefits and for a shorter period. It is the low
income people who will suffer the most from the implementation
of these measures.
As for setting maximum insurable earnings at $39,000, that is
another nice measure. The workers who earn the most will be given
a tax cut because they will no longer have to pay premiums above
the $39,000 threshold, but the people who work 15 hours or less
will be taxed. Strangely, the premium cut for some people is
roughly equivalent to the new premium for others. That is strange.
And to top it all off, this measure is being called a job creation
measure.
The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has said it
well; business people would do well to have employees earning
more than $39,000 work overtime, because they will no longer
have to pay premiums, rather than hiring a part time worker for
whom they would have to pay premiums. That is regressive and
anti-employment. The more the worker will earn money, the more
his premium rate will decrease, because he will no longer pay any
premiums after reaching $39,000. That is a gift from workers who
earn more than $2,000, but who are unable to qualify because of the
number of hours and of the other measures, to workers who earn
more than $39,000. A real nice gift.
The cap of $39,000 on maximum insurable earnings is also a gift
to capital intensive businesses, at the expense of labour intensive
businesses. It is more interesting to have fewer employees than to
have more. Finally, small businesses are being penalized.
The reform encourages people to do overtime. The idea is to
reduce the work week to reinforce job creation. This bill goes
totally against the current. The unemployment insurance reform
will put undue pressure on the reform of employment, which is
already precarious. Jobs, jobs, jobs, a lot of jobs will be cut. Nice
program.
The new measures, by reducing the benefit rate, by taxing
workers starting from the first hour, by establishing more stringent
eligibility criteria while making certain people ineligible, are also
contributing to an increased transfer of the unemployment
insurance clientele toward social welfare. And the government is
dumping its responsibility in the provinces' backyard, as it did for
transfer programs. The Liberal government is not taking its
responsibilities. This is ``forget about past promises week'', the
week of consummate hypocrisy. Good show.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate on the amendments to the former
Unemployment Insurance Act which, ironically, as everyone
knows, will now be called the Employment Insurance Act. This in
itself is indicative of the government's cynicism, a government
with a long experience in that area. This is a textbook illustration of
how supposedly serious and responsible commitments made by
this government during the 1993 election campaign were never
fulfilled. Indeed, this is another perfect example of the Liberals
modus operandi.
(1305)
Before going any further, I want to congratulate my fellow Bloc
colleagues who worked very hard on this issue, particularly the
hon. member for Mercier, the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, as well as my friend and
colleague, the hon. member for Lévis, who worked literally day
and night to fight this cynical bill, which goes against public
interest.
Several members have already said, and so will others, that this
is an unfair, regressive and anti-employment measure. It has
2238
nothing to do with employment insurance. It does not promote job
creation: it promotes poverty.
This measure is quite simply patterned on what the
Conservatives intended to do, had they remained in office. It is
based on the most petty neo-Liberal movement, a movement that
targets the poor and excludes an increasing number of people, not
only in Quebec, in Canada and in America, but all over the world, a
movement that must be scrutinized, analyzed and criticized,
because a measure such as this one, given what is involved, will be
followed by others, even though it goes against public interest, or
the interest of humankind, as Victor Hugo said.
We can never overemphasize the fact that this is a cynical
change. My comments will deal more specifically with one aspect
of this major overhaul that is not only of local interest, in fact it is
more of a technical nature. I am referring to the restructuring of the
employment centres network, more specifically the UI and
employment offices in my own region of Mauricie. My speech is
for my constituents in the riding of Trois-Rivières who are the
victims of an arbitrary, irresponsible and indefensible measure, all
this because of the fluke election of the Liberal candidate in the
riding of Saint-Maurice, who is now the Prime Minister of Canada
and who was before the member for Beauséjour.
The member for Beauséjour, who was Leader of the Opposition
at the time, back in March 1993, wrote to a movement for the
defence of the poor in the Montreal region, regarding the attitude of
the Conservative government, whose example he now follows. The
letter, dated March 26, 1993, had the official letterhead of the
office of the Leader of the Official Opposition:
Liberals are dismayed by these measures. By reducing benefits and
penalizing even more those who voluntarily quit their job, it is obvious that the
government cares little about the victims of the economic crisis. Instead of
going to the root of the problem, it targets the unemployed. Moreover these
measures will have disturbing consequences.
This is what the former member for Beauséjour and Leader of
the Opposition, who has since become the member for
Saint-Maurice, the riding next to mine, wrote in March 1993. This
is totally beneath contempt. The proposed measure is unfair to
residents of the Mauricie, since it targets people who are already in
trouble. Those who are unemployed, who are on welfare and who
want to improve their lot must work at it, they must go the
employment centre. However, in the case of the Mauricie region, it
was decided that the regional centre, which was formerly in
Trois-Rivières, would be moved to Shawinigan. This is
unacceptable.
If you look at the Notice Paper, you will see that I asked four
questions on this issue. I will read these questions, regarding which
I hope to get an answer soon.
The first one is: ``Can the Minister of Human Resources
Development indicate what recommendations were made, by the
committee analysing the restructuring of service points in Quebec,
on the advisability of locating the regional Canada Human
Resources Centre in Shawinigan or in Trois-Rivières?''
(1310)
Here is the second, No. 21 in the Order Paper of March 12, 1996:
``Can the Minister of Human Resources Development tell me
whether representations or interventions were made by officers,
employees or other persons from the Privy Council or the Office of
the Prime Minister to officers, employees or officials from Human
Resources Development Canada, in order to ensure that the
regional Canada Human Resources Centre would be located in a
municipality in the constituency of Saint-Maurice rather than in
Trois-Rivières?''
Question No. 22: ``Can the Minister of Human Resources
Development tell me whether, as part of its restructuring of service
points in Quebec, Human Resources Development Canada carried
out comparative studies on the advisability of locating the regional
Canada Human Resources Centre in Shawinigan or in
Trois-Rivières and, if so, what where the findings of those
studies?''
And fourth and last, Question No. 23: ``Can the Minister of
Public Works and the Minister of Human Resources Development
tell me the rent and rent-related costs of the Human Resources
Development Canada premises in the Bourg-du-Fleuve building on
rue des Forges in Trois-Rivières, as compared with the anticipated
costs of the Department's moving to, arranging, and settling into
new premises to be located in the Shawinigan area according to the
government's plan?''
According to what I have been told, the government will be
answering these questions in the next few days. We would hope
that, upon receiving these questions, both political and
administrative staff understood that the government's proposal to
locate the human resources centre in Shawinigan rather than in
Trois-Rivières is contrary to the public interest, that this decision is
unfair and shameful, and that this project is cynical and shameful.
Not only was it made without consultation, but also it is contrary
to the opinion of every group that reacted to it in our area. The
mayor of Trois-Rivières has fought a good fight, followed by the
Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Senior Citizens and the
regional federation of caisses populaires. Moreover, some 25,000
citizens indicated their disapproval of that project in writing. Based
on the information at its disposal, the public service union also
decried this project. It does not make any sense, it goes against the
best interests of the public, it is a disgrace, and we will continue to
condemn this project.
Particularly as the hon. member for Saint-Maurice was kind
enough to tell his voters last week, in his latest householder, that
2239
the new regional centre will open its doors in his riding, but more
precisely in Shawinigan-Sud. Those of you who are familiar with
the area will know that it will also serve residents of the
Saint-Maurice riding. Because the focal point in that riding is
Shawinigan and not Shawinigan-Sud, constituents of the hon.
member for Saint-Maurice will have to go from Shawinigan to
Shawinigan-Sud without adequate public services to get them
there.
We believe, and the minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec also knows it full well, that this decision is
unjustifiable. The minister also knows this is a totally arbitrary
decision that does not take into consideration the history of the area
or the travel pattern of residents. We will never stop decrying what
we believe is still only a project, because we still hope the final
decision has not be taken yet.
According to the information we have, officials are not aware
that a decision has been taken. Everyone believes this is still only at
the planning stage and we hope the government, and the Prime
Minister who is behind all of this, it is pointless to try to deny it,
will see reason and make a sensible and wise decision. Given his
age and his vast experience, he should be able to set things straight
and see to it that the people of the Mauricie region have access to
all the services they are entitled to.
(1315)
[English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a procedural concern. The bill has gone to committee and yet
it still comes back to the House with a horrendous number of
amendments. I believe there 220 amendments, which gives one
cause to wonder when a bill is not a bill and whether the House of
Commons is actually rewriting the bill. It makes one wonder what
actually happened in committee to resolve some of these
difficulties which would have provided a more streamlined bill for
the House.
I am also concerned with the name change of the bill. I have two
concerns. The first is about changing the name from
unemployment to employment. I also question the term insurance.
If changes were to be made, why was the term insurance not
included?
With regard to the contents of the bill, we have started in practice
to move away from the concept of insurance. The insurance
policies of today are sophisticated tontines, things from our past.
This does not seem to be a true insurance policy as was originally
conceived to address the needs of the unemployed. It was originally
intended to get us over that period of time until we could get back
into the world of employment. I question whether we are actually
discussing an insurance concept.
The change in terms from unemployment to employment
reminds me of the health care realm in which we have a health care
insurance policy. I am very pleased to see it is still addressing the
concept of illness. When I am ill I know I have a health insurance
policy that will allow me to get the kind of treatment I need. When
the concept was changed in health care from an illness to a wellness
approach, it was specifically applied to the department, not
necessarily the actual insurance component of the health care
regime.
The same principle is being used here, but it is not being applied
to the department; it is actually encroaching on the insurance
program or a program of the department. By changing the term
from unemployment to employment we are expanding the
parameters of this jurisdiction. We are getting more officially into
things like education and health care. We have already tended to
move that way with training programs.
We may be going further down the road toward duplicating
services that should be provided by other jurisdictions. The health
component involved when a person is unemployed should be under
the health care organization.
I have some difficulties in changing the term unemployment to
employment. It could be interpreted in ways that lead to a great
expansion of services under this insurance act. This would take us
further away from a true insurance policy.
Another concern I have is with premiums. We tend to establish
categories based on geographic location or income, and we address
those in need, which takes me one step further. Regardless of
financial position, when we are suddenly employed there develops
a need. When we work we develop a lifestyle our income will
support. When that income is gone it has an effect on our lifestyle.
We become in need to maintain it. I do not think that is what we are
talking about here.
(1320)
We should maybe look at Maslov to identify what needy means.
I tend to think of needy as the basic principles which come out from
Maslov such as food, shelter and clothing. These are essential to all
people. When it comes to looking at benefits, this is the
classification that should be front and centre. When we speak of
needy, what is immediately conjured in one's mind is that
somebody is needy in one of those three area, versus just saying
needs. Whatever our income, we develop an appropriate lifestyle
and when the income is no longer there, we are in need to maintain
that lifestyle. That is a totally different issue than what we are
talking about here.
It is becoming extremely technical. I am still struggling with my
income tax. It is at a point now where I am not capable of doing it
myself and I have to shop around for the best deal in town. We are
beginning to get a similar process here by coming up with various
categories, conditions in various areas of the country, income and
so on. There are all these different categories. We should be
2240
looking at the elimination of some of these categories, not the
creation of more, while addressing the basic needs of the
unemployed.
One category that jumps to mind immediately is the regional
category. Obviously there is a financial difference, depending on
the area of the country, for example north-south. It is more much
more expensive to meet the basic needs of food, shelter and
clothing in the north than it is in the south. I am sure if we address
that in relation to the benefits, obviously there would be a monetary
difference.
We can look at maternity benefits before and after birth. I do not
see the rationale of differentiating between a natural parent and an
adoptive parent. A baby is a baby, and it does not matter whether a
baby is adopted or born of natural parents. That child still has the
same needs. I was under the impression that these maternity
benefits were originally applied to address those needs of the child
because the mother is in the working world. That does not change if
it is an adopted child. The baby still needs the adoptive mother just
as the natural mother would be needed.
I would like to get back to the insurance component. I looked at
the auditor general's report of 1994. He quotes from a study the
Department of Finance. He refers to unemployment insurance as a
disincentive to employment.
I do not see anything in this act which would really discourage
people from going on unemployment insurance. I agree with the
auditor general and I would like to see some of the amendments
pass. Some definitely address this issue. We could stand here all
night and illustrate various examples where the unemployment
insurance act has been taken advantage of.
(1325)
There are some major concerns. The name change is one. By
going from unemployment to employment we are expanding the
parameters of what is to be provided under that. A rose is a rose by
any other name; I may be misquoting, but it is still unemployment
insurance no matter what we call it.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to rise today, not to say that this is a
good bill but to give some support mainly to the three Bloc
members. I am talking about the hon. members for Mercier,
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and Lévis, who, for almost two
years now, have been fighting long and hard on behalf not only of
their constituents but also of all the people of Quebec and an
important part of the people of Canada, for those who will fall
victim to this unemployment insurance reform.
This is totally absurd. We are faced with a government that is not
living up to its promises, as we have seen many times this week.
Liberals had promised to scrap the GST, but they did not deliver.
The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister promised to vote as
a party on the issue of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination, but they did not keep their word.
On the one hand, they do not keep their promises and, on the
other other, they do things they did not promise to do. Among other
things, they are undertaking a reform of the unemployment
insurance system even though, as mentioned by my colleague for
Trois-Rivières, the Prime Minister, when in the opposition, fought
against the unemployment insurance reform proposed by the
Conservatives.
The Bloc Quebecois' fight goes back to the fall of 1994 when the
Minister of Human Resources Development started a huge
consultation process throughout the country on a reform proposal.
We could speak of reform then because we did not know yet
what would come out of these consultations or what kind of a bill
would finally be introduced in the House of Commons. So
Canadians were consulted. Our three colleagues travelled across
Canada with the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development. In the end, 80 per cent of the witnesses heard by the
committee were against the reform proposal as it was then
formulated. More eager to please the government than the people,
the standing committee prepared a report, which, of course, was
not in accordance with what the people consulted had said. That is
why the Bloc Quebecois presented a dissenting report.
Since then, especially since the 1995 budget speech, we have
seen a series of government measures aimed at pulling the
government out of fields of activity where it had been present for
many years. In many cases the Bloc Quebecois supported such
measures, and I am thinking in particular of the privatization of
airports and air traffic control. We agreed on the principle.
In the present case, the government is doing exactly the opposite.
It has not contributed one cent to the unemployment insurance fund
since 1991. So if there were one sector the government could
privatize and where it could say to employers and employees:
``Since you are the only contributing to it, we are asking you to
manage the unemployment insurance program'', it is this one.
(1330)
Why is the government doing the opposite in other sectors, for
example with navigation aids? The Coast Guard is trying to get
users pay the bill. Why did the government not do the same with
unemployment insurance? For a very simple reason, the
government discovered, following the 1995 budget, in which there
were important cuts to UI eligibility and benefit payment criteria,
that
2241
unemployment insurance has become an extremely productive cash
cow. Therefore why privatize such a cost effective program?
It will even further reduce benefits so that claimants will receive
lower payments, and make it more and more difficult to receive
unemployment insurance by imposing stricter conditions.
Furthermore, it will make sure that everybody pays into it, even
those who do not have the slightest chance of receiving benefits
one day.
Realizing this was an extremely important revenue source, the
government would have us believe it is reforming the
unemployment insurance program. But what is it truly doing? It is
in fact draining the UI fund in order to reduce the deficit.
This bill will have extremely harmful results. Because it is afraid
Canadians will discover more harmful features, the government
decided to limit debate. A time limit was imposed on the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development so the government
could steamroll passage of this bill.
The bill will have extremely negative consequences particularly
because it is going after the people most in need, those who are
most vulnerable. It is an attack against seasonal workers and part
time workers, which necessarily means women because they
represent a high percentage of that category. It is an attack against
entrants and immigrants who have been here for a few years and
who, for cultural or other reasons, obviously have more difficulty
than others entering into the labour force.
The most vulnerable workers will be affected the most. They
will be forced to contribute to unemployment insurance from their
very first hour of work. This, in itself is not bad. We could even say
it is a good measure had the government not already raised the
eligibility criteria. These people are forced to contribute from their
very first hour of work, but the eligibility notch is raised so high
that we can be sure many contributing workers will never be
eligible-some say one million of them.
Making part time workers, students and so on contribute will
bring $900 million into the unemployment insurance fund, and
what makes that measure so perverse is that it will allow the
government to give that money to the richer workers. We must
remember that maximum insurable earnings, which were set at
$42,500, will be lowered to $39,000. That means that the
government took $900 million in the pockets of the poorest
workers in order to give it to the wealthiest, when it could have
raised that maximum instead. It was at $42,000. Why not set it at
$50,000 or $60,000? It chose not to. It preferred to take the money
from the poorest workers, those most vulnerable. For that reason
alone, this bill is a perverse and antisocial measure and,
unfortunately, if it is passed, we will have to pay a social price for it
in the years to come.
(1335)
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this
bill which will help many Canadians help themselves. There are
going to be very positive results.
When members speak about employment insurance, sometimes I
do not think we tell enough. It is not just workers who will be
affected by this new income support system. The business
community will also be affected. From the testimony before the
standing committee we know that for the most part business is
quite supportive of employment insurance.
I would like to take a few minutes to explain to the hon.
members some of the implications of EI for people in business.
Employment insurance is one component of the government's job
strategy. The government has made it abundantly clear that its
number one priority is to create a positive economic climate in
which the private sector can generate growth and create jobs.
There are a number of strategies to fulfil that commitment.
Among them are some of the provisions in Bill C-12. Since it is the
business community, especially small business, that creates jobs in
this country, it is vital that EI measures enable business people to
do just that.
The government has heard on more than one occasion that the
effect of escalating UI premiums discourages job creation.
Business has seen increased premiums as a tax on jobs, a tax the
government imposes during a recession, which is obviously the
worst time that this could happen. However, it has no choice. It is
obligated by law to pay benefits when the UI account is running a
deficit. That same obligation will apply with the passage of Bill
C-12.
The answer is quite clear. When the economy is doing well a
reserve will be built in the EI account. In that way funds will be
available to pay for benefits during a downturn in the future and
premiums will remain stable. Premiums will not have to rise when
business can least afford them because there will be a cash reserve
to draw on.
Some members opposite have criticized the government's plan
to build a reserve in the EI account. They come up with bogus and
misleading statements about how the government is going to use
the reserve to pay down the deficit, which is not true because the
reserve has no impact on the deficit over the long term. Insurance
funds can only be used for purposes spelled out under the act:
insurance benefits, employment benefits and their administration.
2242
There are positive signs for the business community. When
economic indicators are positive, business is better able to preserve
jobs during tough economic times and create new jobs when there
is an upswing in economic activity. In the future we must ensure
that these fundamentals are always there.
I hope all members agree that we want a stable premium rate for
the new EI program. Let us look at the implications of the proposed
new rates which is down from $3 last year to $2.95 this year. With
this rate, more than two-thirds of small firms will pay the same or
less in premiums during 1996 compared to 1995.
While a decision is yet to be made, when EI brings in first dollar
coverage in 1997, and premium rates are reduced further, the
impact on small businesses will be even more beneficial.
While the Minister of Finance has assumed a $2.90 rate in
1997-I hope it is much less than that-for planning purposes in
the last budget, the actual rate will be set at the end of this year.
(1340 )
As well, as stated by the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business, about 30 per cent of their membership, small and
medium sized businesses, will also benefit from the premium
reductions associated with the reduction in the maximum insurable
earnings.
The government has not forgotten these small business people
who will experience some adverse affects because of this new
legislation. These hard working men and women will be helped to
adjust to EI through a two-year premium relief program. The
program will begin in January 1997. It will coincide with the
introduction of first dollar coverage and the calculation of MIE
earnings on an annual basis. Here is how it will work.
An employer whose UI premiums in 1996 are less than $30,000
will be eligible for a premium rebate. Employers who face an
increase of more than $500 can have up to 50 per cent of the
increase rebated in 1997 and up to 25 per cent in 1998 to a
maximum of $5,000 a year rebate. This measure will provide
premium relief to about 30,000 small businesses. This year the
reduced premium rate and the lower maximum insurable earnings
will save business $730 million in premium payments.
As well, individual employers will pay $520 million less in
premiums in 1996, enabling them to retain more of their income
which also helps the business community. It gives people more
spending power. Those are significant savings and members
opposite should give them due consideration.
The business community is also pleased with the proposed
employment insurance system because it goes a long way toward
reducing the administrative burden of the current UI structure.
Beginning in 1997, premiums will be collected based on total
earnings and total hours from the first dollar and the first hour. That
means employers will no longer have to track weekly wages and
hours and maintain very complex files in order to determine when,
and how much, premiums are payable each week.
As well, business people describe the record of employment as
an absolute nightmare to administer. I have spent many hours late
at night filling out ROEs. I would probably make a small mistake
on some line and whether I did or not, the government always
seemed to be sending them back.
The present system has been a real nightmare. The one-page
form comes with a 35-page instruction manual. The weekly
reporting system often means that employers must report earnings
differently than their own pay periods. It has been a jungle.
Under the EI, the record of employment will be more like an
employer's payroll. Employers will only have to report an
employee's first and last days of work, total earnings and total
hours. As well, the ROE can be used for post-audit verification.
With the changes I have outlined, plus the other provisions of
Bill C-12, it is estimated that once fully implemented, the new
employment insurance system will reduce administrative costs for
businesses by between $100 and $150 million annually. That is a
lot of money that could be used to create sustainable employment.
I am absolutely certain that once people get through a period of
adjustment, employment insurance will prove to be one of the most
productive pieces of legislation that this House has ever passed. It
will be good for business and, in turn, it will be good for Canadians
who are striving to become self-reliant, contributing members of
the community.
To close, I would like to quote Tim Reid, president of the
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, during his appearance before the
standing committee: ``We are pleased to see that the government's
overriding goal in revamping the unemployment insurance
program is very much in line with the Canadian Chamber's
business expansion and jobs for Canadians''.
I encourage the opposition parties to quit misleading Canadians
on the benefits of Bill C-12. I encourage them to get behind this
progressive legislation.
2243
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to what the government is calling
employment insurance, which I consider not only unemployment
insurance, but, alas, an unemployment guarantee. Let me explain
why.
One element of the bill before us proposes to lower maximum
insurable earnings from $43,000 to $39,000.
(1345)
This will have major macro economic effects, which I have
never heard mentioned either in this House or in committee. You
are no doubt aware that people earning more than $39,000 but less
than $43,000 will have more disposable income, whereas at the
other end of the spectrum, the low wage earners, who in the past
were not insured, now will be. But, they will be because they will
be contributing to unemployment insurance.
Their disposable income will shrink. When we look at individual
cases, this seems insignificant. However, when we look at the big
picture, at the figures as a whole, we realize we are talking about
hundreds of millions of dollars, indeed billions of dollars coming
out of the pockets of low wage earners and going into the pockets
of high wage earners. This will mean macro economic
consequences for retailers, businesses and industry. Let me
explain.
The low wage earners, with less disposable income now, will
spend less, not for luxuries, they never had the means anyway, but
for life's basic necessities. The high wage earners, with more
disposable income, generally, will be able to buy luxury items.
What does this mean? How will this flow of money affect
Canada's economy? Very simply, the economies of provinces with
more low wage earners will centre on immediate need products,
whereas in the economies of the provinces with higher wage
earners, business and industry will develop around luxury items.
Regions will become polarized based on people's average salary.
What this bill is doing is shifting wealth, and we have to face the
fact, because incomes are not equal coast to coast. There are
regions in Canada, in Quebec, less well off than others, where there
are more low wage earners than in other regions where there are
high wage earners.
With this new plan, the government if transferring several
billions of dollars from areas with only low income earners to areas
with high income earners.
I ask you: What do you think this is going to lead to in three, five
or ten years? Poor areas will become poorer and the rich ones will
become richer. The laws of macro-economics are that simple and
obvious. You cannot play with these numbers and believe that the
results will be simple and easy to arrive at.
I have never seen in a committee, or in the House, someone
showing us an econometric model of the consequences of the
implementation of this system. One should not rush into such a
decision. This is not the kind of decision you want to make hastily,
and yet this is exactly what this House is going to do with this bill.
There will be consequences.
(1350)
The government is going to push some regions into poverty to
the benefit of others which will get richer. When a country creates
poor and rich regions, eventually it does not maximize its potential.
It will eventually have to pay a price for it because rich areas will
have to help keep poor areas economically active. The law of
consumption, the great law which allows businesses to sell goods
to consumers, will be faced with an impossible equation.
You see, if people can no longer afford to consume, how will
businesses be able to produce goods and make a profit? Somebody
forgot that businesses cannot afford to be only profitable, efficient
and productive, they also need a market. Their market is made up
of people like you and me, people who are listening to us and who
have to earn a living day in and day out, and be left with enough
money to be able to treat themselves to some of the niceties of life.
And yet, what we are doing with this bill is transferring billions of
dollars from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of those who
are better off.
Let us imagine for a moment that the government is
implementing one of the recommendations made by the Bloc
Quebecois and that everybody contributes to the UI fund regardless
of any maximum insurable earnings. We would then be able to keep
the UI fund in the black and provide adequate benefits to those in
need, while reducing premiums and correcting inequities between
the haves and the have-nots, between prosperous regions and
disadvantaged regions. This solution would not be nearly as
harmful and may even have a positive impact, while those who
introduced this bill clearly did not assess its potential negative
consequences.
I would also like to talk about seasonal work. Seasonal industries
represent an important component of the Canadian economy from
coast to coast. If you attack the seasonal industry in a region or in
all regions, you will weaken-not you personally, Mr. Speaker, but
the government, which I am addressing through you-the country's
economy as a whole.
The bill before us may well undermine seasonal work. Any
weakening of seasonal work would have negative consequences for
the regions affected. Preventing this essential component of our
economy, which provides us with fruits and vegetables at certain
times of the year and offers us winter sports, from running properly
would hurt the Canadian economy as a whole.
As consumers, seasonal workers who can no longer support
themselves throughout the year will have less to contribute to the
Canadian economy. As a result of this reduced consumption, a
business somewhere will be stuck with surplus inventory and
forced to cut production and then to lay off non-seasonal workers.
2244
We see what this could lead to. Sooner or later, attacks against
seasonal work will become attacks against permanent jobs.
(1355)
We are falling into a bottomless pit. It is not the first time this
government and the previous one have committed basic errors in
strategy. I will not talk about former minister Lalonde's national
energy policy, a catastrophe for which we are still paying the price
today. I will not talk about those policies which, year after year,
have led us into a hole that is $560 billion deep.
I will talk about what we are doing here today, which is gambling
with a sum of about $16 billion. In essence we are gambling
because, until now, no other country in the world has dared take the
measures we are about to take, that is to estimate insurability not
based on the number of weeks worked, but based on the number of
hours. What will be the consequences? I do not know, nobody here
knows, and not only does it concern me, I find it totally
unacceptable.
Before going any further with this bill, the government should
have the decency to build a comprehensive econometric model to
measure the consequences of this legislation. Then we could make
the necessary adjustments or the necessary change of course, as the
case may be, to achieve the desired results.
Only 40 per cent of unemployed Canadians are covered by the
unemployment insurance plan, which is not much. It is not an
employment policy. In a case like this, I can only wish the
government not only withdraw its bill, but that it withdraw from
the area of employability and transfer this responsibility to the
provinces, especially Quebec which has been waiting for that for a
long time. It is ready to assume this responsibility with policies that
will be beneficial not only to Quebec, but to the rest of Canada as
well.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
2244
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take this
opportunity to congratulate Martin Streef of my riding for being
named the Ontario Region Outstanding Young Farmer for 1996.
While still in high school, Mr. Streef established in 1977 Streef
Produce Ltd. with his four brothers as partners. Starting from
scratch, the company is now one of the largest potato producers in
Ontario and operates five farms on 1,500 acres in Oxford and Brant
counties.
It is refreshing to see young farmers rising to meet the challenge
of today's marketplace. Mr. Streef has shown that hard work does
pay off and serves as example to other young farmers planning an
agricultural career.
On behalf of the House I extend my congratulations to Mr. Streef
and the other seven regional winners who will compete at the
national event November 13 to 17 at the Royal Winter Fair in
Toronto.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 1, we celebrated International
Workers Day. On this occasion, we must take a moment to reflect
on the situation of workers on the eve of the 21st century.
Production methods, as well as the nature and conditions of
work, have changed considerably over the past century.
Still today, over 90 per cent of the population consider work the
primary activity of human beings.
The challenge facing us over the next decade is to give all men
and women who so wish a chance to perform a function in our
society that will allow them to realize fully their abilities and that
will encourage their autonomy and self development.
Hats off to workers everywhere.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the first
principle of the Reform Party of Canada as stated in our blue book
is: ``We confirm our commitment to Canada as one nation and to
our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces
and equal citizens''. I affirm that belief. This is why I was so deeply
offended at the attempt by CBC Radio to portray my comments to a
radio station in my riding as being discriminatory against gays and
lesbians.
I wish to assure the House I believe that gays and lesbians have
exactly the same rights as every other Canadian.
For whatever reason, CBC Radio decided not to include in its
report the following statement: ``I don't say that you have to sit at
the back of the bus or that you can refuse to hire them on the basis
of their homosexuality. I don't think that is acceptable. But they
2245
have the same protection under the charter and the human rights act
as all other Canadians''.
I also said in the same interview: ``We don't accept or encourage
discrimination against anybody because they are homosexual or
they are gay''.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has put its fleet of 13,000 hopper
cars up for sale and has begun a process to establish the criteria on
which bids will be accepted. There are a number of things that
should be considered.
First, the government has to realize that the critical issue in this
process is the allocation of these cars. Although ownership is
important, it will take an efficient system of moving those cars to
grain collection points and then to port to make the issue of actual
ownership relevant.
Second, since it is clear that producers are going to be asked to
pay the full cost of the existing fleet as well as the replacement
costs as the fleet ages, it is important for the government to realize
that producers are justifiably correct in their demand to be included
in the ownership and allocation process.
Third, it is important that the government indicate whether its
intention is to make money off this sale or if its intention is to
relinquish jurisdiction and influence over the cars.
The criteria for the sale and for the bidders will depend on the
answer to that question.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, young people today are faced with many challenges. What
they learn during their school years is crucial for their success as
adults.
Twelve young women from Saskatoon learned this past weekend
that with desire, hard work and perseverance dreams can come
true. I speak of RCVC Western Fitness Roof, a volleyball club from
Saskatoon.
The dedication of these young women under the superb coaching
of Frank Enns and his assistant, Roxanne Deptuk, was rewarded
when this team won the gold medal at the Western Canadian
Midget Women's Volleyball Championship in Victoria. This team
not only captured gold, but went through the entire season,
including this tournament without losing a match.
Congratulations to them all.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada announced her resignation as
the member for Hamilton East, because the government has
refused to fulfil its election promises.
The resignation of Canada's Deputy Prime Minister is yet
another flagrant example of how the federal Liberal government
has thumbed its nose at the voting public by refusing to scrap the
GST.
First, the member for York South-Weston was kicked out, and
now the member for Hamilton East finds herself leaving the ranks
of the federal Liberals. What is the Prime Minister waiting for to
state publicly that he and his party made a mistake in promising
taxpayers that they would abolish the GST, as the finance minister
admitted last week?
The credibility of all members of Parliament has suffered. What
is the Prime Minister waiting for to admit his mistake?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, task
forces, inquiries and consultations can only be effective if the
government is willing to act on their recommendations. Over the
last two years the government has commissioned no less than three
studies into the movement of grain through west coast ports, but
nothing has changed as a result of all this work.
Workers, farmers, producers, shippers and manufacturers are
worried. Work stoppages cost millions of dollars. Markets are lost
and reputations are damaged. The clock is ticking. Is the
government willing to stand by and wait until there is another
labour disruption requiring back to work legislation for the
umpteenth time?
There is an option. The west coast ports inquiry recommended
final offer selection arbitration as a tool for settling
labour-management disputes.
I suggest that the time has come for the government to relinquish
control. Give labour and management the mechanism to solve their
disputes and meaningful settlement will result.
2246
(1405 )
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, May is
Child Find Canada's annual Green Ribbon of Hope month.
Canadians are asked to wear a green ribbon as a symbol of hope for
the safe recovery of missing children.
The green ribbon of hope originated at Holy Cross Secondary
School when Kristen French's friends and teachers wore the green
ribbon to express their hope for Kristen's safe return. Sadly,
Kristen did not return.
It is every parent's nightmare to learn that their child has been
abducted. Yet for too many families this nightmare becomes a
reality. In 1995, 55,749 children were reported missing in Canada.
This includes children who were abducted by a stranger, by a parent
and children who ran away.
I represent a community which has been forever scarred by the
tragedy of a missing child. Christopher Stephenson was just 11
years old when he was taken and lost his life at the hands of his
abductor. For the Stephenson family the horrors of child abduction
have left a permanent mark. We must make every effort to ensure
that another family does not experience the same trauma which the
Stephenson family has had to endure.
I urge Canadians to wear a green ribbon.
* * *
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is with sorrow and a sense of loss that I rise today to
offer my condolences to the family of John Dickey who passed
away on April 27 at the age of 81.
John served our country with distinction throughout his life. As a
veteran of the second world war, as an outstanding lawyer and as
the member of Parliament for Halifax between 1947 and 1957,
John epitomized intelligence, integrity and commitment. He was
an active member of his community and was respected by anyone
who had the privilege to be acquainted with him.
John had a great many friends not only in Nova Scotia but
throughout Canada and the rest of the world. He was devoted to his
family. I know my colleagues join with me in extending sincere
sympathies to his wife Joyce and their six children. He will be
greatly missed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, recently,
on April 29, 1996, a demonstration was held in my riding to show
the dissatisfaction of the public with the unemployment insurance
reform.
The demonstrators included people from unions, community
groups, teachers' associations and women's groups. These people
denounce the unfortunate effects that this reform will have on their
daily lives and deplore the fact that the government is not going
after those who have the money, the more fortunate members of our
society.
The demonstrations, which were held in various locations in
Quebec and in Canada, are sending a message to this government,
and it has no right to turn a deaf ear to these people who are only
claiming their due.
The federal government is not doing its homework. It should not,
therefore, be surprised, that the public is not giving it a passing
grade.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, last week people across the world celebrated the
birthday of the late William Shakespeare, the greatest playwright
of all time. On the heels of this celebration I cannot think of a better
occasion to remind Canadians about one of the jewels of
Shakespearian theatre, the Stratford Festival.
Heading into its 44th season, the Stratford Festival has become a
true success story. While most arts groups rely heavily on
government funding, only 8 per cent of the festival budget is
derived from government funds. This funding is minimal compared
with the estimated $100 million in economic benefits derived from
the festival for the city of Stratford and the over $25 million in
taxes generated for the governments.
I wish all those associated with the festival another successful
season. I encourage all Canadians to visit my riding and take in a
performance during what will surely be another fabulous season.
For my colleagues in the House of Commons, I have placed a
festival program in their desks for their use.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I
hosted two town hall meetings in different parts of my large riding
of Algoma to discuss a wide variety of issues with my constituents.
2247
A number of them voiced their serious reservations about how
we deal with those who perpetrate particularly violent crimes
which lead to life sentences upon conviction. Of concern was
section 745 of the Criminal Code which provides for a review of
life imprisonment sentences for first degree murder after 15 years.
This can be the case if they apply under the faint hope provisions
of Canada's parole legislation.
I agree with my constituents that this can sometimes send the
wrong message about our justice system and the seriousness of
murder.
(1410 )
I call on our government to address this issue by amending the
Criminal Code to provide society and especially the victims of
crime with assurances that life sentences given to those who are the
most violent have little likelihood of being reduced.
While I am supportive of maintaining the faint hope provision
for most offenders, I would ask that judges when sentencing have
the authority to remove the faint hope review for certain criminals.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a member
of an ethnic minority, I strongly condemn the racist and
homophobic remarks recently made by the former whip of the
Reform Party.
After making amends by apologizing before this House, the hon.
member for Nanaimo-Cowichan dug himself in deeper by saying
in a televised interview with Don Newman yesterday that his worst
fault was to be too honest and too direct in answering questions.
Not only was the hon. member thinking what he said, but he
learned from his blunder that he had been too honest in letting
people know what he really thinks deep down inside.
Given what he said, the people of Quebec and Canada have a
right to expect Reform members to reveal all their prejudices
before the next election.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government's plans to change the human rights act are being
rammed through Parliament without allowing members the
freedom to air their concerns. Most Canadians would like to see
both sides of the issue presented fairly in Parliament but that is not
going to happen.
Tuesday's debate on the bill was limited to a mere three hours
through the use of closure. Committee debate will be limited by
closure. Even Liberal members of Parliament are muzzled by their
own party. Two days ago I asked permission to share my speaking
time with a Liberal member but was denied permission by the
Liberal Party in this House.
These momentous changes to the human rights act will have far
reaching effects for all Canadians. They deserve a thorough debate
in our Parliament and in our society where everyone can freely
speak their mind.
It is shameful that the Liberal government would use its majority
to slam the door on honest debate and freedom of speech in this
House.
* * *
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
history teaches us that racism and intolerance must be challenged
wherever it raises its ugly head. Attempts to dismiss racist
comments as mistakes are too superficial. They ignore a pattern of
intolerance that requires more serious attention.
There is a pattern of statements from members of Parliament in
the Reform Party about aboriginal people that is very hurtful
because of their intolerance and racist roots. For example one
member compared reserves to south seas island resorts in an
attempt to ridicule aboriginal land claims. There was a statement
made by the hon. member for Athabasca where in reference to the
aboriginal people he said:
The Europeans came to this country 300 years ago and opened it up and
settled it and because we didn't kill the Indians and have Indian wars, that
doesn't mean we didn't conquer these people. If they weren't in fact conquered,
then why did the aboriginal people allow themselves to be herded into little
reserves in the most isolated, desolate, worthless parts of the country?
There is no room in Canada or in Parliament for intolerance of
this kind.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the hon. member for Québec-Est made a
derogatory comment, comparing francophones outside Quebec to
paraplegics in wheelchairs. I am deeply offended by this
comparison.
I am a francophone from northern Ontario and proud of it. My
wife, too, is a francophone; she is also paraplegic and confined to a
wheelchair. Despite her condition, she, unlike the hon. member, is
in full possession of her faculties; this does not make her a second
class citizen, as the hon. member is suggesting.
2248
I feel that the comments made by the hon. member are an insult
to all handicapped people who, like my wife, must use a
wheelchair. I am asking the hon. member to apologize to all those
who were hurt by his comments; that is the least he can do.
_____________________________________________
2248
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister made some rather startling remarks
this morning. I would like to raise them with a member of the
government.
The Prime Minister said that politicians cannot be held to all
their election promises, because of what he called acts of God. The
Prime Minister added, with regard to his government's failure to
settle the GST issue: ``Sometimes, in the course of a mandate, you
run into situations where you cannot deliver the goods''.
My question is for the Prime Minister or whomever speaks on
his behalf on this day of crisis for the government. Are we to
understand that the Prime Minister is finally admitting that he and
his government missed the boat in the matter of the GST and were
unable to deliver the goods?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
1990, Quebec signed a harmonization agreement with the
Government of Canada. This said, it was far from clear whether the
new government would continue the process.
With the first Campeau budget, the Government of Quebec not
only made it very clear, but in fact put measures in place that
eventually resulted in total or near total harmonization of the
Quebec sales tax and the federal tax.
Now, if I understand the hon. member, because, really, an event
changed the game since the election, as we have to admit, does the
member think the federal government should have created a
completely different tax that could not be harmonized with
Quebec's tax?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has days when he is effective in
this House, but this really is not one of them. I thought, however,
that he had already prepared to take over for the Prime Minister,
but I realize this is not the case.
My question is serious, and I do not want an answer from him on
the Quebec sales tax or on anything else. I want him to answer my
question. Are we to understand, when the Prime Minister says that
politicians should not be forced to sign contracts to keep their
promises, what I would like to know is, in saying this, is the Prime
Minister referring to the fact that, as far as the Liberals are
concerned, politicians can say whatever they like during election
campaigns and then invoke an act of God to justify their inability to
deliver the goods?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
admit I am just as guilty as the Leader of the Opposition, but being
effective does not always mean getting excited. I think it is possible
to have a debate and be effective by responding calmly to a
question.
Obviously, when Quebec, representing 25 per cent of the
population, decided to harmonize, it put the federal government, to
some extent, in the position of not being able to harmonize any new
tax it developed with Quebec. The Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr.
Landry, told us at the meeting of finance ministers that we must not
come up with another tax, because it was important for Quebec and
its economy to have a harmonized tax. So this is what we did.
(1420)
So I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that
we did the best thing for Canada's economy and, specifically, for
Quebec's economy.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there is a limit. The government is in a full blown crisis of
confidence. The Minister of Finance, a few days ago, apologized
for failing to deliver the goods. The Deputy Prime Minister had to
resign because she did not keep a promise. The Prime Minister
keeps saying he kept his promises and, this morning, he tried to tell
us that sometimes we should let politicians make promises and not
keep them.
I ask the government represented here by the Minister of
Finance-it is not my fault there is no one else here to answer
questions-whether the Prime Minister, in doing so in this day of
crisis, wanted to acknowledge outside the House of Commons that
the government was unable to keep its promises?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, do
the members of the Bloc who said they would resign if the
referendum did not pass intend to resign?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, let him find such a statement, just for the fun of it. We
have said we would be here until the referendum goes through, and
it will go through some day. We, unlike others, can live with the
statements we make. The problems are not on this side of the
House, but on the other side.
Mr. Young: Four out of seven!
Mr. Duceppe: Do not worry about the Minister of Human
Resources Development. We will find some nice statements he
made about the GST in the days he debated the issue with Mr.
Wilson. His turn will come.
2249
Last week, the Minister of Finance recognized that his
government had make an honest mistake by promising to abolish
the GST. He cannot deny it, we heard him on every TV channel.
His leader was not too pleased, but the minister said it. In fact,
during his career, he has made many statements that did not please
his leader. Last week's admission was unquestionably one of them.
Today, following the resignation of the Deputy Prime Minister
and his leader's flip-flop, I ask the Minister of Finance if he stands
by his statement of last week that his government, and himself as
Minister of Finance, made an honest mistake by promising to
abolish the GST? Does he maintain his statement?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
not only maintain that statement but, when I made it, I was
speaking on behalf of the government. That statement was
endorsed by the government.
I want to take this opportunity to praise the courage and integrity
of the hon. member for Hamilton East, Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Sheila Copps. I am also extremely
confident that she will be back here after June 17, exactly in the
same seat.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, this is another example of a statement made by the
Minister of Finance that will not please his leader. The minister just
told us that he spoke on behalf of the government. That is what he
just said. Speaking on behalf of the government, he said: ``The
government made a mistake when it promised to abolish the GST.''
For three or four days now, the leader of the same government has
been saying that there was no mistake. This is a good one.
(1425)
I would like to know who speaks on behalf of the government. Is
it number three? Number two is gone because she had talked too
much. Who speaks on behalf of the government? Which version is
right: that of the Minister of Finance, or that of the Prime Minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the government, the
Minister of Finance speaks on behalf of the government, all cabinet
ministers speak on behalf of the government. Not only that but, as a
government, we speak on behalf of all Canadians, including those
who live in Quebec. We speak for a country that is one and united.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Sheila
Copps resigned because she broke an election promise to
Canadians on the GST. The Prime Minister tried to tell us yesterday
that Ms. Copps had to go because she overstepped the red book.
During the last election the Prime Minister promised Canadians
time and time again that he would abolish the GST, kill the GST,
scrap the GST.
What is the difference between Sheila Copps' promise to scrap
the GST and the Prime Minister's promise to scrap the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the member for Hamilton East, the former Minister of
Canadian Heritage, stated her position with what we all thought
was an enormous amount of courage.
What she stated was that the measures taken by the government
in terms of the sales tax were in keeping with the statements in the
red book but that in certain of her statements during the election
campaign she had gone beyond that.
In those circumstances, because she is a person of tremendous
courage, she resigned her seat in order to demonstrate that courage
and credibility before the people of her riding.
Yesterday on television we saw elector after elector in her riding
state their great confidence in Sheila Copps. There is no doubt that
on June 17 the people of Hamilton East will demonstrate their
recognition of the great courage, the great credibility and the great
integrity of the member for Hamilton East.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a week
ago it could have been described as courage. One week later it is
convenience. It has nothing to do with courage.
On September 10 the Prime Minister stated quite clearly: ``There
will not be a promise in the campaign that I will not keep''. That is
the campaign, not the red book.
On the campaign trail the Prime Minister promised Canadians he
would abolish the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister made the same
promise and resigned because she did not keep it.
Will the Prime Minister now admit that he, like Sheila Copps,
broke his campaign promise to the Canadian people on the GST?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how can the member, a representative of that party, talk about
courage, credibility and integrity when the former chief whip of
that party, who made a statement that cast dishonour upon every
one of us in the House, refused to resign?
What did the former chief whip do? Did he resign his seat? No.
What he did was resign as chief whip. That party changes chief
whips every week.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister can try to duck election promises all he wants, but
2250
the government promised Canadians from one end of the country
to the other he would abolish, scrap and kill the GST.
Page 22 of the red book was not good enough for the Prime
Minister on the campaign trail and it was not good enough to keep
Sheila Copps on the front benches.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept responsibility for
the promises he made during the last election? How can he expect
Canadians to believe that his promise to abolish the GST was
different from the promise made by Sheila Copps?
(1430)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Reform members stand up here every day fulminating against the
GST, making statements about their preparedness to abolish it, to
scrap it.
After the finance committee said it is simply unacceptable that
Canada have 10 sales tax systems, how could those members stand
up here and say they commend the government on its attempt to
harmonize the tax with the provinces? How could the Reform Party
have been so right then and so wrong now?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to today's newspapers, the federal government
intends to show up in court on May 13 to question the right of
Quebecers to decide their own future.
Can the Minister of Justice confirm this morning's news reports
to the effect that Ottawa is about to intervene in court on May 13 to
question the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for a long time now, the federal
government has been following the situation with regard to Mr.
Bertrand's litigation. In his case, Mr. Bertrand has raised several
constitutional issues of great significance. So, it is important for
the federal government to examine the case and the issues, and that
is what we are doing.
I hope to be able to make a recommendation to my colleagues in
the next few days. We have not made any decision yet, but we are
examining the situation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the government is interfering with the most legitimate
right of all Quebecers to decide their own future.
How can the Minister of Justice justify such a decision, because
he did say that he would make it, when shortly before the last
referendum he stated that the right of the Quebec people to express
their will concerning their own future was a political position and
not a legal issue?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the substance of the Bertrand
litigation has to do with constitutional issues. It is passing strange
to suggest that the Attorney General of Canada would be
disinterested in constitutional issues. The Government of Quebec
brought a motion and has taken a legal position in relation to the
issues in the action.
It is part of my responsibility as chief law officer of the federal
government to look at the issues in that case and to recommend to
my colleagues and to the Prime Minister a position in relation to
the case. This is not interfering with the expression by the
population of Quebec of its will or its position on a question. This
has to do with constitutional and legal issues, the very substance of
the Bertrand litigation. That is the reason we are looking at it and
preparing ourselves to decide.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, under the finance minister's plan to hide the GST in
Canada he has added to the list of taxable items things like
children's clothing, wheelchairs, books and medication.
Before they were elected the Liberals claimed they cared and
would not tax these things. Why did they stop caring once they
were elected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously when we have 10 different retail sales taxes across the
country resulting in different tax bases we have to start somewhere.
The general understanding was that we would start with the one
common base which existed across the country, the federal sales
tax base.
We made it very clear in negotiations with the provinces that we
were prepared to examine this whole area and we will do so.
I have a little difficulty with the question from the member of the
Reform Party who in the finance committee called for an expanded
sales tax base. Perhaps the member might tell us what he would
expand it to, food, pharmaceuticals and various other things?
(1435)
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in all of Canada second hand dealers in everything from
books to jewellery to boats are fuming about the change in GST
regulations that wipes out the tax credits they used to get.
2251
The government's budget bragged ``no tax increases''. With the
nationwide tax increases I just mentioned, is this statement, made
so proudly in the budget, still true?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the federal government is not increasing its tax take. The rate stays
at 7 per cent. The federal base stays the same. As a result of this
there is no increase in revenue to the federal government.
If we look at what is happening in Atlantic Canada, there is
obviously a substantial decrease in the tax rate as it applies to
Atlantic Canadians.
I return the question to the hon. member. During the finance
committee they said they would expand the base to food and
pharmaceuticals. How can the member now stand up and
essentially say he would tax the basic necessities of life and then
criticize the government for trying to introduce rationalization into
the system?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
We also learned today that the President of the Treasury Board
and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have also
recommended to the Prime Minister that he challenge the right of
Quebecers to decide their own future.
Does the minister not realize that, by denying the people of
Quebec the right to decide their own future, his government is
demonstrating that it has nothing to offer Quebec and that the grand
plan for national reconciliation is nothing more than a big hoax?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has no
intention of preventing the people of Quebec from expressing their
position on these matters. This is not why Mr. Bertrand launched
his suit. Let us be clear about Mr. Bertrand's case. He began it as a
private citizen, and he raised important constitutional questions.
As the Attorney General of Canada, it is my responsibility to
prepare and to give advice to the Prime Minister and to my
colleagues on the question of participating in this case. In fact, the
federal government has been made mis en cause by Mr. Bertrand.
We are therefore already involved in the case before the courts. In
the days and weeks to come, we will be examining the matter and
deciding whether we will participate actively with the other parties
before the court in order to determine the important points in the
case.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am truly surprised that the Minister of Justice would
give such a long winded non-answer to a very simple question.
Does the government intend to challenge the Quebec referendum or
not?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the referendum is not in issue in
the Bertrand litigation. The court documents revealed that what is
in issue is the constitutional validity of l'avant-projet de loi. That is
the issue before the court, and it raises questions of legal
significance.
As I have already told the House, it is my responsibility as
Attorney General of Canada, having been made mis en cause in the
litigation, to prepare and give advice to my colleagues and the
Prime Minister, which I shall give.
* * *
(1440 )
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. The finance minister in
Alberta has argued that the federal minister is lowing the GST rate
in Newfoundland to 5.5 per cent by throwing a billion dollar
subsidy at the Atlantic provinces.
Is the minister planning to give a break to the rest of Canada by
lowering the tax rate on the GST to 5.5 per cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the transition funding provided to Atlantic Canada does not
represent a cut in the federal sales tax rate. That rate remains at 7
per cent from coast to coast.
This a cost sharing with the Atlantic provinces. They pick up the
first 5 per cent loss on their own provincial sales tax revenue. But it
a cost sharing over four years. In other words, this is transition
funding. It ends at the end of four years. It is not permanent.
The kind of rate cut that the member is talking about would be a
permanent rate cut. Obviously he is comparing an apple and
orange. I am sorry but it is not on.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
sounds like fruit salad to me. Even if I could not sing, for a billion
dollars I could learn to harmonize too.
The pay-off to the Atlantic provinces is unfair. It taxes the rest of
Canada in order to subsidize taxation in another area of the country.
When will the finance minister admit that this is not a business
deal, it is a political deal? The harmonization deal asks other
2252
Canadians to keep paying 7 per cent while people in another part of
the country pay only 5.5 per cent.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
try as he might, the hon. member is not going to be able to make
this stick.
It was not the federal rate that came down. It was the provincial
rate that came down. The provincial rate came down because the
Atlantic provinces, albeit using a certain amount of transition
funding, are absorbing that cut and expect to make it up as a result
of increased activity.
Let us take a look at what is being said here. The government is
providing transitional funding on a four-year basis on an average to
the three provinces of $250 million a year. A cut in the national rate
from 7 per cent to 5.5 per cent would cost about $4.5 billion a year.
What the hon. member is asking for is the equivalent of $250
million transition funding leading to a $4.5 billion cut which is
simply nonsense. The fact is in B.C., it would be $725 million and
in Alberta it would be $485 million. The numbers simply do not
stand up.
What is more important-Mr. Speaker, you want me to stop?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Industry.
This minister is responsible for promoting competition. Yet,
over the last month, the price of gasoline has increased by more
than 25 per cent.
To protect consumers just as the American government is doing
right now, what is the minister waiting for to use his powers under
the Competition Act to order an investigation into the possibility of
collusion among companies?
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, we will look closely at this investigation in the United
States to see the results. As the member knows full well, the power
of the Minister of Industry to give an order to the director of
competition is seldom used. In fact, it has been used only once in
Canada.
At this time, we do not have enough information to justify such
an order, but if the member wants to ask questions to the director, I
think he will be appearing before the industry committee.
Moreover, the member has the right, with five of his colleagues, to
submit a request directly to the director.
(1445)
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
seems to forget that this responsibility ultimately falls on his
shoulders. He himself has the power to intervene under the law.
If the minister thinks the evidence is not sufficient, why then
does he not decide to launch an investigation into this since he has
the power to do so?
[English]
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 am not sure how long the line would be if we were to
issue directions to hold investigations every time somebody made
an allegation.
As the hon. member knows, there have been a number of
situations with respect to gasoline prices that have been
investigated by the director of the competition bureau. That has
led, in recent months, not only to charges having been laid but
successful prosecutions under the provisions of the Competition
Act.
The director has also established a 1-800 number so that
consumers who have concerns about gas prices can make those
concerns known directly to the bureau of competition so that action
can be taken where it is warranted.
Finally, I remind the hon. member that he with five of his
colleagues has the ability to ask the director to investigate issues
where he thinks there are facts that warrant it.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Today the minister tabled the Firearms Act regulations which
have 30 days of consultations. Having read the regulations, I and
many of our colleagues see the need for some changes and some
modifications.
Is the minister prepared to listen to representations and make
changes to the regulations which we feel will make it less
burdensome on legitimate gun owners?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a strong sense of déjà vu
when I answer questions having to do with the Firearms Act, but
the simple answer is yes.
Today I tabled the first segment of regulations which will help
implement the Firearms Act and bring its principles to life. The
purpose of tabling them at this time and having 30 days before the
committee is to permit us to solicit and collect reactions.
2253
The hon. member was kind enough to express already today
some of his reactions to the draft regulations. I want to assure him
and all members of the House that we will be taking note of the
views of those who read the regulations and have an interest in
them. We are more than prepared to make changes and
adjustments in these draft regulations to deal with any reasonable
concerns that are expressed.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
B.C. salmon stocks are rapidly shrinking. Fraser River stocks are
almost gone and this year's Alaskan catch will severely hurt our
northern runs. One would think the government's plan would
include a strategy to save the salmon but it does not. The minister
of fisheries is fiddling with licences while the B.C. fishery burns.
My question for the minister is very simple. Will his plan
preserve salmon stocks in British Columbia or not?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
will be aware that a parliamentary committee has been considering
the plan and it does involve consideration of a long range strategy.
In fact, as a result of fruitful discussions between the minister,
the parliamentary secretary and the main stakeholders in British
Columbia in the salmon industry, the parliamentary committee will
be hearing expert witnesses in the next week. It will be advising on
the development of a strategy.
We are faced with two problems, an immediate short run, a 1996
problem that is near crisis dimensions, and a long range one. There
are all these matters. For one month there has been a continuing
process of discussion with the main stakeholders. Continuing
input, including input from the hon. member, will all be part of the
final plan.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the delegation to
which the minister's representative refers has told the committee
and the members of Parliament that the measures in the Mifflin
plan will not conserve salmon in British Columbia. The minister
admitted as much in the House yesterday in response to a question
from this party.
(1450)
His admission flies in the face of what the minister said when he
announced the plan in March. He emphatically told British
Columbians that conservation was the overall objective, and now
he admits it is not.
Why is the government spending all its bloated bureaucratic
energy on a plan that does not stop the pie from shrinking, but just
gives bigger pieces to fewer people?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is
too selective in his recourse to witnesses. We have heard many
people, many strongly in support of plan, many critical. The
government is open to a dialogue, to discussion, and we are
considering all these matters.
As far as the industry is concerned, it has been made clear by the
minister that the first priority is the conservation of the fish. But the
good health of the industry is dependent on conservation. Let us get
through 1996, then 1997-98 will be a more normal season.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Quebec environment minister David Cliche yesterday
announced that, for the moment, he is unable to give the go ahead
to the operation to refloat the Irving Whale, because federal
employees have been unable to provide satisfactory answers to a
number of questions, in particular four key questions on the safety
of the operation.
How can the minister explain the inability of the environment
department's employees to provide answers to Quebec's questions?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Government of Quebec, through its minister, has indeed raised
questions that are highly technical in nature and are related to
certain studies already carried out. I assure my colleague opposite
that all of these questions will be carefully studied and answered.
We are confident that we have the information in hand to reply to
them.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Irving Whale refloat is scheduled to begin May 15, so these
answers must be received as promptly as possible, before the
operation is begun.
Does the minister commit to not beginning the refloat until such
time as the environment department's employees have provided
satisfactory answers to all of the technical questions raised by
Quebec?
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State (Agriculture
and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
ministers with responsibility on the federal level, that is the
Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of the Environment, have
issued directives for federal and provincial officials to meet as
2254
soon as possible with a view to finding answers to all of the
technical questions raised.
I assure the hon. member that these answers will be found and
that, in the case of the Irving Whale refloating operation, nothing is
being taken for granted, and every effort will be expended to
reassure all those with concerns about the operation.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Further to yesterday's discussion, it is becoming abundantly
clear that the government's CPP hearings are a sham and that the
government has already made up its mind to double the CPP
payroll tax.
Consider the structure of the hearings. Only Liberal MPs are
allowed to sit on the panel. Only one MP, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is attending all of the
hearings, and this one MP has already said that he advocates an
immediate doubling of the CPP payroll tax from 5.5 per cent to 10
per cent.
Will the minister admit the obvious? The fix is in on these
hearings.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I
have had many discussion about this to ensure that the process
from the federal government's point of view is properly conducted.
To correct the impression left by the hon. member, the member
of Parliament who is representing the Government of Canada is the
chairman of the industry committee but is certainly no longer the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and is actually
acting our behalf.
(1455)
Even with the flexible federalism being practised in this country,
it would be impossible for one federal member of Parliament to put
the fix in with 10 provinces and the territories. This is a
co-operative arrangement. It can only be changed, as I recall off the
top of my head, with the agreement of seven of the provinces,
representing 70 per cent of the Canadian population. Not even the
hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can put that kind of a fix
in.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
despite the hon. member's remarks to me, I would like to read into
the record a statement made on April 14 by the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre who said: ``My own view is if we
reorganize the program and stabilize the contributions at
somewhere in the range of 10 per cent, it would be a more
adequate solution''.
This amounts to an additional 5 per cent payroll tax taken from
the pay cheque of every Canadian from coast to coast. Will the
minister state for the record that he will not implement this, the
worst of all possible scenarios?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I keep trying to reassure the
hon. member that it is not going to be a unilateral decision of the
Government of Canada.
There is another side to the coin. When the hon. member who
was involved in the hearing process expressed his views, I have no
doubt he was saying that, depending on the need to maintain an
appropriate level of support for recipients of the Canada pension
plan in the future, there will have to be some hard decisions made.
That was his view. As indicated in the quote, it was a personal view.
However, his personal views will have to be seen through the prism
of all of these hearings, with all of the provinces being involved.
At the end of the process, whatever the recommendations may be
of the government and the various provincial governments
involved, it will be brought to the House where all members will
have an adequate and appropriate opportunity to express their
views on the matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the justice minister.
[English]
People in my riding are outraged about the placement of a
convicted dangerous sex offender at Keele Street Correctional
Centre. The public is justifiably concerned about the safety of their
families.
In the platform book and in the throne speech the government
made commitments for greater security for our communities.
When can my constituents and other concerned Canadians expect
tougher legislation for dangerous sex offenders?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I know the hon. member is
aware of the measures already taken. The Solicitor General of
Canada has implemented measures through Bill C-45 which could
result in parole being denied altogether to certain offenders,
particularly sex offenders, who must serve their full time. There
have been measures in bills which I have brought forward which
provide for stiffer sentences for crimes of violence.
The question which the hon. member raises deals directly with
the issue of how to manage high risk offenders. As the hon.
member knows, because I have told the House before, the solicitor
general and I are preparing proposals for cabinet which I hope to
2255
introduce before we rise at the end of June to deal with high risk
offenders, that is, for people who may not be categorized as
dangerous within Part XXIV of the Criminal Code, but who,
because of their violent conduct, are at a high risk to re-offend by
harming others after their release from prison. These proposals
would empower the court to impose periods of supervision as long
as ten years after their release.
That and related changes, I hope, will deal with the concerns that
the hon. member has raised. I will elaborate on those proposals
with the solicitor general in the weeks ahead.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
In the last federal election the Liberals promised in the red book
and across Canada to implement, together with the provinces, an
affordable, accessible, national child care plan. In view of the fact
that there are no more federally earmarked dollars for child care
under the CHST, will this be another broken promise like the GST
promise, or will the Liberal government and this minister finally
recognize that there is a desperate need for quality accessible child
care in every province and territory in Canada? Will the minister
finally live up to that promise?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, an attempt was made by the
government before Christmas to try to find a way to come to the
assistance of people who understand, as the hon. member knows,
the need for child care across the country.
(1500)
The response to that initiative, led by the Government of
Canada, was less than warm. Governments across the country,
practically without exception, said that although they recognized
the need for child care, they wanted to make sure the Government
of Canada understood the jurisdictional questions and that
whatever the Government of Canada did it would be compatible
with what the provinces saw as their needs and based on their
capacity to provide resources.
I assure the hon. member we have had conversations with
representatives of all governments across the country. We believe
there is a very good opportunity to continue to play a national role
in the provision of child care.
I look forward to working with individuals and groups, people
who are interested in this matter, as well as with provincial
governments to ensure the Government of Canada plays a
significant but acceptable role in the provision of child care support
across the country.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of members the presence in
the gallery of fellow parliamentarians of ours from Russia, a
delegation of regional chairs and members of the Federation
Council of Russia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to know what the legislative agenda for next
week is.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government intends to continue consideration of Bill
C-12, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada, until its
completion.
[English]
If the bill is not concluded when Bill C-33, the human rights
amendment, comes out of committee, we will interrupt the debate
to conclude Bill C-33. Then we will return to Bill C-12.
If at some point before next week's business statement we either
complete both of these bills or are, for procedural reasons, unable
to consider either of them, we will call Bill C-19, the internal trade
bill, followed by Bill C-26, the ocean legislation.
_____________________________________________
2255
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your giving me the floor so early. Our proceedings are
moving faster and faster, exactly the reverse of what we are used to
from the government.
Regarding this bill, before oral question period, I was listening
to my colleague, the member for Portneuf, with whom I share the
same views on the negative consequences of unemployment
insurance. At the end of my speech, I will have the opportunity to
be more specific as to its impact on the area I represent, namely the
south shore, the area of Bellechasse.
Obviously, when we talk about unemployment insurance, it
always brings us back to the history of the Canadian Federation, to
2256
the constitutional background of this whole issue. I will go back to
a time when my father had just turned 30, in 1938, and a new
session was starting; 10 years later, I had the pleasure to be born,
coming into a world of unemployment insurance. I will read
something I wrote several years ago.
In 1938, at the start of the new session of Parliament, the
government mentioned in the throne speech that it was seeking the
co-operation of the provinces to amend the British North America
Act to give the Canadian Parliament the necessary power to
implement a national unemployment insurance plan.
(1505)
The governor general added:
[English]
``My ministers hope that the proposal may meet with early
approval in order that unemployment insurance legislation may be
enacted during the present session of Parliament''.
[Translation]
That was in 1938. In fact, as early as November 5, 1937, the
federal government had contacted the provincial governments and
asked them their views on the principle of an amendment to the
British North America Act that would give unemployment
insurance to the federal authority.
It must be remembered that there was no amending formula at
the time. We will see the somewhat twisted and strange way in
which the federal government acted to take over control of
unemployment insurance.
So, in 1937, a detailed proposal was submitted to the provinces;
in March 1938, the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island had totally
agreed on the amendment proposed by the federal government. As
for the Government of Ontario, it had given its agreement in
principle without expressing its views on the text submitted by the
federal government. Only Alberta, New Brunswick and Quebec
had refused to agree to the constitutional amendment.
It must be remembered that in 1938 the Union Nationale
government, under Mr. Duplessis, whose favourite theme was
respect for provincial autonomy, was certainly not about to agree to
such an amendment. The Government of Quebec was undoubtedly
willing to assume responsibility for unemployment insurance in
due course, according to the wishes of the voters.
However, after the provinces in question rejected its proposal,
the federal government did not go ahead with its plan. According to
the statements made by the then Prime Minister of Canada,
Mackenzie King, especially in 1938-39, although the federal
government did not want to enshrine in a constitutional agreement
the principle that constitutional amendments should be approved
by the provinces, it was not willing to go ahead with its proposal as
long as there was provincial opposition to it.
What happened? On June 25, 1940, Prime Minister Mackenzie
King made the announcement in the House of Commons that all
nine Canadian provinces had finally approved the amendment
proposed by the federal government. Quebec had elected a new
government, the Godbout government, in 1939. Ernest Lapointe,
the minister, got involved in the election campaign, saying that the
Liberals were the only guarantee against conscription. As members
may recall, they did not keep their promise, giving the green light
to conscription for Quebecers and ignoring the results of the 1942
plebiscite. Even today, in 1996, our questions to the government
remain unanswered: Would it respect Quebecers' democratic vote
on the same issue today? The question remains unanswered, as it
was in 1942, when the plebiscite results were ignored.
The Government of Quebec at the time paid dearly, losing the
1944 election, which saw the Union Nationale return to power. The
government paid the price, but it was already too late. No
amending formula, no public ratification. How did this happen?
Through telephone calls-or telegraph messages at the time-or
simply through an exchange of letters.
In eight out of the nine provinces-as members may recall,
Newfoundland was still a Dominion at the time, a status which
Newfoundlanders may or may not regret-only the cabinet had
conveyed its approval in a simple letter. A two cent stamp to say
they agreed with a constitutional amendment. Only the British
Columbia legislature formally approved the amendment. In only
one out of the nine provinces was the amendment voted on by
members of the legislature.
(1510)
Then there was a letter most likely signed by the clerk of the
executive council that said: ``Yes, let us amend the Canadian
Constitution''. In a strong position because of this letter, the House
voted an address to the Imperial Parliament asking for some
amendments to the Canadian Constitution. It is important to note
however that, following a decision made two years earlier, on June
17, 1936, this was one of the rare occasions where the Supreme
Court of Canada stated 1936, that the employment and social
insurance act was ultra vires the powers of the federal Parliament,
hence recognizing provincial jurisdiction over this area. The
decision of the Supreme Court was sanctioned by the Privy Council
in 1937, on January 27, 1937, to be specific.
These dates have to be mentioned, because in constitutional
matters, as we have often heard and as my grandfather used to say,
the Supreme Court is like the leaning tower of Pisa, it always leans
the same way. Nothing has changed. It was the same in the 1930s, it
was the same at the beginning of the century, and it all started in
1875, when that court was first established.
2257
To come back to what the Minister of Justice said earlier, when
he told the House that he wants to intervene in litigation dealing
with Quebec issues and with the fundamental right of Quebecers
to self-determination, I sure hope that the last word over the future
of the people of Quebec will remain in the hands of those, in
Quebec, who have the right to vote. The right to self-determination
is a question of legitimacy that cannot be restricted by any outside
influence.
Following this brief overview-I have many more pages I could
read on this, but I will refrain from doing so-of the situation in an
area like mine, that goes from the Beauce region to the beautiful
riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, from the St. Lawrence
River to the Maine border, I can tell the House that the legislation
before us will hurt. The same as in all the regions. The regions will
be hit hardest. Members who represent other areas have also
expressed their point of view.
It will be tough on seasonal workers, and there are a lot of
forestry workers in my riding who, because of the production
calendar in this industry, work a limited number of months every
year and will be hard pressed to work the required number of hours
to become eligible for UI benefits. They will then have to resort to
welfare. Once workers get a taste of welfare, it is hard to get them
all back to work.
In general, people in my area are not very rich. They are poor
financially, but their wealth is in their heart, in their fundamental
values. These are people who want to work, who like to work, who
do not complain for no reason but who want to enjoy the same
benefits as other Canadians do. However, these are people who,
because of what I would call the unemployment insurance map, are
included in regions that are not to their advantage.
When I see that, for unemployment insurance evaluation
purposes, the people of Sainte-Apolline, in my riding, a community
of less than 1,000 people where unemployment is high, where there
is a forest management co-operative, are in the same group as the
people of thriving communities such as Saint-Jean-Chrysostome or
Saint-Romuald, in the riding of Lévis, I can say there is a problem
with human resources development in Canada. We should look at
this and draw up a new map that reflects reality.
People who live in the RCM of Montmagny and in the RCM of
L'Islet have a lot more in common with people who live in the
RCM of Kamouraska than with those who live in the RCM of
Desjardins or of Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, which do not have the
same dynamic and the same prosperity.
We have to be careful with statistics. What do we do when we
want to get statistics? We interview people. We ask them questions
about their income, about their employment status, about their
employability. We make sure to come by when people are not
around, when young people are not around. I have to say that in
several parishes in my riding, especially in the southern part, near
the state of Maine, the employment rate among young people is
extremely low and these people have left that part of the riding in
droves. And the ones who come back are almost sure not to find a
job.
(1515)
So we have to look closely at these numbers. I agree with the
views expressed by my colleagues in the official opposition and I
will vote accordingly on the proposed amendments at report stage.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you
have seen, this debate has injected some passion into our Liberal
and Reform friends. We have seen the number of people who have
risen to take part in the debate.
But, more seriously, it is with some surprise that we note that
even with a debate as important as that on unemployment insurance
reform, which, in several ridings represented by Liberal MPs, has
led to very large demonstrations, these MPs, who were elected, let
us not forget, to represent their constituents, nonetheless remain
silent, probably to toe the party line yet again.
These MPs are remaining silent in the face of a bill that will hurt
all, or many, of the inhabitants of their ridings, especially the MPs
representing remote areas, those representing the Atlantic
provinces, those who should be aware of what is going on and of
the demonstrations that have taken place in their ridings.
I am very surprised to see how quiet these MPs are, but I would
like to say ``well done'' to the members of the Bloc Quebecois,
including the member for Mercier, who did an excellent job in
bringing to the public's attention the hidden agenda, the effects of
which would have been felt by the people of Canada and Quebec in
a few weeks or months.
I think it is thanks to the work of the hon. members for Mercier,
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and Lévis, to name but a few, that
we can now discuss here in the House, for one day or several, a bill
the government tried to sneak by us. But thanks to the work of that
committee, we have the opportunity to discuss it here.
To start off, I would like to quote from a brief submitted to the
committee, a brief Liberal members most likely wanted to shelve
quickly. It was written by Jean-Guy Ouellet and Georges Campeau,
who are not professional agitators or bad separatists, but lawyers
specializing in social law, respectively lecturer and professor in the
legal sciences department of UQAM.
They say in this brief, and I quote: ``The bill on employment
insurance-already the name is somewhat strange, and I will
explain what I mean by that later-is part of a policy aimed at
2258
using the unemployment insurance fund to finance an increasing
number of activities other than benefit payments. Not only is this
policy to the detriment of the right to benefits of an increasing
number of contributors to the system, but-and this is the most
important thing-its constitutionality-as my colleague from
Bellechasse was saying earlier-is far from being certain. By using
unemployment insurance premiums, a surplus fund of $5 billion, to
finance more than benefit payments, the federal legislation is de
facto transforming these premiums into a regressive tax. Because
of the capping of maximum yearly insurable earnings at $39,000,
such a use of the unemployment insurance account is not only
inequitable-the authors repeat-but its constitutionality is
doubtful''.
Further along in the text, we can read: ``The federal Parliament's
jurisdiction in the unemployment insurance sector is to collect
premiums in order to compensate people in case they become
unemployed''. Not to meddle into all provincial programs. Not to
try to reinvent programs sponsored by the Council for Canadian
Unity. It is, I repeat, to collect contributions to cover those who are
insured in the event of unemployment. This is the principle of fire
insurance, of theft insurance. Not reinventing the wheel, not
reinventing numerous programs.
(1520)
The conclusion reads: ``It is therefore appropriate to wonder if
this new direction the plan is taking, with its discriminatory effects
on certain disadvantaged groups such as young people and women,
does not also run counter to the equal rights protected by the
Constitution''. First the authors question the constitutionality of
Bill C-12, and second they question whether it does not infringe
upon the equal rights protected by the Constitution.
In closing they say: ``Instead of denouncing unemployment
insurance fraud, the Minister of Human Resources Development
would be well advised to check out the constitutionality and
legitimacy of his bill before announcing it and passing it openly''. I
believe this article clearly demonstrates the immoral nature of the
bill presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
A few years ago, the present Prime Minister himself condemned
the unemployment insurance reform bill when it was introduced by
the Conservative government of the day. Let us keep in mind that
the bill in question was far more difficult and far more harmful to
workers than the one introduced now by the Liberals. However,
they call it employment insurance, but this is not the case. It is not
employment insurance, it is still a piece of legislation that will
mostly penalize seasonal workers, along with young people and
women seeking first jobs. What should be done is to set a
maximum percentage of unemployment that is acceptable, and that
is not done here. In this bill we should specify pro-job creation
measures, and that is not done here.
I will give you an example of the way it not only does not
encourage jobs creation, but it contributes to increasing the number
of people unemployed or on welfare and wastes public funds. As
you will recall, not so long ago, six or eight months perhaps, the
government decided to redistribute, reorganize employment
centres across Canada. Only a few weeks before, not months but
weeks, the Terrebonne employment centre, in my riding, had
moved into brand new offices in order to meet federal standards.
The federal government, through the Terrebonne employment
centre, had to pay huge costs for moving, a ten-year lease, purchase
of material and furniture. How much? Thousands or even millions
of dollars? We do not know.
Even before the official opening of the employment centre
people there received a letter saying: ``Sorry, but we moved you a
bit prematurely; the centre will be closing soon, but we do not
know when exactly''. You can imagine the atmosphere these people
in my riding who want to help people find jobs must work in.
Instead, their morale is undermined by a letter informing them that
in six months, eight months or a year the centre will be closed and
they might have to move to Sainte-Thérèse, Saint-Jérôme or God
knows where. Many of them could even lose their jobs. This is the
kind of motivation this government is giving to its civil servants,
who are asked to help people.
I believe that if we want to help people find jobs, to reduce the
unemployment rate, to find work for every Canadian, we should
first make sure that government spending-I was about to say
waste-is a little more effective and efficient.
(1525)
A small business with an annual turnover of $100,000 is
supposed to have a business plan, which means a government
should have one too. I will never accept that a government which is
wasting money to take an employment centre, move it elsewhere
while telling the employees concerned that their centre is to be
closed after hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on it-and
ruining the atmosphere they work in-I will never accept that such
a government introduce a bill that is harmful, dangerous and unfair
for Canadians.
I say again for young people who, some day, will have to find a
first job: if they unfortunately have to turn to unemployment
insurance, the present system requires them to have worked 15
hours a week for 20 weeks to be eligible. The bill introduced by the
Minister of Human Resources Development requires that people
work twenty-six 35-hour weeks.
In other words, a message similar to the one sent to officials of
the Employment Centre of Terrebonne is being sent to a number of
students. It tells them: ``Go to school, get an education but, let us
warn you right from the start, if you have difficulty finding a job
after, do not count on the federal government to help you, you will
2259
be on welfare. We will never help you with our new laws and our
new standards''. Given today's job insecurity, it is almost
impossible for a student to work a minimum of 35 hours weekly for
26 weeks in his first job.
Therefore, on behalf of young people, of women, of people from
the various regions, my colleagues in the Bloc and I oppose Bill
C-12.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this report
stage debate on the employment insurance bill, Bill C-12. It is
something I have great feelings about.
We have talked about this bill for many months, some people
longer than I have. Many people on both sides of the aisle have
spent many long days, weeks and months getting this piece of
legislation to where it is today.
The government believes the object of the exercise is to make all
aspects of the new employment insurance system fair and
balanced. We have listened to the concerns raised in hearings by
the parliamentary committee on Bill C-12 and we have responded
by fine tuning the legislation to better respond to the reality of
different job markets.
Over the last number of months one of the very important issues
that has arisen is how to deal with individuals who have gaps or
breaks in their employment. For example, there are individuals
whose work patterns consist of some steady weeks of work
interrupted by some weeks of not working, and then more weeks of
work. For these individuals setting a relatively short consecutive
period of weeks worked on which to calculate possible benefits
could mean very low benefits.
The number of people affected is not very small. Approximately
35 per cent of all claimants who apply for income each year are
affected by these gaps. That means some 850,000 Canadians with
irregular work patterns who deserve access to the same protection
against job loss as do those in regular jobs fell into this category.
Ten per cent of all claimants have gaps of four weeks or more.
The average gap ranges from 2.9 weeks in New Brunswick to 4.8
weeks in Manitoba. We feel it is not fair to those who, through no
fault of their own, have not had that steady work prior to becoming
unemployed. That is why the employment benefit will be
calculated in a new way. It will allow all individuals to count back
26 weeks to find their required weeks of work when calculating
average income for employment insurance benefits.
(1530 )
This will enable individuals to have gaps of between four and 12
weeks without affecting their benefit levels. However, benefits will
still be based on how much they earn in the 26 week period. This
compromise of maintaining a fixed period of 26 weeks will
maintain one of the central objectives of the new legislation, which
is to increase work incentives while at the same time ensuring a
better relationship between benefits paid and the normal pattern of
earnings.
The 26 week period helps workers with irregular work patterns
in every region of the country and in all industries from
construction to the service sector. We feel that this is very
important. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians in all industries
suffer this problem of gaps in their employment income. They
work several weeks and then are off for several weeks. The
government believes that individuals should not be unfairly
penalized because of this. In seeking a solution the government has
had to find a balance between these two objectives.
First, a change had to be made to the old system so that there
would be an incentive to work additional weeks if the work was
available. In too many cases following the minimum weeks
worked, an unemployment insurance claim was the first step
toward finding replacement income rather than the last.
Second, many individuals in very high areas of unemployment
who work in seasonal industries simply do not have the
employment opportunities which would provide them with the
steady work necessary to claim an adequate benefit.
It is doubly unfair in some cases. Many individuals who can only
find the minimum number of weeks to qualify also have gaps due
to the nature of their work, be it construction, the fishery, et cetera.
Therefore, while all their hours worked would be counted in
qualifying for benefits, some of their earnings would not be
counted in determining the size of their weekly cheque.
Bill C-12 will allow individuals to count every dollar they have
earned over the last 26 weeks prior to their claim to determine their
benefit. The amounts of their employment insurance cheques will
be calculated by averaging the amount earned over this period.
For instance, individuals in high unemployment areas will need
420 hours, or the equivalent of 12 weeks at 35 hours a week over
the past year, to qualify. To maximize their benefits they will
require two more weeks of work to get the full 55 per cent of their
weekly wage. An individual in a low unemployment area will need
700 hours of work, or the equivalent of 20 weeks at 35 hours a
week over the past year. To maximize their cheque they will require
22 weeks of earnings over the 26 week period.
2260
The government believes this is a fair and balanced approach
which strengthens the incentive to work while at the same time
providing equal treatment for those workers with gaps in their
income. It also recognizes that individuals in low unemployment
areas have more opportunities to fill the gaps with alternative work.
In moving to the hours based system of calculating eligibility
and benefits for unemployed Canadians, the government wants to
ensure that every hour of work counts and that it pays more to work
longer where the work is available. That is very, very important.
The new system is much fairer for those who work part time and
in seasonal industries. For example, those who work less than 15
hours per week will now have their work insured. Under
employment insurance, 90,000 workers in part time and seasonal
jobs will now be eligible for benefits. Many will qualify sooner, for
longer periods and will be able to insure more of their income than
before. We think this is a great improvement.
(1535 )
Entitlement for benefit and duration of the unemployment
benefit payable will be based on the number of hours worked in the
last 52 weeks. Those in areas of high unemployment require 420
hours as I have said. About 270,000 workers will qualify for an
additional three weeks of benefits because they will be given full
credit for all the hours they worked.
Many people still have the problem of gaps in their employment.
They work a few weeks, are off a few weeks and are back at work
again. Addressing the issue of these gaps was one of the most
important areas we dealt with and was a major concern of the
committee and the government. The solution in the amended Bill
C-12 is to allow all claimants to count back a full 26 weeks to find
the required weeks of earnings.
In closing I feel, as I know my colleagues do on all sides of the
House, that we have come a long way and we have made many
great improvements. Many people appeared before the committee.
Even though many were opposed to the bill in general, I believe
that after listening, talking, and participating in open-line shows
they have seen we have done a great justice especially to the
seasonal workers in bringing these amendments forward.
I salute the people who brought the amendments forward. I thank
the committee for all of its work. I look forward to the bill
becoming law and to getting on with the process for the people who
through no fault of their own have to use unemployment insurance.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Human Resources Development come up with a bill entitled an
act respecting employment insurance in Canada. I would suggest,
as mentioned in the amendments, that it be called an act to amend
the Unemployment Insurance Act because, outside of an election
campaign, can the government promise that this bill is going to
create jobs? I do not believe it will.
I would like to talk about the people in my riding, the citizens of
Shefford and Granby, the two main cities I represent. I am always
quite surprised to hear that the federal government intends to work
in co-operation with the private sector and the provinces to
collectively invest in job creation. You may have recognized an
excerpt from the throne speech.
This point is directly connected with the promises made by the
federal government to strengthen the Canadian economy and the
regions by withdrawing from programs aimed at helping
businesses and by making deep cuts to the unemployment
insurance program. In a way that is just as contradictory, in its last
budget, the federal government announced plans, for 1996-97, for
an unprecedented reduction of transfer payments to the provinces,
and drastic cuts in social programs, especially unemployment
insurance.
In its last throne speech, the government said that the economic
situation was not as bad as it seemed in this country, and that if it
was not much brighter it was the fault of private businesses. In my
area, 6,000 people signed a petition circulated by the Granby board
of trade, asking this government to keep the employment centre in
Granby open. The government ignored it. We also have
organizations such as the regional development council, trades and
merchants associations, which are working very hard, and I believe
it is unfair for the government to be blaming these people.
Since the unemployed, students and welfare recipients have
already been hurt by the reforms contained in last year's budget,
the government should find other ways of getting money.
(1540)
When will the Liberal government admit frankly that it made a
mistake in choosing to pick on the have-nots of our society and that
now it is leaving it up to the more affluent classes to determine
what they will contribute to the overall sacrifice. How will the
government force the wealthy to do their share, now that the small
taxpayers are overburdened?
For 1996-97, the shortfall under the Canada health and social
transfer will represent, for Quebec alone, $765 million in lost
revenues for education, manpower training and other social
programs. The unemployment insurance reform will cost
Quebecers another $534 million in 1996.
This represents a total of $1.3 billion that Quebec will not
receive. The reduced unemployment insurance benefits mean less
money for low income taxpayers. We all know that these benefits
only pay for food, rent and other basic needs of life.
2261
When the federal government says it will work in agreement
with the private sector and the provinces, what does it mean? How
will the government do that? What practical measures, what action
will be taken? Will it simply impose on the private sector and the
provinces its own rules and national standards?
Let us take my region for example, and more specifically the
case of Granby, the largest city in the federal riding of Shefford.
Granby now receives $30,700 in lieu of taxes for federal offices. It
is quite simple, if there were no federal government, things would
not change much in my riding since Granby receives only $30,700.
Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, with a population slightly smaller than
that of Granby and a much slower growth rate, receives $5 million
from the federal government in lieu of taxes. The amount is
$643,000 in Saint-Hyacinthe. Imagine, $643,000 in
Saint-Hyacinthe, and $30,700 in Granby. That is what the federal
government means in our region.
Not only do Granby and the region receive very little from the
federal government, but now the government wants to cut a whole
series of services and programs. Among other things, in Granby,
the employment centre would be replaced by a service point. If this
trend persists, there will be practically no federal services left in
our region. Where is the rightful share of Granby and its region in
the redistribution of wealth?
The taxpayers of the riding of Shefford are tired of paying and
getting nothing in return from the central government. However,
Ottawa is right on one point: from now on, we have to rely on
ourselves, on the energy and resources of our own regional
business community, without any help from the federal
government. That is already what we are doing. We are not relying
on the federal government which is gradually pulling out.
In the next few months, the action plan from Ottawa for the
riding of Shefford will reduce by more than three quarters the
number of employees in the Granby employment centre. It is
ironic, but it is the truth, and I think it should be condemned here.
Shortly, the majority of employees in the employment centre will
be out of a job. The closing of this employment centre is an
irrational, even indecent, decision. That situation is unacceptable.
People and organizations in the area, including the Chamber of
Commerce and the various municipalities in the riding, will never
accept this situation.
Soon, the city of Granby, the regional capital of my riding of
Shefford, with more than 67,000 constituents, will have only one
post office and one RCMP detachment left, plus two or three other
points of reduced services.
I will give the House another example, to show to what extent
Ottawa is pulling out despite its promise to stimulate employment.
(1545)
In 1994, $386,488 were allocated for job creation for students in
Granby and the area. In 1995, these funds from the Department of
Human Resources Development dropped to less than $207,000,
that is a budget cut of almost half in less than a year. This year,
prospects for students are a little more generous, $257,000, but we
are far from what we had before.
So, when Liberals promise to do more and better for the
economy, they could not do worse. The federal government's
apathy in Shefford is blatant. Even the Chamber of Commerce of
Granby has proved it by circulating a petition, as I said earlier. It
collected 6,300 signatures of people asking for that the
employment centre in Granby be maintained, and that was refused.
The petition was tabled here in the House and the response was
negative. For this government, Granby and Shefford no longer
exist, do not exist.
The only thing Ottawa managed to do was to unite all social and
economic stakeholders, no matter their political allegiance, against
the federal government's reforms and especially against the
proposed unemployment insurance reform. People in Shefford
have a long memory and will remember this Liberal government
that does not recognize them.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know that
members of the Bloc Quebecois are joining together in defending
this style of management, which goes against the interests of the
people of Quebec in particular.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): And of Canada as well.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): And of Canada as well. But I, Mr.
Speaker, am more interested in Quebec and not as concerned about
what is happening outside Quebec.
In my opinion, employment insurance is a kind of smoke screen
put up by the government to show that its proposal will create more
jobs than good old unemployment insurance. When one knows that
the purpose of manpower training is to create jobs, one realizes that
the federal government has no real intention of withdrawing from
this area.
I submit to the House that this bill allows the government not to
create jobs but to create a new tax. In fact, the secretary of state
responsible for finance stated a few weeks ago here in this House
that the new UI fund will be much bigger than in the past, since
premiums are higher and benefits lower. This fund will grow
significantly. There is talk of billions of dollars within five years.
The secretary of state even said that this fund would be used to
reduce the deficit. This would make it a new tax, would it not? Let
us be clear. We-at least in the Bloc Quebecois-are intelligent
enough to understand this kind of thing.
2262
The secretary of state added that premiums were now higher
so we can meet UI needs during hard times. May I remind
members that we are living in hard times. I wonder how much
the government will collect during good times. It should be quite
a haul.
The free trade agreement with the U.S. and the rapid
technological changes of the last few years have turned
employability and job requirements upside down.
(1550)
This means we must act very quickly in setting rules so that
people can upgrade their skills in light of the new requirements
resulting from technological change and free trade with the U.S.
and other countries. This bill, this new UI reform, does not really
address these issues.
The other reason I disagree with this bill is that the Liberal
government has never had much credibility, especially now, and we
have a hard time believing in it. I was here in this House when there
was a UI reform proposal and the Liberals were in opposition. I
heard Sheila Copps and the ``rat pack'' condemning that UI reform
proposal roundly. Yet, unlike today's reform, the one back then had
it all over this one, as far as being just and fair is concerned.
For these reasons, I think the government has no credibility
whatsoever to manage the system. As employers and unions have
said in the past, I say to the House that the government should
partially privatize the management of UI and manpower training. A
private UI system, like any private insurance company, should
manage the UI fund, which, in fact, comes entirely from employers
and employees.
The board of directors would manage the system, and part of the
training would be managed jointly by management and union
representatives.
Let me explain why we should proceed that way. Given that only
employers and employees contribute to the UI fund, they should be
responsible for managing it. This only makes sense. There would
be much less waste, there would be much less grandstanding. Like
any other insurance, it would be aimed strictly at protecting
employees and meeting their needs.
Here is another reason. If we make employees and employers
more responsible, there is a chance they will manage everything
better, otherwise they would have to bear the consequences and be
forced to collect higher premiums.
Currently, there are employers who tend to lay off employees too
quickly. The minute something happens, they say: ``No problem.
We will let them go. The unemployment insurance system will look
after them''.
If an employee misbehaves, if he is late a few times, if his wife is
sick and he does not show up for work, his employer is sometimes
quick to fire him. This, unfortunately, often happens too easily and
too quickly. Why? It is because employers count on the
government or the unemployment insurance system to look after
employees who are laid off.
The same is true in the case of an employee who decides to not
go to work because he feels he does not have enough holidays,
because he is a little tired, or for any other trivial reason, or an
employee who does not work well and does not care because ``if I
lose my job, I can claim UI benefits''.
By contrast, if the employee and the employer had to meet all the
costs involved, they would be more responsible, if only to avoid
having to pay increased premiums. And if they did have to pay
more, they would be more careful in the future. Indeed, an
employer would then think twice before firing an employee for a
trivial reason.
(1555)
So, we could adjust more quickly and effectively if employees
and employers could manage a private unemployment insurance
fund, as well as part of the manpower training required to truly
meet the needs of businesses, given the current and rapid
technological changes, and given the free competition, particularly
in North-America but also worldwide. This would result in an
improved economy, something that is necessary, considering that
way too many people are unemployed and live on welfare.
For these reasons, I feel that we should soon set aside the
unemployment insurance program and replace it with an insurance
similar to any other type of insurance, whether it is private medical
care insurance, life insurance, etc., particularly since
unemployment insurance meets a daily need.
Again, for these reasons, I strongly suggest to the minister that,
if he wants a true unemployment insurance reform, he should
withdraw from this program and give employers and employees the
responsibility of managing their own unemployment insurance
fund.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, which will surely
have an impact in rural communities of Canada and in a riding like
mine.
I would like to focus on two topics: seasonal workers and the
number of hours they work, and the monitoring program that will
be provided, first for the implementation of this new act and then,
after its implementation, for evaluation of the results of this true
reform of the unemployment insurance system.
[English]
The old Unemployment Insurance Act had not been revamped
for 25 years. Of course with changing times and an economy which
2263
is taking some very different turns making it very different from
what it used to be, it was a must for the Government of Canada to
modernize the act.
Thousands of Canadians today are working long, hard hours
without protection at all under the existing UI program. Why?
Because they are working those hours for different employers and
as far as UI is concerned, those hours do not count. Workers cannot
get insurance unless they work at least 15 hours per week for a
single employer. That is under the old system.
The new employment insurance bill changes that. It bases
eligibility on hours worked and not on weeks worked. Whether a
person works 36 hours a week for one employer or two or more
employers makes no difference. An hour worked is an hour
worked.
For example, seasonal workers often work long hours during
peak season. Under this EI bill, about 270,000 workers will receive
an additional three weeks of benefits because they will now be
credited for all the hours in weeks they could not have used as
qualifying weeks under the old system. It is a simple common
sense change which is long overdue. Work patterns are changing in
this new economy, which will be the second part of my
presentation.
Bill C-12 is a result of a lengthy and inclusive consultation
process. The government listened to what Canadians had to say
about income support for unemployed workers and the kind of
employment benefits that would help people get back to work. EI is
indeed a result of this.
The government also relied on substantial amounts of research.
Experts have looked at all aspects of how the old UI system
worked. They know it can affect the behaviour of employers and
workers in ways Canadians do not accept any more. It can lead
people to turn down available work. It can lead employers to cycle
people in and out of jobs. It is not because people do not want to
work but because the system does not always work well.
(1600 )
This new bill is designed to reward work effort. It strengthens
work incentives and insurance principles. It also ensures fairness
by ensuring an adequate income for those in need. We are talking
about those people who make less than $26,000. They will receive
a supplement.
Research gives us good reason to believe that the EI approach
will be successful. People who have criticized the bill have not
been able to point to the same kind of thorough, objective analysis.
Now we will go a step further with a thorough, vibrant process
designed to tell us if our expectations are being met in practice, if
behaviours are changing as much as we expect or even more.
We will look at how the new system works in a dozen
communities chosen to represent a range of labour market
environments all across Canada, that is, towns with different
workplaces, disciplines and domains which will ensure a good
cross-section of employees and employers and the kind of work
they do for a more precise analysis. The Employment Insurance
Commission will do its own research to monitor how individuals,
employers, communities and local economies are adapting to the
new Employment Insurance Act. We will see those results
annually. Surveys of individuals, employers and community
representatives will provide a third monitoring approach.
These processes will give us the required feedback to adjust the
program if the evidence shows that we need to. The commitment to
monitor the impact of EI is yet another example of the
government's goal for a system that is fair and effective in every
sense of the term.
[Translation]
I am pleased to take part in the debate and especially to speak in
favour of seasonal workers who, in the past, did not fully benefit
from the unemployment insurance system as it had been
established. Many people were working long hours, but for short
periods. This meant that they did not have the required number of
weeks, but this new employment insurance legislation will deal
precisely with this serious problem since, after July 1, the date this
new act will come into force, every hour worked will count for
unemployment insurance purpose. That will benefit some 270,000
Canadians. It is extremely important that this figure be clearly
pointed out in the House.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mercier, as
well as my colleagues from Lévis and
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, for the excellent work they did on
this issue. Never before, during the last two years and a half, have
we put so much work into a bill. Of course, we worked hard on
other pieces of legislation, but particularly on this one. We did so
for two main reasons. First, this legislation affects all the citizens
from coast to coast, and especially the people in Quebec. Second,
Bill C-12 goes directly after the poor and the destitute.
That is why the Bloc Quebecois has focused all of its efforts to
try to reason with the government. We used some very solid
arguments. I will not go over them again, we have mentioned them
often enough. We have shown that this is not a good reform
proposal. Today, I want to try to reach the hearts of my colleagues,
and I hope they have some compassion left. In a democracy, the
people are represented by those they chose to elect. But they have
taken to the streets.
(1605)
They do not want a mini-reform, they want this employment
insurance bill, as it is called, to be completely withdrawn. The
people who have taken to the streets are not beer drinkers, not
professional agitators and certainly not cowards. Quite the
opposite, these people are responsible citizens. But mostly,
although these people want to work, they cannot find work year
round. These are outstanding citizens. Some people in my riding
and elsewhere have heard of Nelson Pilote, from
Saint-Alexandre-des-Lacs, who is a tree harvester. In the
summertime, he gets up at 4 a.m., brings
2264
his chain saw with him to the forest and works until 5 or 6 p.m. He
works hard. He has a nice family, five young children.
While he receives UI benefits, from the premiums he and his
employer paid, he does not do any moonlighting. What does he do
instead? Volunteer work. He coaches hockey and several other
sports. He teaches young children and gives them a fresh outlook
on life. He is not necessarily a PQ or a sovereignist partisan, but he
puts his heart into it and he wants to live a decent life.
In Amqui, he gathered, not by himself, of course, but with the
help of a few unions, 5,000 people, who came to demonstrate and
ask for the withdrawal of Bill C-12 now before the House.
Also, I have a friend who is a bishop in Gaspé. He is not involved
in politics either. He too joined the workers to ask, on behalf of his
flock, that this bill be withdrawn because he knows that in Gaspé as
in Matane and in Mont-Joli as well as in Amqui, people want to
work but it is not so simple. Come and try to create jobs in our
region! You will see that it is more complicated than you think.
Members are also aware that forestry jobs are the least costly to
create. The Canadian government cut its $6.5 million a year grant
to the East Plan, which created jobs, good jobs. They cut it. They
also want to cut funding for the Maurice Lamontagne Institute,
where year after year researchers make discoveries that are
published throughout the world.
It seems to me that the government is cutting funding
everywhere: for researchers who give hope to the young and for the
most disadvantaged people, the poorest of the poor. And for women
in our areas, especially the rural areas. Women who have seasonal
jobs will suffer as well as seasonal and part-time workers.
I do not want to go over all the arguments again. Members know
quite well that in our areas as elsewhere in Quebec and in the
Atlantic Provinces, it is almost impossible for someone who enters
the workforce to accumulate 910 hours of work. Only a few will be
able to do it.
Yes, I appeal to my colleagues. Let us hope that our arguments
will at least touch their hearts, if not their minds.
(1610)
It is not easy for people who want to work and who will no
longer be entitled to this employment insurance, that back home we
call poverty insurance, because that is right where it will lead.
Someone said to me: ``Do you know that if this employment
insurance comes to our regions, people will be worse off in a few
years than they were during the '30s''? They will turn to welfare, of
course, but they do not want to. People want to work.
You know, it is very hard on a person's morale to rely on welfare.
I have known many men with families who, having lost their jobs
and been on unemployment insurance for a year, have then
unsuccessfully sought work and become completely discouraged.
The whole family was affected. It is extremely hard for the
children, and it then becomes society's problem. It is not just the
individual's problem, the family's problem, but the community's or
society's problem.
This is why I am appealing to my colleagues. There is still some
time left. They can still vote against Bill C-12. I ask them with all
my heart to think about their constituents. There were
demonstrations in the Atlantic provinces as well. If we want to
represent our constituents properly, how can we not listen to what
they have to say? I find this tragic.
Of course, they can always say that if we do not listen to them,
two years, six months down the road, they will throw us out. As
you well know, Madam Speaker, in four or five years, a
government in power can do a lot of stupid things, and you know
that they have done their share. They are about to do it again. I
think that this will be the worst yet, a terrible mistake, and it is
workers, young people, women, in other words, the poorest
members of our society, who will suffer the consequences. It is not
just the individual who is affected, as I was saying earlier, but
families, parishes, all of society. When apolitical people say that it
does not make sense, I ask my colleagues across the way to sit up
and take note.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I,
too, am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-12 to express a
viewpoint which resembles that of my colleagues, of course, and
also that of a lot of people in the riding of Témiscamingue. In fact,
next Saturday, people will hold a demonstration in the streets of
Rouyn-Noranda to show their opposition to this legislation, which
will affect many of them.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. This legislation is
called the Employment Insurance Act. That is awfully close to
being false representation because it does not deal with
employment in any way. The government wanted to change the
name of the old unemployment insurance plan to show that it was
proposing a reform involving significant changes. There are two
ways to criticize this bill. It can be criticized for what is included in
it, and for what was left out of it. Let me say at the outset that
nobody can oppose the idea of modernizing our social programs, of
adapting them and adjusting them to the reality of the 21st century.
2265
I will have the opportunity, in the second part of my speech,
to talk about the measures that could have been included in this
bill to undertake a true unemployment insurance reform for
purposes other than those of the finance minister. But even that
is not very clear.
The first question I ask myself is, what is the real purpose of this
reform? We know that after the first cuts made in the 1994-95
budget, there was a $5 billion surplus in the unemployment
insurance fund at the end of the year.
(1615)
There must be no mistake, the fund is not in a state of
catastrophe. There are revenues of $5 billion more than there are
expenses for unemployment insurance. Obviously, people will say
there were years when there was a deficit. If we look cumulatively
at it, since its inception and as we know it today, the unemployment
insurance fund has a surplus of about $1 billion. In 1996, another
$5 billion will be added to this surplus.
It cannot be said that the unemployment insurance plan was in a
catastrophic state. However, the Minister of Finance made sure, in
all sorts of ways, that he could take out this surplus and use it to
lower his deficit. With most of his other reforms not giving any
results, apart from his cuts in transfer payments, the minister
decided to use the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund to
provide a certain amount of revenue to reduce his deficit in the
short term.
People have not got the time to put a magnifying glass to every
government program. However, the unemployment insurance fund
is supported by contributions from employers and employees. The
Minister of Finance puts no money from the consolidated fund into
it. It is paid for by employers and employees. So, to use this surplus
is to steal from the unemployment insurance fund, it is to impose a
sort of tax on employment. If that is what they want to do, let them
say so. Let them cut contributions and add an employment tax to
pay stubs. Let them explain the real things, because that is what is
happening.
We could discuss the surplus for a long time, but I also want to
speak of one measure in particular which goes against the present
trend. Many people wonder about the way the job market is divided
up. Many workers do a lot of overtime, while many people who
could work are unable to find a job. How could the work be divided
more fairly? Such a thing will not happen unless the government
takes a number of courageous steps, sending out very clear signals
that this is what it will support.
In this bill there is one measure which reduces maximum
insurable earnings from $42,000 to $39,000. Concretely, this
means that when people earning more than that do overtime work,
the employee and the employer-but particularly the
employer-will not have to contribute anything to unemployment
insurance.
Put yourself in the employer's shoes. You have a job to be done,
and you have a choice between paying a new employee, who will
have to pay into the unemployment insurance fund-as will
you-and paying someone who already works for you and for
whom you will not have to make a contribution, if the work is done
in overtime. If all of the social responsibilities of employers are
defined in this way, there is a very clear message: Get people to do
overtime, do not hire anyone new, it is more cost-effective that
way.
The objective of people in business-legitimately and
understandably so-is profit, personal accomplishment and so
forth. If there is no clearer guidance, if they are not helped to
discipline themselves a bit in this area, they will never of their own
accord say that they are ready to divide the available work. It is our
responsibility as legislators to ensure that policy orientations
correspond to our realities.
This bill could have provided a good opportunity to modify
contributions in the opposite direction, making sure it was more
advantageous to hire new people than to pay a lot of overtime, too
much in some cases. It must be understood that, in the medium
term, employers would notice that those working slightly fewer
hours were less tired, with fewer work-related accidents, and thus
lower worker compensation contributions, and so on. But this
requires a signal, something to set them off in the right direction,
and there is no such thing in this reform.
(1620)
I referred to the things that are lacking in this bill. I remember
that during the debate over the free trade agreement-which I
wanted, promoted and strongly believe in-there was a lot of talk
about the adaptation it would necessarily bring about. For weeks,
years now, we have heard about massive layoffs, job cuts in many
companies. Often they are people who had held the same job for
15, 20, 25 years and who now, at 40 or 50, are unemployed, with
many productive years left in them; as members of the labour
force, their everyday life would be more stimulating and they could
contribute to society.
Why are these people, who held a job for a long time before
losing it now when we are entering a new era where technology is
becoming more specific, not treated differently? Why not consider
longer training or rehabilitation programs for these people and why
not keep them much longer on UI?
I do not mean for the federal government to put in place its own
training programs, far from it. Another thing lacking in this bill is
the transfer of this area to the Quebec government and to the
provinces wanting it, such as Quebec where the consensus is very
obvious, and lengthening the entitlement period. You cannot go
overnight from the textile industry to computer science, 25 to 30
weeks are not enough.
2266
We must be realistic. I say it again, nothing in this bill
guarantees that our unemployment insurance plan will be better
adapted to the realities of the years 2000, namely changing jobs
often, many human tragedies for those who had held a job for a
long time and who will have to work in new sectors. There is
nothing to this effect in the bill.
During the minute and a half I have left, I would like to go back
to manpower training because I find nothing more frustrating than
seeing someone come to my office and say: ``I am unemployed, I
would like to take a course. I read in the paper that the
unemployment insurance, or some other organization, was offering
a course''. To know whether he is eligible or not, I have to ask him
56,000 questions: ``Are you on UI? Have you ever been on UI? Are
you on welfare?''
This situation is due to the fact that there are two levels of
government with their own structure giving their own courses
according to their own criteria. Obviously, since it is managing the
unemployment insurance program, the federal government's
objective is to target the unemployed. For its part, the Government
of Quebec, which is responsible for social assistance, gives priority
to welfare recipients. And in all of this, people without any income
are nobody's priority.
That is a major problem that we will not be able to resolve as
long as there are more than one level of government responsible for
this matter. In Quebec we resolved this problem a long time ago.
We decided that it would be the Government of Quebec, but some
people here are stubborn, as they say; they have a hard time getting
the message, which is very clear in Quebec and which was repeated
during the last socio-economic summit.
So, for all these reasons, we cannot support such a bill,
absolutely not, and I conclude by inviting the people back home in
Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Témiscamingue riding, and especially
those from Rouyn-Noranda-where there will be a demonstration
this Saturday-to come and join us in condemning this
manipulation of the unemployment insurance account and this bill,
this so-called reform totally lacking in vision for the future, for the
years 2000.
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and
speak in support of Bill C-12.
I do not think anyone in the House would argue that to maintain
the status quo is a non-issue. I believe the modernizing of our
employment insurance system is a crucial part of the government's
job and growth agenda.
The changes we as a government have brought forward more
accurately reflect what works best in today's economy. EI will
continue to provide Canadians with basic income protection, as it
does under the current system. It will also include a range of new
employment measures to help people find work more quickly. In
short, it is a system designed more effectively to meet the needs of
Canadians.
I will focus my remarks today on how the bill will affect those
who work in the seasonal industries. Bill C-12 will ensure that up
to 500,000 part time and seasonal workers who were not covered
under the old rules will now be insured. About 45,000 seasonal
workers who currently are not eligible for UI benefits, despite
paying premiums, will become eligible under the new hours based
scheme. Some 270,000 workers in seasonal industries will receive
an additional three weeks of benefits.
(1625)
Bill C-12 also commits to a number of important active
employment measures, including wage subsidies, earnings
supplements, self-employment initiatives and job partnerships.
In my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants seasonal workers make
up a large and very important part of the local economy. Those
employed in seasonal industries work extremely hard. If members
were to talk to any one of the people in my riding I have spoken
with they would say that if there were work year round they would
be glad to take it. The reality, however, in many rural communities
is quite different. Through no fault of their own people do not
always have access to full time year round employment.
I have had the opportunity to meet with many groups and
individuals in my riding to discuss this issue. In our conversations
they expressed to me some serious concerns about how
employment insurance would impact those who work in the
seasonal industries. They asked me to bring the message to Ottawa.
They said we as a government must ensure any changes are fair and
do not unduly target those employed in seasonal industries.
I, like many of my Atlantic caucus colleagues, brought that
message to Ottawa. I am pleased the Minister of Human Resources
Development has listened and responded positively to these
genuine concerns. The end result is a system that is both fair and
balanced, a system which will allow more seasonal workers to
qualify more quickly for more weeks of benefits.
One of the most serious concerns I have heard in recent weeks
was how will the government deal with individuals who have gaps
or breaks in employment, those whose work patterns consist of
some steady weeks of work interrupted by a few weeks of
unemployment and then more steady weeks of work.
For constituents in Annapolis Valley-Hants this is a real
concern. For instance, the agriculture sector is the backbone of our
economy. However, this means for many people there will be
2267
plenty of work available in the spring and fall but there may be
gaps in their employment during the summer months.
I have also heard similar concerns from constituents who work
in the fishing industry. For these individuals, setting a relatively
short consecutive period of weeks of work on which to calculate
possible benefits could mean very low benefits. The number of
people who would have been affected is not small. It is
approximately 35 per cent of all claimants who apply for income
benefits each year. That means nearly 850,000 Canadians with
irregular work patterns deserve access to the same protection
against job loss as do those with regular jobs.
In my home province of Nova Scotia the average length of gap is
over three weeks. Therefore it is not fair to those who through no
fault of their own have not had steady work prior to becoming
unemployed. I am pleased the minister has adopted the
recommendations of the standing committee to count back a full 26
weeks to find the required weeks of work when calculating average
income for EI benefits.
This will allow individuals to have gaps of between four and
twelve weeks without affecting their benefit levels. Benefits will
still be based on how much one earns in the last 26 weeks.
This compromise of maintaining a fixed period of 26 weeks will
maintain one of the central objectives of this new legislation. It will
increase work incentives while at the same time ensuring a better
relationship between benefits paid and the normal pattern of
earnings. This 26-week period significantly helps workers with
irregular work patterns in every region of the country and in all
industries from agriculture to the service sector.
(1630)
Many people in seasonal industries earn relatively low incomes.
As well, they may live in communities that offer relatively few
opportunities or have relatively few skills that would lead to better
paying work. I believe that the new EI system will more effectively
respond to their needs.
Strong efforts have been made by the government to protect low
income workers in seasonal industries by focusing on higher
income workers for the savings that are essential to EI. Low
income people in these industries will also benefit from a new
system that focuses on helping people get work and creating
incentives for people to take all the work that is available. Simply
put, every hour worked will increase an individual's eligibility for
benefits.
A key feature of the new system is the family income
supplement. This supplement is meant to top up benefits in order to
reflect family circumstances. It will bring total insurance benefits
up to as much as 80 per cent of a person's average insured earnings.
Across Canada, 350,000 claimants in low income families with
children will be eligible for the supplement. Many will be in the
seasonal industries and many will be in my riding. In Atlantic
Canada alone the family income supplement will benefit 54,000
low income families.
Thanks to the efforts of the members of the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development, I am pleased to say that those
who are receiving family income supplement will be exempt from
the intensity rule. I believe this is consistent with the government's
overall efforts to redirect assistance to those who are most in need.
This is the Liberal way.
These are just a few of the many positive elements of the
legislation. I am pleased that the concerns of seasonal workers have
been positively addressed in the legislation. I believe that Bill C-12
will be good for seasonal workers, good for the people of the riding
of Annapolis Valley-Hants, and good for Canadians.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as
follows: the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup-Manpower Training.
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a long attachment to questions of the economics of
unemployment insurance.
I was one of the first scholars in Canada to produce evidence that
the imposition of generous unemployment insurance benefits raises
the rate of unemployment.
All through the post-war years until the early 1970s, American
and Canadian unemployment rates moved very much in unison.
They never diverged by more than one-half of a percentage point.
But in 1972 the system in Canada became much more generous
with respect to the amount paid when people became unemployed
relative to the wages they were earning, the number of weeks
necessary in order to become eligible, the number of weeks paid
after one became unemployed. Our system was one of the most
generous in the world.
Studies have been done to explain why these differences between
the Canadian and U.S. unemployment rate developed in the early
1970s and have since widened and now have settled at
approximately 3 to 4 percentage points. It is not possible to explain
these differences by differences in monetary policy, fiscal policy,
exchange rate policy, any of the traditional measures.
(1635)
The one that dominates the results of attempts to explain these
differences is the generosity of our unemployment insurance
system. This generosity has reduced an enormous amount of lost
output. The idea of having a generous system is very laudable.
There is no denying all of the arguments made by the speakers from
2268
the Bloc Quebecois. The more generous the system is the better off
are the people who are receiving the money.
As people who are concerned with the welfare of all Canadians,
what are the consequences of these generous benefits and the
resultant increase in the unemployment rate? I have estimated that
as a result of this increased generosity, a 3.5 per cent higher rate of
unemployment existed than would have been if we had stayed at
the levels at which we were in 1972. Then our national output
would be over $11 billion higher.
The tax take alone on that $11 billion higher income would be
$3.5 billion. The deficit would be cut substantially and a lot of
workers who are now unemployed would be employed.
When looking at reform of the unemployment insurance system
it is necessary to do something in addition to what the Bloc
members have been saying in all of their speeches. If
unemployment insurance benefits are cut, if the cost of being
unemployed is raised, certain people will be hurt. That is true.
However, if that is done benefits are provided to all Canadians. The
most obvious one is that the unemployment rate would be lower.
Another is that output would increase and taxation revenues would
go up.
What has to be done is consider adjustments to the present
system which would bring about these gains in output and
reductions in unemployment at a cost which would not be too high.
I have four measures which I believe would be widely and readily
acceptable to Canadians in order to gain these benefits.
The first and most obvious is that the system can be made less
generous. Maximum benefits equal to 53 per cent of previous
wages offered by our system now are at or very near the top of
benefits paid by all industrial countries. However, generosity over
the UI system also depends on the ease with which workers become
eligible, how long they can receive benefits, what industries are
covered, and so on.
It is interesting to note that in recent years the system's
generosity has been reduced substantially. That was one of the
conclusions reached at a recent conference held here in Ottawa.
Some analysts suggested that it may now be no more generous than
it was before the 1972 reform.
The pre-1972 levels are not necessarily ideal and further cuts in
generosity should be considered as long, and I emphasize this, they
do not impose undue hardship on the neediest.
The second measure I believe that Canadians would accept and
which would bring huge benefits involves tougher measures
against fraud. I have always treated with some scepticism the
results of internal audits made by the system which found
fraudulent claims to be about 1 per cent of all benefits paid. How
did the investigators discover what are deliberately hidden
practices? What incentives do they have to show that their
bureaucratic and political bosses are running a system that permits
lots of fraud?
(1640)
There is evidence that my scepticism may be warranted. In the
equivalent of a social science experiment, five U.S. states recently
introduced systems for the positive identification of people making
welfare claims. It is difficult to forge ID cards in numbers tracked
by computer. They found that fraudulent claims were between 8
and 15 per cent of welfare payments according to a letter published
by the Globe and Mail on April 8, 1996.
I have a question on the Order Paper for the Minister of Human
Resources Development. In the spending estimates of the national
accounts, I discovered that last year the amount of money
recovered from fraud in the insurance system rose by about 3.5
percentage points or several million dollars.
I have asked the minister to explain why, in one year, there was
such a dramatic increase. Was it because new measures were
undertaken? What was the cause? Certainly it could not be
explained by people suddenly becoming 3.5 per cent more
fraudulent than they were before.
The third measure I would recommend is the elimination of
specific types of abuse. I am very careful not to call them fraud. I
talk about abuse.
All of us have heard about entire school boards announcing in
April that the teachers and other employees of the school board
would be laid off in June after classes stop. As a result of this,
eligibility for unemployment insurance is established. In
September, these people get rehired. That is an abuse of the system.
It was never intended.
We know the story that the former Minister of Human Resources
Development was bringing forward all the time. Automobile
workers were constantly negotiating contracts that involved
unemployment insurance benefits in their pay package. Those
kinds of things can be made illegal completely and directly.
Finally, for those people who see this program and would like to
have a more elaborate explanation of what is going on, there are
measures available for reducing gradually the abuse that is taking
place by permanent transfers to seasonal industries.
It makes no sense that the rest of Canadian workers, some of
them poor, in areas other than those benefiting, that seasonal
workers should be receiving, consistently year after year, six times
the amount of money that they pay in premiums.
I have some ideas on how to do this. The paper is available.
Please write to me at the House of Commons.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to address the House on Bill C-12.
2269
This bill is the culmination of a two-year effort on behalf of
the government to change, to clarify and to improve, hopefully,
the unemployment insurance system of this country. It has been
a very long time coming.
The people of Canada had their first look at this bill last
December. Some parts of it were greeted with a great deal of anger
in some areas. One of the things that really upset members of
Parliament and seasonal workers in particular was the calculation
of benefits and what became known as the gap. They were also
upset with the divisor rule, which reduced their benefits a great
deal, as well as with the intensity rule, which would penalize
people who worked in seasonal industries.
(1645)
It is unfortunate that in Canada we have winters. We do not fish
or farm in the wintertime. Neither do we have much of a tourist
industry in the wintertime. Most of our nation consists of seasonal
industries manned by seasonal workers. They are full time workers
in seasonal industries. To penalize them, which was the message
they received last December, would be a very unfair way to treat
them.
With the change in the cabinet, the new minister undertook to
rectify those situations. The minister of HRDC comes from an area
which has seasonal labour, whether it be fishing, forestry, mining,
tourism or whatever. A large percentage of the workforces in New
Brunswick and in P.E.I. consists of seasonal labour. In my riding of
Egmont almost 50 per cent of the labour force is seasonal. To
penalize them, as we would have been under the bill which was
introduced in 1995, was unfair and the new minister recognized
that.
The minister and the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development put a lot of work into improving the bill. They
worked very long hours. There are a lot of amendments which
came from members of the Atlantic caucus and also from members
of the Ontario caucus, the Manitoba caucus and the B.C. caucus. As
I said earlier, the country is made up of seasonal industries due
mainly to its geography.
I compliment the hon. member for
Fredericton-York-Sunbury. He put an enormous amount of time
and concern into rectifying the bill. I also compliment my
colleague from Malpeque who made an amendment which will be
introduced later on that will improve the bill.
The main problem with the old bill was the gap. When a seasonal
worker applied for unemployment insurance they had to count back
consecutively 14 straight weeks to calculate their benefit.
Oftentimes there was no work at all. Even though an individual
qualified to apply, they did not have 14 consecutive weeks. In an
extreme case a person could have one week and 13 zeros. That is
how ridiculous the previous proposal was.
We tend to ignore or forget that there was quite a protest against
these parts of the bill. Whether it was in P.E.I., New Brunswick,
Quebec or Ontario, people came out to help us make these changes
in the bill. I was glad to see them demonstrate their support for the
changes we were proposing. They made sure we held to our word
that we would change the gap, the intensity rule and the divisor.
Once a person's seasonal employment is finished, whether it is
in August or October, they can go back 26 consecutive weeks. If
their 14 weeks, or their 12 weeks in the case of Prince Edward
Island, is within that 26 week period, they will receive full benefit
for the contributions they have made.
(1650 )
This will take care of the vast majority of seasonal workers.
There will be a few who slip through the cracks. As with any new
legislation there is always improvements that can be made. Even
though they may not be made in this bill, in the future amendments
can be made to protect those people who fall through the cracks.
There may be a year of adjustment for some people who apply in
July for unemployment insurance benefits. When they take the
previous fall's work weeks, coupled with the spring work weeks
and then apply for unemployment insurance in July, these people
will be left out. They will have a year of adjustment which may be
tough.
On the intensity rule, it is not a perfect solution. However, if we
had all kinds of money to apply to every problem we have I
suppose we would never get out of debt or never get our deficit
under control.
We have to credit the minister for going back to cabinet and
securing funds which will take care of the cost of the gap, the cost
of the intensity rule and the cost of the divisor rule. When we add it
all up there is about an extra half billion dollars put into the bill
over the past month.
The intensity rule now is that if someone is a repeater but their
household income is $26,000 or less they will not be penalized.
Depending on their dependants, they may be able to qualify for an
extra amount of money because they are a low income earner.
Those with higher incomes will be penalized 1 per cent a year for
five years, which is still money and still a penalty. I believe it
should still be recognized that $26,000 in this day and age is not a
great amount of money and these people should not be penalized.
UI was never designed to support somebody who is making
$60,000 or $70,000 net income. With the clawback that situation
will be rectified to an extent where in five years' time someone
making $48,000 will still be eligible to draw UI. Over that they will
not be able to draw UI. I do not think anybody can argue with the
fairness of that stipulation in the bill.
2270
I know there are a lot of other things that can be said about
the bill. I compliment the committee again for all its hard work,
especially the members in my province, the members for
Malpeque and Hillsborough, who have devoted a lot of their time
to improving the bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendments proposed
by the Bloc Quebecois. I am pleased to speak to these amendments
because I have always thought that in politics, especially when
talking about social programs, words are not meaningless.
I do not think we will have many opportunities to see, in this
Parliament, a word as daring and as inappropriate as the one
proposed by this government which, with its inflated ego, with all
the superlatives and the artificial pride it is capable of and with the
strength of its weight, has the audacity to call this bill that is before
us today, and that has been before us for a number of weeks, the
Employment Insurance Act.
Can you imagine that Canada, a country which, if we look at the
statistics, has a dismal unemployment rate and where poverty is a
problem-the National Council on Welfare reminded us of that last
month when it encouraged us to invest $15 billion to fight against
poverty-can you imagine that Canada is talking about
employment insurance?
The government is talking about employment insurance with a
kind of impudence that is unacceptable for parliamentarians. What
we are saying is that we will talk about employment insurance
when and only when the government has finally set the stage for
job creation.
(1655)
And what do we see today? There have never been so many
unemployed people. There have never been so many people
wanting so much to work than at this time, and we know many in
our ridings.
Each of us has a public voice. Each of us represents people. I
represent the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. This riding is in
the Montreal area, which has a far higher unemployment rate than
the national average. Yet, today, the government would like the
Bloc Quebecois to be part of this play on words. But we are
vigilant, we know what these words mean and we will not support a
bill that, even in its title, could suggest conditions are there to
create jobs. We do not accept that and we will never accept that as
long as we live.
Let us look at the premise on which the debate started. Did the
government ask the human resources development committee to
suggest ways to develop a number of strategies leading to full
employment, with what that implies in a system where there are
two levels of government? That is not the premise on which the
debate started. The debate started with a $2.3 billion cut. We
cannot forget, when we analyze this bill, that it aims first and
foremost to rationalize, that is, to balance public finances. Of
course, we are not against balancing public finances, but we are not
convinced it must be done at the expense of the unemployed.
We are in the presence of a government that, with a quite
appalling regularity, it must be recognized, has tried over the last
few years-since the Liberals have been in power for almost three
years-with each of the successive budgets the finance minister
has tabled in the House, to make cuts that were aimed at people in
our society who need help.
You know what the views of the hon. member for Mercier are in
this regard, how she and our colleagues who worked with her on the
human resources development committee propose to put people
back to work. That is what we should be talking about. But the
premise we must start from is not a sense of brinkmanship, a
burden of $2,3 billion. This is not the way to hold a successful
debate that will allow us to set the stage for full employment.
I do not know whether you had the opportunity to read the Fortin
report. I did. According to Mr. Fortin, since 1990-I must be
honest with you-the various attacks against unemployment
insurance, which limit access to benefits, have exerted pressures in
the order of $1 billion on Quebec's public finances. This statement
was not made by the hon. member for Mercier, the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve or the hon. member for Verchères. The
economist Fortin-who is not known for his support of
sovereignty, who is not a friend of the Bloc Quebecois-tabled a
report saying that repeated attacks against unemployment
insurance by restricting eligibility to the program had exerted such
pressures on Quebec's public finances that the Quebec government
had to spend another $1 billion.
What is happening? I am surprised that this government does not
understand. It is refusing to hold a debate on the real question: How
can we create jobs in the conditions that will prevail in the year
2000 and the year 2005? How can we set the stage for full
employment? Some countries have succeeded.
(1700)
True, those are not continental countries. True, those countries
are not as vast as Canada. True, those countries do not have two
levels of government obstructing each other. But the question
remains. The real issue we face in each of our ridings, whether in
the scenic Lower St. Lawrence region, where you may be thinking
of spending your next vacation, the riding of the Minister of
Immigration, or the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, is that
people are looking for jobs. And what is this government proposing
to them? You may nod in agreement, but the fact remains that there
is nothing in the bill before us that would help create jobs.
2271
Again, what the opposition finds unacceptable is that there
should first have been a debate on the way to overhaul social
programs and to set the stage for job creation, but not with a sword
over our heads, not with the burden the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development had to carry: cutting some $2
billion beforehand. This is not the end of the fiscal year.
It is as though a CEO trying to determine what human resources
he will need in the coming years was told he had to juggle with a
$250 million burden in taxes of all kinds.
The exercise was flawed from the beginning and the official
opposition cannot accept that even the title of the bill is confusing
to the point of suggesting to people that this legislation includes
measures to stimulate employment.
Let us talk about the philosophy of the bill. Madam Speaker, I
know you like philosophy. Let us take a look at the philosophy
underlying the bill. Do you think that consideration was given to
the fact that there are honest people out there who are actively
looking for work? How do you explain that the government
targeted in a blatant and totally inconsiderate manner the so-called
frequently unemployed, as if life was like a career plan, and as if
people, over the last five years, had deliberately chosen to put
down on their resume: ``I collected unemployment benefits on two,
three or four occasions''.
What is the logic behind the idea of penalizing people because
they used a program which they funded without government
assistance? Indeed, all those who are listening must know that, in
1992, the government completely withdrew its financial support to
the unemployment insurance fund.
This is quite the paradox. The government wants to limit
eligibility. It tells people: ``If you are frequently unemployed, if, in
the last five reference years, you had the audacity of collecting
unemployment insurance benefits for more than 20 weeks, it is just
too bad. For each multiple of twenty, the benefits to which you
would otherwise be entitled will be reduced by one per cent''.
Madam Speaker, you are telling me my time is up, but let me say
I am still quite upset by all this and I hope to speak again on this
issue.
[English]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to say a few words this afternoon on Bill C-12, the
legislation to create an employment insurance system in Canada.
I have been associated with the efforts to modernize and reform
Canada's unemployment insurance system for some 12 years. I was
a civil servant between 1984 and 1988 in the department which
preceded the human resources development department in the area
that was working on unemployment insurance reform. For the last
eight years as a member of Parliament I have represented a
constituency in which unemployment insurance is a very important
part of the local economy. I have been associated with many of the
efforts to reform the UI program and changes that have been made
to that program over the last eight years.
(1705 )
Most recently, as the chair of the human resources development
committee I travelled across the country examining the views of
Canadians on the reform of Canada's social security system. I had a
chance to talk to many Canadians about the need for UI reform and
the direction the UI reform process should take.
Bill C-12 has gone through a great deal of study by the
Government of Canada, by both the current and previous ministers
responsible, as well as members of the House, notably the members
of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. It
represents a major step forward in the difficult task of reforming
Canada's system for insuring Canadians against unemployment,
for providing Canadians with support and creating conditions for
stable employment and job security in a rapidly changing world.
While the changes which are represented in the employment
insurance bill do not completely provide the kind of employment
insurance we will need to confront our problems in the 21st
century, they do go a very long way toward improving and
modernizing the present unemployment insurance system. Let me
make a few brief important points about what the legislation does.
Basing the new system on hours and not on weeks will create a
much more flexible employment insurance system which, in
today's job market, will entitle people to employment insurance
much more readily than in the past. It will be fairer to seasonal
workers. Many of them have concentrated weeks of work in a short
time of the year. If they do not acquire the 12, 13 or 14 weeks under
the existing system whether or not they work long hours during
those weeks, often they do not qualify for unemployment
insurance.
Changing the formula to hours allows seasonal workers easier
entitlement and in a shorter period of time. It will also allow
workers who can only get part time work to use those hours to build
toward their entitlement. Previously in many cases if workers did
not work 15 hours a week, they simply did not qualify for
unemployment insurance.
It is an improved system because it will provide a much broader
coverage for the labour force. It covers every hour worked, not just
for those individuals who work a minimum of 15 hours a week.
Providing broader coverage not only allows more people access to
the employment insurance income benefits which are part of the
2272
program but it also allows more people to have access to the tools
for re-employment which are also part of the legislation.
Those tools for re-employment are now only available to people
who are getting unemployment insurance benefits. That has created
a great deal of confusion and distortion in areas where people
would like to take advantage of training programs but do not
qualify for unemployment insurance. They are unable to access
that benefit. Under this new system those benefits will be more
broadly available. More support will be provided for individuals to
take advantage of those tools to get back to work.
(1710)
This new system introduces the notion of allowing people to
accumulate and build their entitlement. That is a very powerful
incentive to creating more stable and long term jobs especially in
those parts of Canada where it is more difficult to create jobs.
The notion of allowing people to accumulate entitlement is in
various parts of the bill. It starts with the basis of hours worked
rather than weeks worked as a unit of account. The intensity rule is
a very astute amendment by the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It allows for people who are repeat users of
benefits and who would have their benefit levels reduced through
the intensity rule, that by working more hours during that period of
unemployment they can build back up their entitlement thereby
delaying the effects of the intensity rule.
A number of features in this program are directly suited to
people with low incomes. It will give them an opportunity to have
more than the 55 or 57 per cent of their earnings replaced through
this new system. Through the family income supplements which
are part of the new employment insurance system, people with low
incomes will be able to have a larger portion of their incomes
replaced. That is one of the progressive features of the system.
The new system recognizes the regional differences and the fact
that in many parts of the country jobs are much harder to find. The
system is regionally differentiated in order to take that into
account. The important thing we all have to know in this House is
that the fundamental purpose of this legislation has to be to create
the conditions for jobs and job creation especially in those parts of
Canada where jobs are difficult to create.
The unemployment insurance system cannot be a barrier or
obstacle to creating jobs. If it does that, and the old system has
done that, then we are fighting against ourselves. We are working at
cross purposes and we are not providing the environment
Canadians want and need in order to have the jobs that will provide
secure incomes for the 21st century. That is why this system is an
important improvement to the existing unemployment insurance
system in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-12, which is of great importance to
everyone, and to support the amendments proposed by the Bloc
Quebecois. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our
three colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, the members for
Mercier, Lévis, and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, for their
extraordinary handling of this issue.
Throughout Canada, throughout Quebec, when I meet with
ordinary people, with unions, they congratulate the Bloc Quebecois
for the extraordinary work we have done on this very important
subject. When I meet with unions in which I worked for 19 years,
they are proud of the work done by our party.
It goes without saying that I am strongly opposed to this
regressive, discriminatory, anti-employment, anti-worker,
anti-union bill. I do not have words to describe it. It astounds me
that the government remains completely insensitive to popular
demonstrations and to the potential for indignation mentioned
earlier by my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
(1715)
I think that we have not yet seen the full potential for indignation
and revolt of the people of Canada and of Quebec with respect to
this bill, which will mean unprecedented reductions in UI coverage
in Canada.
Yesterday, this bill was described as organized theft, because it
would tighten eligibility requirements, reduce benefit periods,
lower benefits, and, at one point as well, we saw increased
penalties for infractions. We know, for example, that the initial
penalty for voluntary termination of employment was not what it is
today. Today, anyone who leaves their job voluntarily pays a heavy
price under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The United Nations has declared this international year for the
elimination of poverty, but I know of no initiative by this
government to fight poverty in Canada and in Quebec. On the
contrary. Poverty is growing rapidly in most sectors of society,
because I think the government's tendency is to listen only to
business. This bill is a poverty creating bill.
In my riding of Bourassa, approximately one third of the
population is unemployed. This is a much higher rate than in the
rest of Canada, much higher than in Quebec and Montreal Island
generally. Sometimes, I wonder if it would not be better if the
unemployment insurance fund were to be managed by some other
organization.
I lived three years in Belgium. The unemployment insurance
system in that country is managed by the unions. It did not cost the
2273
state anything. Benefits are much higher. The benefit period is
much longer than in Canada. I think that, in Canada, businesses
and unions could manage at least part of the system, since
employers and employees are the ones who pay into the fund.
Since 1990, the government has not paid a penny into the
unemployment insurance fund. However, it uses the surplus, now
reaching $5 billion, to help reduce the deficit. In my view, the trend
nowadays in the unemployment insurance area is to cut, to get in
line with the United States, where the system is much less generous
than in Canada or other countries that have signed NAFTA.
I think it is important not to pass this bill. Yesterday was May 1,
International Workers Day, but let me tell you that no one in
Canada and even in the world was in the mood to celebrate.
In Sainte-Thérèse, Kenworth just closed down: 900 jobs lost.
What did the federal government do? Nothing. On the other hand,
the Quebec government is prepared to provide financial assistance
to this company to upgrade the Sainte-Thérèse plant and to develop
the training program for the employees.
The CAW, the union, is prepared to sign a collective agreement
and agree to labour peace at least for five years.
(1720)
I take this opportunity to salute the labour federations in Quebec,
the CLC and all unions for the extraordinary job they have also
done on unemployment insurance.
Yesterday, naturally, people rose up against this bill. They are
furious with the government, which is endlessly cutting
everywhere, in social programs and especially in the area of
unemployment insurance. Bill C-12 hits part time workers
particularly hard. Most part time workers are women; sixty-nine
percent of people working less than 35 hours a week are women.
This bill discriminates against women. I am pleased women in
Canada are reacting against this, as they did last year in Quebec.
They are organizing a march from Vancouver and the Atlantic
provinces. It will begin May 14 in Vancouver and May 19 in Saint
John, New Brunswick. They will reach Parliament Hill June 15,
and I think all Bloc members will be there to support the legitimate
demands of women: an increase in the minimum wage, the
continuation of social programs and funding for day care.
Bill C-12 also discriminates against immigrants. You know,
sometimes when immigrants come here with a temporary work
permit they are not entitled to unemployment insurance, because
they are not residents of Canada. However those who have just
immigrated here must work 910 hours before being entitled to
unemployment insurance and not 300 hours as before, despite their
willingness to work.
For all these reasons, I strongly oppose this bill and I ask the
government to declare war on unemployment and not on the
unemployed, as is the case at the moment.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to talk about the reforms to the
unemployment insurance program and the development of the new
employment insurance scheme.
Now would be a good time to reiterate that this reform is based
on a number of broad, general principles to which the government
is appropriately adhering. No doubt the best social security
program a Canadian can have is a job. We have to keep that in mind
in everything we do. At the end of the day the best way to ensure
the security of individual Canadians is to ensure they have jobs.
We have to realize, as we certainly do in my part of rural Canada,
we need to create an environment within which the small business
sector can create wealth and employment.
This program goes a little further than that. There are proactive
measures within the employment insurance program to help with
the creation of jobs. We see proactive measures such as wage
subsidies, the self-employment assistance program, which I have
seen work well in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, the
earning supplement and job creation partnerships.
Job creation partnerships are of particular importance in a rural
riding like mine where we have an opportunity to marry the need to
provide experience for individuals who are temporarily out of the
workforce with programs that will pursue economic development
within our communities.
(1725)
This combination of providing experience for people while they
work on projects to help develop the economy of my rural part of
the country, although applicable across the country, is an excellent
approach to achieving the principle of maintaining support for
individuals who find themselves unemployed. At the same time, it
creates the infrastructure and the environment where long term
jobs can be created and people will be able to find sustainable
employment.
One of the things we have come to realize in dealing with
reforms to the unemployment insurance program is that the
situation is very different today than it was 30 years ago. At that
time much of the employment created was of a temporary, cyclical
nature where because of a downturn in demand for a short period of
time an individual might find himself unemployed for two, three or
four months.
Today that has changed significantly. Much of our employment
is not the result of a temporary decline but because an industry or a
job may no longer exist.
2274
The need for a properly operating employment insurance
program goes far beyond creating income support. It needs to
address the whole issue of creating long term employment.
Obviously this assists by working on infrastructure and by helping
communities develop long term economic development goals.
The program deals directly with the small business community.
In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka it accounts for almost all
the jobs. It accounts across Canada for most of the new job
creation.
It is important that we realize components in this reform
program will assist the small business men and women who work
every day in the riding to create wealth and employment for my
constituents. The whole idea of creating a surplus in the UI fund is
so we can have a stable UI rate and do not end up with a recession.
There is at least one economist in the House now who knows full
well the very wrong thing to do during a recession is increase
premiums to pay for the increased demand on UI.
What makes far more sense is to ensure we have a surplus so that
when there is an extra demand during an economic downturn we
will not have to exacerbate that demand by increasing UI
premiums. This happened during the last recession.
We have also helped small business men and women with a
number of other measures connected to this plan. We have a far
more simplified system. Small business people become very
frustrated, and rightly so, when they spend more time on
paperwork and on adhering to regulations than they do doing their
jobs and what they do best, creating wealth and employment.
This program, particularly the conversion to an hourly rate from
a weekly rate, significantly reduces the administration cost to the
small business community. This is a very positive step.
We saw a decrease in the premium rate business will have to pay.
This is a positive step. Those types of taxes are job killers. It is
positive that we are able to modify that rate, as is the whole idea
that the maximum insurable earnings rate will give a break in terms
of taxation to the small business community.
It is clear what we are trying to do with this reform. We are
recognizing absolutely that the world of the 1990s is very different
from that of the 1960s. It is not only an issue of income support,
although that is very important and this program deals with that.
This is an issue of making sure long term job creation occurs.
We are doing that by providing individual workers with a
number of tools in this program. The committee had an opportunity
to review those and we enunciated many times in the House that
they are very positive initiatives. They will help individuals
acquire the skills and experience they need to move into areas of
employment that are long term and sustainable. On the other hand,
an economic environment has been created that will allow the
small business community to create wealth and those jobs which
unemployed individuals need.
This is an excellent reform. The members of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development have worked hard
on this bill over the last few months. I congratulate them and I look
forward to seeing it passed in the House.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration ofprivate members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2274
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the
elimination of section 15(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 as it derogates from
the principle of equality enunciated by section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and, that the government should work towards enhancement of
equality in the workplace by ending the discriminatory hiring programs that
have resulted from the affirmative action provisions of section 15(2).
He said: Madam Speaker, unfortunately this motion has been
deemed non-votable. This means that we will be spending about
$125,000 an hour plus to run the House but members will not be
allowed to vote at the end of the process.
I have tried unsuccessfully on previous occasions to get Liberal
members to correct this travesty of democratic principles. While I
expect no different reaction this time, I am going to ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to make this motion votable.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Do we have
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, once again the
tolerant, compassionate, politically correct Liberals have denied
the basic cornerstone of democracy, the right to vote. In fact I am
sure they wish they could completely censor this motion. I do not
doubt for one minute that some of them would suppress free speech
in this place if they could.
2275
Most of my Liberal colleagues across the way will decry this
motion by saying that it is disrespectful of goals behind notions
such as employment equity. It is often the people that support
affirmative action who are the real promoters of discriminatory
practices within Canadian society. They regularly avoid
accountability or the need to intelligently debate the issues of
discrimination and fairness, resorting instead to screams of racist,
bigot and extremist. So entrenched is their ideology that they are
incapable of assessing the damage to society some of their policies
have done.
Section 15(2) of the Constitution is a good example. Let us look
first briefly at section 15(1). Section 15(1) states: ``Every
individual is equal before the law and has the right to the equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and,
in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical
disability''.
So far that is pretty good. Section 15(1) enunciates a legal
principle that is fundamentally sound. All of us are equal and
should be afforded equal protection from discrimination under
Canadian law. Even vertically challenged MPs with a New Zealand
accent like myself are protected from discrimination by section
15(1). The authors of section 15 should have left it at that.
The purveyors of politically correctness and social engineering
could not just leave it at that. In their zeal to make some Canadians
more equal than others, in their misguided attempts to correct the
wrongs of days long since past, they came out with section 15(2)
which reads: ``Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program
or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of
disadvantaged individuals or groups, including those who are
disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour,
religion, sex, age or mental or physical ability''.
Basically if we strip away the niceties, section 15(1) says we are
all equal and section 15(2) says that programs like affirmative
action and equal opportunity make some Canadians more equal
than others because of their race, their gender and so on. This is
Animal Farm all over again.
(1735)
It surely must be clear even to the most fanatical defender of
affirmative action that giving a specific group of people special
rights automatically reduces the rights of some other group. These
programs which are supposed to encourage equality actually end up
discriminating against individuals who are not part of the favoured
group.
In essence, the program sends a message that it is a waste of time
applying for a reserved position. To the persons who are given the
special consideration, the condescending message is: ``Since you
cannot hope to make it on merit alone, we will lower the
requirements for you''. The whole notion is insulting and
demeaning. It is completely demeaning to those who it purports to
help and those it excludes.
In all of my discussions with people who could be identified as
visible minorities, I have never yet met one who wanted to get a job
based solely on the fact that they belonged to a special group or a
targeted group for affirmative action. They want to get a job based
on merit just like the rest of us do.
In other words, even most of the people who are supposed to
benefit from the special treatment do not want it. That is why a
recent survey of the public sector, the public service in Canada,
found such unwillingness for people to self-identify their ethnic
origins.
The basic premise of affirmative action programs is highly
insulting and is sometimes even racist. I thought the days of Mrs.
Parks in Selma, Alabama were long gone, but no. There are
actually government sanctioned programs and legislation in place
in Canada which makes it legal to refuse people employment
because of their colour or gender. I will talk about that a little more
later. This is a sad state of affairs because it borders on contempt
for those Canadians who truly support the principles of equality
and merit.
Let me use an analogy which explains the problem by reference
to the Olympic Games. If Olympic events had affirmative action
and equal opportunity programs in place, the scenario would be
something like this. The International Olympic Committee would
implement a program which would allow anyone to compete in the
100 meters who could run it in, let us say, five minutes. Now there
is not much challenge in that so it would be a pretty open field.
However, when the race is finally run, the person who won the
race with the fastest time would not necessarily get the gold medal.
Instead, the gold medal would be awarded to the fastest person who
belongs to a traditionally disadvantaged group regardless of
whether they won the race or not. Merit would not be a factor.
Frankly, it would not take more than one set of Olympic Games for
top athletes to work out that they were wasting their time with a lot
of training and would simply give up entering the race. It would be
equally demeaning for those who were winning the medals because
they would feel they were not receiving it on merit.
This type of situation is exactly what happened to a Canadian
named Timothy Juliette. He recently graduated from a civil
aviation mechanical engineering course with a near perfect 3.98
grade point average. Subsequent to that he was denied entry into a
Department of Transport training course which would have
allowed him to pursue a career in his field. He was denied access to
the course because he was not a member of a disadvantaged group.
More to the point, he was denied the opportunity because of his
gender and skin colour, in this case white and male.
2276
Sadly, it is all quite legal and constitutional under the present
system. Section 15(2) actually allows for programs which
discriminate against persons who are not women, aboriginals,
persons of colour and persons with physical limitations. It is the
height of hypocrisy for the government to claim that it is working
against discrimination while at the same time discriminating
against people who do not fit into its quotas or hiring goals.
The worst thing is that some of the most vocal of the promoters
of affirmative action are so blinded with ideology that they will not
or cannot see how intolerant, bigoted and extremist their demands
really are. Some of the most vocal act as if they have been chosen
by God to be the sole possessors of tolerance, compassion,
understanding and intellect, when in fact they exhibit all of the
symptoms of intolerance, a lack of compassion and understanding
and an inability to see the truth.
(1740 )
A homosexual support group demonstrated against the Prime
Minister outside the House yesterday because he permitted a free
vote on Bill C-33. The very group the Prime Minister is trying to
help demonstrated its intolerance by indicating that it wanted the
Prime Minister to force MPs to vote a specific way.
Members of this group need to take a look in the mirror at the
reflection of their own intolerance and bigotry. Instead of trying to
rationally discuss the issue with those who are voting against Bill
C-33, they showed fanatical intolerance. No wonder they drive
people away from their cause.
That group thinks it should be immune from accountability and
that its version of tolerance and understanding would be to force
those MPs to vote the way it says. It is lip service tolerance, and as
I said, those people need to look at the reflection in the mirror of
their own intolerance from time to time.
I listened yesterday to the member for Vancouver Centre. She
told us of the dreadful discriminatory experiences she endured as
she struggled to become a doctor. I can understand how she would
become very bitter and angry from those experiences. However, we
cannot correct the problems of the past by focusing that anger and
bitterness into revenge on others who had nothing to do with the
injustices. To do so is to sink to the same despicable level as those
who have discriminated against her.
On Tuesday evening in West Block there was a reception for a
group of Rotary Club students who had won a trip to this region
through a competition. While I was at the reception I was
approached by some young white males, students who were
studying hard in the hope of getting good jobs.
They wanted to express their concerns to me about the
discrimination they felt working against them every time they
applied for jobs. Does the member for Vancouver Centre really
want to hurt these young people? Does she really want to single
them out for discrimination and denial of jobs because of the sins
of the past? Could she look into their eyes and tell them that no
matter how great their merit, their places must be filled by people
from designated groups? Could she tell them they must be denied
employment because they were born male and white?
Does she really think she can build tolerance and understanding
this way? Logically the only long term outcome from that can be a
backlash which would destroy all the gains made by teaching
tolerance and understanding.
Education is the tool we must use, not discriminatory legislation.
It was the state that legislated black people to the back of the bus in
Alabama. It was the state that legislated discrimination in Germany
and identified people by race, as this government is doing in the
census this year. Everywhere discrimination has flourished, it has
flourished because the state legislated that discrimination. Now it
has happened and it is getting worse in Canada.
The member for Yorkton-Melville, who sits beside me in this
House, worked for several years on an Indian reservation. Like the
member for Vancouver Centre, he knows exactly what it is like to
experience racial discrimination. Right here in Canada, under the
noses of the members opposite, a white male living and working on
an Indian reservation lived in fear for his life. I hope that at an
appropriate time this member will repeat his story for the benefit of
the people in this House.
Section 15(2) did not protect him from discrimination because
legislation cannot change attitudes or enforce tolerance. It cannot
enforce understanding. Only education changes attitudes and
builds tolerance and understanding. In this regard I will refer to an
incident which took place in the House earlier in the week.
On Tuesday morning the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore,
who is black, was visibly very angry after reading a newspaper
report which claimed that the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan
had made some discriminatory remarks under questioning by a
reporter.
The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore crossed the House and
came among the Reform benches. She was yelling very loudly and
was clearly very upset. It was impossible to determine exactly what
she was saying. A fair bit of shouting went on back and forth
between Reform members and the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I was quite disturbed and distressed by the
entire experience.
(1745)
How much better it would have been if the member, before
passing judgment on the basis of hearsay and a newspaper story,
had demonstrated the tolerance and understanding she asks others
2277
to display by approaching the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan
and saying ``is this really how you feel? Is the newspaper story
correct? Is there some what we can correct this problem?''
If the member truly believes in promoting tolerance and
understanding in these matters she must treat others as she expects
them to treat her. This is a two-way street, and her goals will not be
attained by screaming at those who can help her achieve these
goals.
I am quite sad that I have to convey this message through a
speech. I do so only because she appears hostile to any other
discussions.
Unfortunately section 15(2) of the Constitution is helping to
create an aura of anger and intolerance in the workplaces of Canada
and I sincerely believe we would be better off without it.
As I said, I found the incident in the House this week very
distressing. I found this entire week very distressing. I very much
want to be part of a good and logical debate about important issues
facing the country. I do not like being immersed in the aura of
anger and intolerance which filled this place over the last few days.
I take the issues of racism and discrimination very seriously.
Last year I attended a two day anti-racism conference in my riding
so that I could listen to the concerns of those who had been affected
and investigate whether there was any racism in my riding. I also
advertised in one of my regular weekly reports for the North Shore
News for any examples of racism that existed in my riding so that I
could intervene and try to resolve the problem.
I am pleased to say that not a single example of racism has been
reported to me in the almost three years I have been an MP. My
constituents, like the majority of Canadians, are a tolerant lot quite
capable of avoiding discrimination without the government's
interfering in the process.
On the other hand, can we count as racism the fact that some
school students in Richmond, B.C. have complained recently to the
media that they cannot get jobs in their community because they
are not ethnic Chinese and do not speak Mandarin or Cantonese?
Perhaps the member for Richmond should begin addressing the
problems in his riding. Can we count as discrimination the
examples reported by white males who feel they did not qualify for
job opportunities because they were not members of an identifiable
group?
It seems these problems, which some might call reverse racism
and reverse discrimination, are a direct result of section 15(2) and
its associated affirmative action programs which, instead of
eliminating discrimination, have simply transferred the
discrimination from one group to another.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Let us get rid of these
discriminatory actions of government and let us get rid of section
15(2). Let us concentrate on education as the weapon against
discrimination.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have a speech but I do not think I will be using it to any great
extent. I would prefer to answer the comments put forward in such
a callous and outrageous fashion by the member across.
He is blaming the government that the motion is non-votable.
That decision is not made by the government. It is made by an
all-party committee which agrees through consensus which
motions are votable. If members of his own party do not agree it is
worth our time, I do not suppose we should either.
(1750)
I was in the House the other day and I witnessed the hurt and the
pain expressed by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore at the
remarks made by the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, remarks
that were all over the newspapers.
Her feelings matter. Her feelings are important. She has worked
hard all her life in the face of discrimination, in the face of
adversity, to build her community, to bring tolerance to society and
to show all Canadians we all have a place in this country regardless
of our race, regardless of our religion, regardless of the colour of
our skin.
To have this lifetime of work shamelessly put down, shamelessly
put to the side by the callous remarks of the member for
Nanaimo-Cowichan is not acceptable. Her conduct in the
circumstances was quite reasonable in comparison to members of
the Reform Party.
The deputy leader and the leader would not condemn the actions
of the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan but glibly sat by, saying it
is all right, it does not really matter, it is not important. They say he
really did not feel that way. He did feel that way. On December 14,
1994 he made the same comments in a Nanaimo paper. That is
twice. He does feel that way. It does hurt the hon. member.
After that, after the apologizes were made-
Mr. White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order. The member is making statements that he knows
how the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan feels.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): That is not a
point of order, hon. member, and you well know it.
Mr. Kirkby: After the apologies were made yet another Reform
member, the member for Athabasca, on a radio program in his
riding said he thought minorities should be discriminated against.
A number of other Reformers were quoted as agreeing with the
position of the hon. member.
2278
We have heard concerns expressed not by this side of the House
but by members of that party about the extremism that exists
within that party. It is not us. Their very own people are worried
about it. These people were caned into submission in a caucus
meeting. How is that for free speech? How is that for allowing
everybody to express how they feel?
It is little wonder the hon. member suggests there is not a single
example of racism that has been brought forward to him so that he
could fix. Everybody who would be subject to racist activities
knows he would not be the one to fix it.
We talk about a bill before the House that has brought an
amendment to the charter of rights and freedoms to outlaw
affirmative action, something that would make it so that we could
not have affirmative action and programs to fix an alleviate the
conditions of people who are less advantaged.
We just get finished celebrating the 50th anniversary of the end
of a terrible period in our history. How did that period start? It
started with talk. It started with the systematic marginalization of
minorities, the people the majority thought did not matter. It went
through action. We all know where it ended. Let us remember
history. Fifty years is not a long time. Fifty years is not long enough
in the evolution of humanity to think these kinds of things could
never happen again.
(1755)
That is why we must all be vigilant and persistent and continue
our efforts to ensure equality within this great nation, to see that all
citizens, regardless of race, regardless of colour, regardless of
religion, are free to enjoy this country. We can all work together to
build a better society in which people will be free from the types of
comments and actions we have been witness to this week.
An hon. member: Where is Jag Bhaduria?
An hon. member: It was not because there was anything wrong
with him. It was what he did.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is time we
recognized the House needs to run more smoothly.
Mr. Kirkby: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With respect to the
motion before the House, the bill is not in order. I suggest we not
support this piece of legislation. I think it is within all our hearts
and desires to ensure that all people in this society have
opportunity.
This is not about special opportunity, this is about equal
opportunity for all Canadians. We must ensure we use the types of
measures which will fix the historical problems of the past. We
must ensure that some time down the road in our future we can all
have opportunities to succeed in the jobs of our choice. We must be
willing as a society to take measures to protect all individuals,
whether because of race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical ability. We must allow all of these people
opportunities in society.
Words are very important. Words can hurt or words can heal. It is
time all members of this honourable House realized the import and
the power of words. Let all we say and all we do bring dignity,
respect and honour to all Canadians and to our shared values of
tolerance, working together and justice.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member for North Vancouver has tabled motion M-141 before
this House, which shares the same political philosophy as Motion
M-154 by the Reform member for Wetaskawin, which we shall be
debating within a few minutes. Motion M-141 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the
elimination of section 15(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, as it derogates from
the principle of equality enunciated by section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and, that the government should work towards enhancement of
equality in the workplace by ending the discriminatory hiring programs that
have resulted from the affirmative action provisions of section 15(2).
(1800)
Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982, to which
the hon. member refers, address the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and more specifically the rights to equality within
Canadian society. These two sections, which have been in effect
since April 1985 and which the hon. member wishes to have
eliminated, read as follows, and I quote:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to
the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in
particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Subsection (2) deals with positive action programs the member
for Vancouver-North would like to see abolished, and reads as
follows:
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as
its object the amelioration of conditions fo disadvantaged individuals or groups
including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Whether the member for North Vancouver likes it or not, this in
fact does not preclude legislation, programs or activities aimed at
improving the conditions of disadvantaged groups based on the
personal characteristics of the individuals making up these groups.
The member wants to maintain subsection 15(1), which
reaffirms that everyone is equal before the law and entitled to equal
benefits and equal protection under the law, but he also wants to
eliminate subsection 15(2), which in his view contradicts
subsection 15(1); in other words, he wants the government to put
an end to
2279
programs facilitating job equity through hiring programs the
member calls discriminatory.
The Supreme Court of Canada handed down 23 decisions
regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, some are better known, such as the Thibaudeau case
dealing with making support payments part of income. Others,
such as the Andrews case, are precedent setting. This case dating
back to 1989 led to the drafting of an interpretation code for cases
dealing with equality rights. In that case, the appellant was
successful in contesting the need to be a Canadian citizen to be
called to the Bar Association of British Columbia.
Mary C. Hurley, a researcher for the Law and Government
Division of the Library of Parliament, conducted an in-depth study
on equality rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms: section 15 as interpreted by the Supreme Court of
Canada in its decisions.
According to Ms. Hurley, the framework established in the
Andrews case has so far been used as an authoritative guide in this
matter and the Supreme Court's flexible analysis of the first
section-of which the hon. member for North Vancouver wants a
rigid, legalistic interpretation-provides for greater judicial
restraint in making legislative choices in so-called socio-economic
cases in which the government must weigh competing groups'
legitimate demands for limited resources. But all these arguments
are too subtle for the hon. member for North Vancouver.
In her outstanding analysis, Ms. Hurley goes on to say:
``Equality is a comparative notion perceived in relation to other
people's social or political situation. Consequently, a law is not
necessarily flawed because it makes distinctions. Legislative
classifications must be made so that a modern society can be
administered. For the purposes of section 15, discrimination is
defined as an intentional or unintentional distinction based on
motives linked to personal characteristics of the individuals or
groups affected, which imposes disadvantages or burdens others do
not have to suffer or bear, or deprives them of benefits or
advantages available to others.''
(1805)
All this information and all the arguments I have cited in
describing the legal analysis framework on which section 15 of the
1982 Constitution Act is based do not meet with the approval of the
hon. member for North Vancouver, who is reacting like a real
political dinosaur and whose notion of equality refers to the basic
reflex of fighting for life, in which the law of the jungle should
replace the entire social infrastructure modern Canadian society
has given itself in the 20th century.
On the contrary, affirmative action programs for historically
disadvantaged groups promote equality in the workplace, to which
the hon. member is referring. This equality in the workplace is
parallelled by subsidies, especially to new businesses, aimed at
helping them get over some crucial growth stages. At the collective
level, social programs are designed to give everyone equal
opportunities. As for transfer and equalization payments, their
purpose is to help the have not provinces. All these policies seek, to
various degrees, to correct inequalities that are part of nature and
that influence the evolution of life in a society.
The hon. member would want to eliminate graduated taxes and
go back to the natural or wild state. Social darwinism no longer has
a place in modern society. Abolishing all assistance and equal
opportunities programs would lead to anarchy by marginalizing
several groups in society.
I understand the member's reaction. He is from western Canada,
a young land, a new frontier. These descendants of pioneers have
learned to rely on themselves alone. However, as a country matures
and evolves, it develops its structure while also defining its social
mission. Historically, most of the oldest European countries have
had the strongest leftist tendencies, even though the state of their
public finances sometimes forced them to go back to a more
centrist position. We must evolve. Equal opportunities often reflect
a country's degree of evolution and civilization. Achieving a
balance between the economic and social components is a complex
task. We must work at it in a gradual way, not through sweeping
changes as advocated by the hon. member for North Vancouver.
If we try to abolish all assistance programs for people, many
poor individuals or groups will lose hope or rebel. In this context, if
the Reform Party rejects any form of gun control, is it because its
members feel threatened by all those whom they deprived of any
hope to improve their lot?
In conclusion, I ask the hon. member to give this some thought,
to mature a little bit, and to show us the level of civilization to
which he can rise. What live in an advanced country of 30 million
people, at the dawn of the 21st century, not in Dawson City in 1898.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak in
reply to private member's motion No. 141.
In his motion the member for Vancouver North asks that the
government support the elimination of section 15(2) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the section of the
charter which allows for actions to balance the inequality in
Canadian society, including the promotion of equality of
opportunity in the labour marketplace.
The member states that section 15(2) of the charter derogates
from the principle of equality that is enunciated in section 15(1) of
the charter. The dictionary states that the word ``derogate'' means
to stray from. Therefore, the member seems to be concerned that
section 15(2) of the charter strays from the intent of section 15(1).
Just for the record, 15(1) is the section of the charter which ensures
all Canadians equality before and under the law and equal protec-
2280
tion and benefit of the law without discrimination. It is one of the
fundamental principles on which the charter is based.
(1810 )
To address the member's motion, as far as this government is
concerned there is absolutely no contradiction in wanting to ensure
equality for all Canadians, as section 15(1) does, while at the same
time having the capacity to act in cases where there is a need to
correct inequality of opportunity for which section 15(2) provides.
It is exactly by being able to implement measures in support of
disadvantaged groups that we do guarantee equality in Canadian
society. This is the kind of equality that section 15(1) of the charter
of rights and freedoms calls for and the kind of equality that makes
Canada one of the best places in the world in which to live.
Over the years this government and other governments before it
have been willing to act when it was necessary to improve
conditions for certain disadvantaged groups or individuals. This is
a very legitimate function of responsible government.
[Translation]
We are proud of our performance and of our support of the
Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, including the traditions
that it reflects. We particularly support the provisions of the charter
that advocate equal opportunities for all Canadians.
[English]
Because we believe that section 15(2) is a necessary part of the
charter in support of equality, we are not in favour of seeing it
eliminated.
The member's motion also calls on the government to end
discriminatory hiring programs that result from affirmative action.
Once again, those of us on this side of the aisle would remind our
colleagues in the third party that promoting equality of opportunity
does not mean discrimination for or against anyone in the
workplace. It does mean however acting in a manner to ensure that
there are no barriers in place which might deny some individuals or
groups from having full and equal access to the same job
opportunities as others in the same society.
Hon. members will recall the work we did last fall to introduce
and to pass Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity.
Perhaps this is the sort of affirmative action the member from
North Vancouver is referring to in his motion.
The purpose of Bill C-64 is not to promote discriminatory hiring.
The purpose is quite simple and quite clear. It is to remove the
systematic barriers that prevent qualified people from working, the
kind of barriers that have nothing to do with merit or personal
capability but have come about because of informal practices and
rules that have developed over the years and can impede open
access to job opportunities.
The purpose of Bill C-64 was not and is not to impose any kind
of discriminatory hiring program or quotas, nor does it require
employers to hire anyone who is not qualified to do a particular job.
The bill specifically excludes hiring quotas or arbitrary numerical
employment goals as being unreasonable.
There are no quotas, there is no hidden agenda, there is no
reverse discrimination in our approach to employment equity.
Merit remains the basic principle for hiring and there is no question
about that. Anyone who reads the bill will see it.
It is also important to note that Bill C-64 was supported by a
clear majority of members of this House, including the official
opposition. Its advantages were carefully considered and
recognized on the floor of the House, during committee hearings
and more broadly by many Canadians.
It was during committee hearings that we heard some of the
strongest endorsements of the principles of employment equity and
of the value of equality in the workplace. Many of these comments
came from the business community, including the business
community in the member's home province. The business
community understands that the world in which Canada does
business is changing, that Canada has to be enlightened and
forward thinking, that we need to be well positioned to attract and
to employ the best and brightest people we can.
It is not just employers who support the principles of
employment equity. Labour representatives have spoken in support
of the direction we are following with employment equity in
Canada.
The market is not always fair and equitable. It does need some
guidelines and direction from time to time. We feel it is the
responsibility of government to recognize when that time is and to
show the appropriate leadership. This government has done that.
(1815)
On balance, there appears a strong consensus across the country
in support of what we have done. Business, labour and others
support our approach to employment equity and the equality of
opportunity in the workplace that it represents. There is a strong
consensus, except from the party opposite.
There are still those who choose to ignore the evidence,
including positive comments from the business community, from
labour
2281
representatives as well as from many others who have gone on
record as supporting the principles of employment equity.
For those of us living in the real world, the very competitive real
world of the 1990s, we know there are significant advantages to be
gained from diversity in the workplace and by an enlightened
approach to employment equity.
I invite my hon. friend opposite to consider the advantages. I
also remind him that the government remains committed to its jobs
and growth agenda. The underlying goal is still to get Canadians
back to work. As the economic program continues to contribute to
this goal there will be more jobs available.
Employers will continue to seek out the most qualified
candidates for these jobs. Merit will remain the central
qualification for hiring. The member for North Vancouver and his
constituents should be reassured that the government is not doing
anything to change that.
We do not need to abolish section 15(2) of the charter, as the
member for North Vancouver has asked us to do. We need to get on
with creating the kinds of partnerships that will increase the job
opportunities for everyone.
Eliminating section 15(2) of the charter of rights and freedoms
will not contribute to achieving the goal of this member. I do not
support the motion to this effect.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I address this motion. First, I
will make a few comments.
What is the essence of discrimination, racism, prejudice? Is it
not when a label is pinned on somebody, when they are simply
considered as part of a group? I find it interesting that the members
pay lip service to this kind of anti-discriminatory measure while
they practise it, even at the highest level.
I would like to give an example of our own Prime Minister. The
Prime Minister was on a platform with four black members of his
caucus. Instead of remarking on the contributions those members
of Parliament made, the Prime Minister said that he was impressed
with them because they smiled a lot.
If that was not bad enough, he went on to say something,
possibly unintentionally, with regard to one of the black members
of his caucus, a very fine person, a parliamentary secretary. Rather
than mentioning the role she played behind the scenes, the Prime
Minister explained that she was the woman who trotted behind him
as he went into question period.
It is obvious that blacks have a long way to go in this country if
even our own Prime Minister refers to their smile and their ability
to trot behind him into the House of Commons. I think that is
deplorable.
For members to start throwing comments at us and pinning
labels on us is the essence of prejudice. They ought to look in their
own backyard before they start doing some of these things. It is too
bad that I have to bring up examples like this. When are people
going to start looking at themselves and look at the whole issue?
We have to look at ourselves on an individual basis. We will only
overcome this problem on an individual basis. We will not do it by
legislation, by putting people into categories. I wonder how
Liberals feel about the comments their own Prime Minister makes.
Now I will address the issue with which we are dealing. I feel
very strongly about this because I have been the subject of
prejudice and discrimination from time to time. I will not give
examples today. However, my constituents feel very strongly about
what I am going to say today.
(1820)
My first taste of unfairness and reverse discrimination imposed
by federal government departments, federally regulated industries
to Canadian workers happened to come in February 1995 when I
learned that the RCMP training academy in Regina would train 426
new cadets in 1995. But the top brass, the people who running the
show, decided that 112 of them would be aboriginals, 112 would be
visible minorities, 95 would be women. That is 74 per cent of the
total number of new recruits.
When my constituents heard about this they were outraged. I am
appalled that the federal government can run such a blatantly
discriminatory and racist affirmative action program and then have
the nerve to call it equality.
I ask the members of the House: how can Canadians be assured
that these are the best police officers for the job? Time after time
the merit principle on which all public sector hiring should be
based takes a back seat to the applicant's race, the colour of his or
her skin, his or her gender. When Bill C-33 is rammed through the
House this week or next, hiring quotas will be based on each
applicant's sexual preferences and behaviour.
This one example proved to me and my constituents that
political correctness is rampant, even in the RCMP. The federal
government is gambling with the safety of the public. Think about
it. The Liberal's hiring quotas are a higher priority than public
safety.
Canadians are more concerned about having the very best RCMP
officers patrolling our highways and streets than they are about the
colour of their skin or whether they are a man, a woman or a
homosexual. If I am wrong, I am sure I will hear about it.
To this end in the last sitting of Parliament I introduced motion
M-356 which I would like to read:
2282
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation
which would repeal the federal Employment Equity Act, guarantee the right of
all federal job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit, and
withdraw all federal funding from all affirmative action programs.
When Parliament was arbitrarily prorogued for purely political
grandstanding, my motion bit the dust and I reintroduced it again in
March.
Motion 141 which we are debating today and put forward by my
hon. colleague for North Vancouver would remove the
constitutional authority that allows the government to have an
employment equity act in the first place. This motion proposes to
eliminate section 15(2) of the charter of rights and freedoms
because it permits the government to discriminate.
Section 15(1) of the charter says: ``Every individual is equal
before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and
equal benefit of the law without discrimination''.
It is followed by section 15(2) which states that subsection (1)
does not apply if: ``the law, program or activity that has as its
object the amelioration of the conditions of the disadvantaged
groups or individuals''. That section 15(2) of the charter of rights
and freedoms says that it is okay for people, companies or the
government to violate equality provisions of the charter just so
long as they only discriminate against Canadians who are not
members of so-called disadvantaged groups.
I would like to get back to the example of the RCMP for a
moment. About the same time the hon. member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam released information which showed that
RCMP members who are visible minorities and aboriginals are also
given preference in transfer placements and assignments so that
they can be near their family and their own community. I have
heard of many RCMP officers who have been denied transfers to
even their home province, let alone their own home town.
How do these officers feel when their colleagues are being given
special treatment because of their race? Police officers have a
tough enough time without the hiring and transfer practices of the
force creating resentments among the ranks. Dividing people into
categories simply does not break down barriers. It puts more bricks
on the walls that divide us. That is what it does.
I believe in true equality. The most important criteria for hiring
any employee is that he or she is the best person for the job. If all
the qualifications of the two applicants are equal, then I do not
mind giving certain people a break. But these quotas actually
promote outright discrimination. It must undermine the
confidence, the self-esteem, the credibility of RCMP officers to
know they got their job because they are aboriginal, or they are
female, or because of the colour of their skin, not because of their
qualifications necessarily. It is just like it affects an MP who is
appointed by the Prime Minister because she is female.
(1825)
How must applicants from a minority group feel whenever they
meet another officer or a member of the public? Do they ask
themselves: ``I wonder if they think I got this job because I was the
best person for the job or if they think I got it because of the colour
of my skin or because I am a woman?'' That is the kind of thing
that happens in reality.
Employment equity and affirmative action are just legalized
racism and sexism. The Liberals think the only way to achieve
equality is by discriminating. These government policies and laws
can do nothing but divide us. I will do everything in my power to
see that they are reversed.
The government is trying to stamp out discrimination by
discriminating. It is trying to enforce equality by violating the
charter's equality rights. It does not even matter that the individual
receiving the special status and special rights may not be
personally disadvantaged, only that he or she is a member of the
disadvantaged group.
We can all experience discrimination. I have had that
uncomfortable experience myself. Have you ever heard so much
doublespeak, Madam Speaker? George Orwell's Animal Farm has
come to life right here in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. This has all been cultivated by the Liberal government.
Under its stewardship this is a growth industry. It is promoting this
kind of thing, the very opposite of what it intends.
Now that the government has given itself this power to
discriminate against Canadians, the power to override the equality
provisions of the charter, Statistics Canada has come up with a
question on this year's census that is blatantly racist. The
bureaucrats have found the ultimate make work project. If they can
identify more people in each of the so-called disadvantaged groups,
they can justify more money for more affirmative action programs
so they can discriminate against the rest of us even more.
I am sure the House is familiar with this. The affirmative action
bureaucrats tell Statistics Canada they need more information
about racists. Statistics Canada complies with the request. On May
14 the census will ask 20 per cent of randomly selected Canadians
to define their race and the colour of their skin. Then recipients of
the census will be able to choose from 10 categories including
white, black, Latin American, Chinese.
If persons find the question racist and insulting, the government
has the power to fine them $500 if they do not answer the question
correctly. Statistic Canada says that the information is used to
administer programs such as employment equity and that all the
responses will be kept strictly confidential. What they should be
saying is that it is a blatantly racist question that has no place in the
national census.
The government has the onus to prove that what it is doing is
effective. It has never ever done that. Any law that is passed in this
2283
House should be proven to be effective or it should be repealed.
That is what we are proposing with this motion.
In conclusion, what gives people dignity and confidence and the
feeling that they belong? Certainly it is not by being segregated
into groups. It comes through being recognized for who you are and
what you have accomplished.
Last Saturday I met with Grassroots Indian people in Saskatoon.
The Reform MP from North Island-Powell River was the only
other MP who was also there. The reporters covering the story
commented that it was very interesting that the MPs who had been
given a certain label as being racist were the only ones who showed
up at this gathering of about 60 people. We sat there all day and
listened to their concerns. We are representing those people in the
House.
It is these things that break down barriers. The barriers will be
broken down on an individual basis by doing our part to look at the
people, each one as an individual, and being special and not
belonging to a group. We will be accepted by society by the
contributions we make and our achievements, not by other means
which most people perceive as being discriminatory.
I hope this government will take this to heart.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The time
provided for the consideration of private members' business has
now expired, and this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the rights
of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
He said: The way this motion piggybacks on to my colleague's
previous motion it would appear we had it orchestrated that way,
but I assure members it is simply the luck of the draw that it turned
out that way.
Reformers are quite up front about where we stand on issues.
Sometimes we are accused of not being politically correct, but we
represent the interests of the grassroots, not the political elites.
While this motion stands in my name, it comes right from
Reform Party policies. Our policies are the culmination of the
grassroots process that starts in small communities within our
ridings, then moves to the constituency level and then to the
national assembly.
When election time rolls around Reform Party policies are ready.
There will not be any surprises for Reform Party supporters or
candidates thanks to the democratic process we follow. Liberals
should follow our example instead of allowing a few advisors to
publish another red book that will be tossed aside as soon as the
votes are counted anyway.
Reformers believe that all Canadians are equal by virtue of their
shared humanity but are not equal in terms of ability, preference
and discipline. Canadians who wish to pursue a certain vocation
should not face barriers of discrimination, and those with ability
and discipline deserve the rewards of hard work.
Under the charter of rights and freedoms 1982, which has been
quoted extensively tonight, every individual is equal before and
under the law and has a right to the equal protection and equal
benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or
ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical
disability.
Without a doubt this is the most important part of the charter.
The authors, however, nullified this section by adding section 15.2,
giving the government the right to pass affirmative action
programs. Despite this contradictory clause and despite the fact
that employment equity is deemed to be politically correct, it
carries a stigma and a presumption of racial or gender inferiority.
The reality is equity programs do not remove sex and racial bias
from the workplace. They institutionalize them.
There was a time when the abilities of women and minorities
were not recognized, but times have changed; this is not 1929.
Employment barriers for women, minorities and the disabled have
outlived their usefulness and are now in danger of creating new
forms of discrimination. This government was so concerned about
appearing more politically correct than its predecessors and
capturing the hearts and votes of special interest groups that it
introduced Bill C-64 in December 1994.
The government hoped it would divert attention away from the
real problems of Canada, namely the $580 billion national debt.
Bill C-64 extended and superseded the 1986 Employment Equity
Act. It now covers the public service, crown corporations and
federally regulated private sector employees working in banks,
airlines, railways and telecommunication companies. In a really
invasive move it was extended to all businesses with over 100
employees that receive federal contracts.
(1835)
While Bill C-64 does not apply specific quotas, the inspectors,
auditors and those administering the legislation can make compa-
2284
nies comply with numerical goals. What are numerical goals?
Numerical goals are really quotas in disguise.
The government ignores polls showing employment equity has
lost support among Canadians. It ignored evidence presented to the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons
with Disabilities by credible witnesses.
For example, here is what Mark Pickup, a victim of multiple
sclerosis, had to say when he appeared before the standing
committee: ``You cannot legislate someone to accept me because I
happen to be disabled any more than you can legislate someone to
love me. That achieves nothing. To try to legislate such things
achieves condescension at best and hostility at worst. I do not need
more of either. I need less of both''.
Did the government listen to what he had to say? It ignored Mark
Pickup, as it ignored thousands of other disabled and aboriginal
people who told the committee the old act did not serve them well.
Last June during the Ontario election campaign even the
provincial Liberal leader promised to scale back the provincial
affirmative action law, calling it adversarial, bureaucratic and
expensive to administer. Ontario voters subsequently elected Mike
Harris who promised to do away with employment equity laws. He
kept his promise; but then, he did not have a red book of broken
promises like my friends across the way.
In October 1995 the European Court of Justice ruled that quota
schemes for jobs and promotions violate European equal
opportunity laws. In the United States three decades of affirmative
action programs are being scrapped.
The government employment equity law is an insult to women,
to minorities and to the disabled. In the government's attempt to
atone for the past, it is trampling on the present and compromising
the future.
A Reform government would treat people equally and would not
punish today's generation for the wrongs of previous generations.
Managing diversity goes beyond the narrow confines of
employment equity. We have to create a fair work environment that
recognizes and attempts to meet the needs of all employees.
The role of government is not to set terms and conditions under
which private companies hire employees. It is time to let common
sense prevail. A diverse workforce is a plus for any businesses. The
market will dictate the diversity of the staff. They will do it on their
own and they certainly do not need the hassle of excessive
government red tape.
For some reason the Liberal government assumes that anyone in
the four designated groups is disadvantaged. That presumption is
patronizing, unfair and unrealistic.
Why does the government presume it has to legislate fairness?
Does the government have the corner on morality? On March 21
the president of treasury board said that in one year the
participation of women in the public service rose to 47.4 per cent
from 44 per cent, that almost two-thirds of the 14,000 employees
hired were women, and that 56 per cent of the employees promoted
were women. That is a reflection of changing attitudes and a new
reality.
I want to believe they were hired or promoted on the value of the
work they performed and not on the basis of artificial quotas. The
public service is staffed by skilled, competent women who deserve
to be rewarded for their excellence, not for their gender. They
deserve better from their employer than patronizing tokenism.
(1840)
With promotion becoming the next logical step in the equity
quest, we have to ensure we do not find a new way of perpetuating
the Peter principle. Long ago the philosophy behind employment
equity was to raise awareness. That has happened. Now we have to
let the competitive forces of the workplace take over.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development. For the last two years we have been examining
employment insurance. We hear about the need for programs to
help people who have given up looking for work and that the job
market is bleak. It is bleak enough without adding the unfair burden
of numerical quotas.
The government created a new category of disadvantaged, young
white males. My colleague has referred to the quotas imposed on
the RCMP. During a career fair in the high school in my home town
recently there were some young males who had expressed an
interest in joining the RCMP. They were told they had better seek
another line of employment.
Unemployment for young males aged 15 to 24 in March was
17.4 per cent. The rate for young females at the same time was 13.1
per cent, a difference of some 4.3 per cent. There is no question
there are too many unemployed youth. The best way for the
government to help unemployed Canadians is not through harmful
equity programs but by balancing the budget, reducing the billions
of dollars of debt and lowering taxes.
Special concessions undermine morale and respect. Somewhere
along the way the notion of fair play vanished.
Immigrants who arrived in Canada over the centuries, our
ancestors, came here because they saw this as a land of freedom
and opportunity. The time has come to move into the age where all
Canadians are considered equal.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President
of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to
speak tonight on Motion No. 154, put forward by the hon. member
for Wetaskiwin.
2285
The motion states that the government should support the rights
of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
This motion is redundant. It is too narrow in scope. We as a
government do not support it.
Our current practices already embody the fundamental principle
of merit. It is a merit based principle which has contributed to the
world class level of the public service we have in Canada. Merit is
the basis of the competitive process across the federal government,
a process which has produced the most capable and professional
public servants who well serve the government and the people of
Canada.
When individuals join the public service and when they compete
for opportunities within the public service they do so on the basis
of merit. To suggest otherwise undermines the integrity of the
selection process and its outcome.
Clearly merit is the fundamental concept which, when applied to
individuals who are appointed to the public service, is the best
option. This principle is enshrined in the Public Service
Employment Act. The act provides for an appointment in
accordance with merit, subject to some very small exceptions
mandated by Parliament.
For example, in certain special situations the act requires that we
give priority to placement of employees whose jobs are declared
surplus or who face layoffs. The government believes these
exceptions are essential to the efficient and meritorious hiring
within the public service.
The government is a responsible employer. It must be able to
attract people of high quality in the future so that Canadians
continue to benefit from one of the best public services in the
world. The motion does not recognize this need. The motion is a
straight-jacket and we cannot support it.
(1845 )
Hiring in the Public Service of Canada is governed by the
Employment Equity Act. This motion does not recognize that the
important principles of employment equity and merit are
compatible and essential to ensure that Canadians have access to a
qualified public service that is representative of all Canadians.
Our framework legislation is designed and enshrined to ensure
that our staffing procedures and systems are free from systemic and
attitudinal barriers. In Canada this means that only qualified
persons, no matter what their race, origin, colour, sex, age or
disability, can be recruited into the Public Service of Canada.
To ensure these important principles are respected, Parliament in
its wisdom has given authority to the Public Service Commission
to correct historic imbalances in the representation of designated
group members within the public service. This is designed to
ensure that Canadians have access to the public service and that it
represents all Canadians. A smart organization will hire the
brightest and the best whether they are aboriginals, women, visible
minorities or persons with disabilities.
As the President of the Treasury Board said recently when he
tabled the main estimates, we have a dedicated and efficient public
service. We want to treat them fairly and we want them to be
motivated and feel valued for the work that they do. The Public
Service of Canada has always been known for its competency,
integrity and hard work. We are confident that the men and women
of the public service will continue to display these qualities of
professionalism. The principle of merit is the cornerstone of our
ability to recruit the brightest and the best.
Our existing legislative framework is a far better guarantee of
the quality of the public service than the restrictive motion
currently under consideration by this House. In short, Motion No.
154 is too confining and restrictive to be supported by this
government. It does not recognize the importance of the merit
principle and other access and representation principles that
Canadians expect this government to apply in order to maintain a
qualified and representative public service. All smart organizations
hire people of all colours, religions and races. I cannot imagine that
the Government of Canada would want to do otherwise.
In my riding of Bruce-Grey we try to represent a cross-section
of the population. The very name of Bruce-Grey reflects this.
Bruce is the Scottish part and Grey is the English part. I am a real
anomaly. There are not many minorities. The minority we have in
our police force would be women. We tried to address this
imbalance and I am proud to say I was the mayor who hired our
first woman officer. Now we have three or four and the imbalance
is being addressed.
Systemic imbalances have to be addressed because people
within society need to know that they have opportunities. As I said
to the police chief, maybe if we froze time and started over with
various proportions of all the different people then people would
not be competing.
I understand we are in stressful times and in a period of profound
change with respect to the job situation. However I am confident as
one of the best nations in the world we have the ability to make sure
our young people are looked after and to make sure that every
person in our society is represented. Equal opportunity for all is
what makes Canada the best country in the world.
(1850)
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member for Wetaskiwin has moved Motion M-154, which
reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should support the rights
of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
2286
The motion moved by the hon. member is self-evident. All job
applicants should be evaluated on the basis of merit. I agree with
the hon. member on this point: every job applicant should be
evaluated as objectively as possible, on the basis of merit and
solely on the basis of merit. In fact, this is a fundamental principle
in human resources management.
But to evaluate job applicants on the basis of merit and solely on
the basis of merit does not always work. Several groups in our
society are penalized and not evaluated on the basis of merit by
their employers. This type of discrimination is usually based on
their sex, their culture, or the fact that they belong to a visible
minority or have a physical handicap.
This is exactly why the federal government, the provincial
governments and major corporations had to act and set up
employment equity programs. Market forces unfairly penalized
some groups in our society.
It is easy to apply the basis of merit to job applicants, but without
deliberate interference in favour of some of the target groups,
individual merit is no longer the only element to be factored in,
since women, natives, the handicapped and members of visible
minorities are penalized to start with. This is why these four groups
were designated as target groups for employment equity purposes
by the federal government in 1992.
In December 1992, an amendment to the Financial
Administration Act provided the employment equity programs
within the federal public service their statutory authority. However,
the basic elements of the employment equity programs remained
the same as the ones listed in the 1986 Treasury Board policy on
employment equity. It is important to note that the legislative basis
for the employment equity program precedes the election of the
current Liberal government.
Merit in the awarding of a position must be based on an objective
system of evaluating positions. A system of evaluating positions
must describe and measure the levels of complexity, responsibility,
knowledge and working conditions associated with each position as
objectively as possible.
But this objective mandate must be accompanied by a social
mandate within an organization, and this social mandate is
generally fulfilled in the field of human resources management
through the creation of employment equity programs.
The beauty of all this is that the economic and social aspects are
inextricably linked and mutually complementary. Thus,
employment equity programs allow talented individuals, members
of target groups, to make their mark at last, with the help of the
recruitment and promotion policies set up in the wake of these
programs.
These people come to light and make an exceptional
contribution to their employer that they would never have been
able to make without the existence of employment equity policies,
because members of their particular group were excluded from the
outset by the predominant or corporate culture of their
organization.
We will not be supporting Motion M-154 brought forward by the
member, because evaluation for a position solely on the basis of
merit must not override the federal employment equity policy
introduced in 1986 and recognized through legislative amendment
in 1992. And in order for the principle of evaluation on the basis of
merit to be as strong and objective as possible, the groups
discriminated against from the outset must be recognized, so that
the most talented applicants are selected, regardless of the group to
which they belong. Recognizing merit alone would be short sighted
and would be to lose sight of merit itself ultimately.
Where have we got to with employment equity in Canada and in
the various provinces, in the public and in the private sector? The
situation varies from province to province. According to Morley
Gunderson, Director of the University of Toronto's centre for
industrial relations, who has looked at the situation in Ontario, the
public sector and large businesses have raised their female
employees' salaries by 20 per cent, in order to improve the
employment equity situation.
(1855)
The corrections have been far more modest in smaller
businesses. Initially, the only initiatives outside Quebec came from
the federal government or businesses under federal jurisdiction.
Quebec recognized male-female employment equity as early as
1976, while five other provinces followed suit in the mid and late
1980s. Equity here means equal pay for equal work.
The public sector has led the way in male-female employment
equity. Generally, large businesses have inaugurated pay equity
programs, but this is far from being the case for smaller ones.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is
recommending, even to the Harris government in Ontario, an
increase from 10 to 50 in the number of employees a business may
have before it is obliged to establish an employment equity
program. This would exclude two thirds of the workforce there.
Clearly, salary discrimination is more common in the private
sector. In the federal government, the cost of establishing pay
equity is currently estimated at $1.5 billion, as the result of a
decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It
recognized the results and the relevance of the independent study
requested jointly by Treasury Board and employee unions. The
federal government has given itself the months of April and May to
evaluate the back pay and salary increases that would affect the pay
of 80,000 female employees.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada contends that the federal
government owes $1.5 billion to 80,000 women working in six
2287
classifications of jobs occupied predominantly by women, such as
clerk, secretary and typist, key punch operators, librarians, hospital
workers and educational support workers. The Alliance is calling
for salary adjustments to be made retroactive to 1986.
Some unionized workers are concerned that salary retroactivity,
while legitimate, will result in further lay-offs by the government.
The federal government has been revelling in employment equity
terms for more than 10 years, but the court decision is continually
being put off.
Therefore we cannot support motion M-154 because it
demonstrates short-sightedness with regard to professional or
on-the-job performance. If we evaluate all job applicants solely on
the basis of merit we risk eliminating at the outset talented
candidates from discriminated-against groups. The present
government should conform without delay to the court ruling and
definitely do justice to its own employees in target
groups-Natives, the handicapped, members of visible minorities
and women-giving them the retroactive payments and raises they
are entitled to.
Only then will we see if the government can, for once, act on
what it says.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to this motion this evening. I congratulate my
hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin for moving the motion and for
ensuring that members of the House and Canadians everywhere are
aware of the Reform Party position regarding employment equity
and merit based hiring.
There are two schools of thought when it comes to employment
equity. The first is that legislative programs are necessary to fix the
wrongs, especially past wrongs that were in the workforce. The
second is that employment equity is flawed because it advocates
hiring of individuals based on personal characteristics, not on
merit. Obviously we have two schools of thought.
Relative to these opposing views is the assumption of the need
for some type of affirmative action or employment equity
legislation. It was thought to be an appropriate method of
addressing inequities in the workplace. Much has been written
about the culture of work in this regard, yet I believe that inequities
that are socially engineered do not explain the vastly dissimilar
outcomes different groups experience in the course of their lives.
The government attempts to dismiss the more complex
elements, the nature of which is evident in Bill C-64. Conditions
today are not what they were 10 or even 15 years ago. Empirical
evidence and supporting information have shown that culture and
education have more to do with gaps in the workplace than we may
assume.
(1900)
I will now highlight five points which express the Reform
position as I believe it to be. First, all Canadians are equal before
and under the law, and all workers have the right to be free of
discrimination in the workplace. I believe that sincerely.
Second, the marketplace will provide solutions to a
representative workplace in the private sector. The hon. member
for Fraser Valley West has spoken before in the House to this issue,
and eloquently so. Businesses exercising appropriate management
and personnel practices will hire people who relate well to and
serve their customers well. That in itself should mean there will be
openness within management to ensure employees have full access
to all of the opportunities the workplace offers.
Third, the role of government is to ensure equality of
opportunity rather than to determine equality of employment
outcome in the public sector or beyond the public sector. Equality
of opportunity, that is the role of government, but government
cannot ensure equality of outcome, and nor should it try.
For example, when the NDP was in power in Ontario it made
itself vastly unpopular by launching an expensive social reform,
almost a revolution, in the midst of the deepest recession since the
1930s. Businesses found many ways to circumvent the new law
guaranteeing equal pay to women. They placed employees on
contract, forced unpaid overtime and shorter work weeks and hired
part time workers. The government's employment equity campaign
aimed at hiring more women, often by posting advertisements that
bar men from applying, made men very angry and resentful.
Even Thomas Walkom, the Toronto Star fair minded Queen's
Park columnist, called the decision to hire on the basis of race and
sex wrong, unwise and unfortunate. Women should be given the
nod when applicants are of equal merit, he argued, but excluding
any group from applying is dangerous: ``The government has
merely succeeded in creating a new victim, the able bodied white
male''.
The fourth point Reform puts forth with regard to employment
equity is that the workplace should be free from arbitrary
obstructions to hiring and promotion. Merit must be the sole hiring
criterion. I believe this and evidence has shown that a majority of
Canadians believe this also. That would mean Canadians generally
do not support Bill C-64, the employment equity bill. Perhaps this
is why the government has chosen not to proclaim the legislation. It
is a question which remains and does linger.
The fifth point is that employment equity legislation and
measures which take away from merit based hiring are coercive,
unfair, unnecessary and costly, and should be discontinued. To this
end the
2288
government could go one step down the road to properly
addressing the issues of merit based hiring by repealing Bill C-64.
One cannot address today's motion or Bill C-64 without
addressing the issue of quotas. When is a quota not a quota? It
would seem that a quota is not a quota when the former Minister of
Human Resources Development calls it a numerical goal.
Remember that minister was the chief architect for the
government's social engineering plans for employment equity. He
insisted numerical goals were aimed at getting a specified number
of women, aboriginal, minorities or disabled, into certain
industries and that these are not quotas even though the dictionary
defines a quota as a proportional part or share required from each
person or group for making up a certain number or quantity.
Why does the former minister of HRD not speak clearly and call
a quota a quota? Perhaps he does not like the word because the
imposition of hiring quotas for disadvantaged groups in the U.S.
has created an undesirable backlash among those excluded.
(1905 )
I raise an interesting example from the United States. The
American case study is curiously illogical and I believe raises
questions about current hiring practices which do hint of those
numerical targets.
I use an example from a small California college. At this college
a form was circulated to companies wanting to do business. The
letters that accompanied the forms urged that they be filled out as
quickly as possible: ``To allow us to continue to do business with
you, equity information is being requested of all colleges''. Such
colleges receive government assistance in the U.S.
The supplier is required to list the percentage ownership of his
business involving native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, Asian
Americans and Asian Indians. To get first in line to do business
with the college, any supplier must be 51 per cent owned by one of
these minorities or have a business with management and daily
operations controlled by one or more of the minorities. The same
priority goes to businesses owned 51 per cent by women or whose
management and daily operations are controlled by one or more
women who own the business.
A separate bureaucracy was created to monitor this. The
penalties imposed are real as well. The form states: ``Any material
misrepresentation will be grounds for terminating any contract
which may be awarded and for initiating action under federal
and/or state law concerning these false statements''.
Should we not be more interested in ridding the workplace of
such repugnant misrepresentation and unfairness? When looking to
hire, should we not be more concerned with what the applicant
knows or what he or she may perform or what are the merits of
hiring her or him instead of using and applying filters which
unnaturally dictate the outcomes of hiring practices?
Simply put, the Reform Party wants everyone to be treated
equally and fairly. We want everyone to have the same access to
opportunities as the next person. What we do not want to see,
however, is a situation in which we are dictating what those
outcomes should be. Let us rather foster equitable hiring practices.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciate the chance to speak to this motion that, in the opinion
of the House, the government should support the rights of all job
applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit.
One might wonder why we would even need such a thing. I think
most Canadians would accept that as a given. When applying for a
job one should only have to say ``here is my job application, here is
my merit, hire me based on what I can do for you''.
I think most Canadians would say that sounds like the policy we
should follow. Hiring by merit makes good sense from a business
standpoint and an ethical standpoint. It also makes good sense in
the workplace where workers would be able to say they were there
because they merited the job.
Unfortunately in Canada that is not always the case. I am
thinking specifically of the exceptions to merit. Most people are
hired on merit but there are exceptions where the federal
government said the merit principle did not have to apply.
The Federal Court of Canada stated in 1982 on the question of
whether merit was important: ``The requirements of the merit
principle are always the same. That principle requires that the
selection be made according to merit, which means that the best
person possible will be found for the various positions in the public
service''. It said we should be hiring the best available person
because that is what hiring by merit means.
Unfortunately the federal government does not follow this
practice. Those watching on television may be surprised to know
that. The regulations governing the Public Service Employment
Act stated there were four exceptions to this idea that one must hire
by merit. I think everyone would suggest that people hired for any
job, especially in our public service should be hired according to
merit. There are four exceptions for which merit does not have to
be proven because there are provisions in the law against
discrimination, geographic limitations on the jobs, the appeal
process for job competitions and the considerations of merit will all
be set aside in the case of the Employment Equity Act.
(1910)
We spoke about this earlier regarding section 15(2) of the
charter. The merit principle, according to the court of appeal ruling
2289
of 1982, can be bypassed to appoint someone based not on merit
but on some of the affected categories in the Employment Equity
Act. We can discriminate, we can limit the application as far as
geography is concerned, we can make sure that no one can appeal
the eventual job allocation. The considerations of merit, the most
qualified, will be set aside.
That is pretty serious stuff. Most people of both genders in all
groups would say: ``I am going to win this job on merit. Doggone
it, I can do it, I can handle it''. Right now over 50 per cent of
university graduates are female. More and more post-graduates are
from both genders but there is an increasing number of females.
They say: ``I can handle this job on my merit. I can do it. I do not
need help. I do not need a special deal. I do not need the standards
lowered. I can do the job''. And they can. All of us know people
from all groups of society who are very competent in their jobs, not
based on the colour of their skin, not based on their gender, but
based on their ability to do the job well.
Unfortunately, we find that these qualifications I mentioned
under the Employment Equity Act allow the merit principle to be
bypassed. People can be appointed as the 1982 ruling suggested
who are not the most qualified but perhaps just passed the
minimum requirements and fell into a category.
The designated groups according to the Employment Equity Act
are aboriginal people, people of colour, females and people with
disabilities. That is the description used. I do not like to categorize
people that way but that is what the act does. It is pretty demeaning
to say to somebody in one of those categories: ``I do not think you
are quite good enough for this job. We are going to have to give you
a special deal because you just are not going to make it on your
own''.
When we held the hearings on Bill C-64, the Employment Equity
Act, there was a lieutenant colonel from the Canadian Armed
Forces at the table. We talked about the idea of merit.
The lieutenant colonel told me: ``I went from lieutenant to
lieutenant colonel because I was the best in my class. There is no
way I can command respect from the people who are working
under me unless I continue to earn my job. I am the best in my
class. I am going to be a full colonel someday too, because I am
going to top my class the next time too. If they wanted to give me a
promotion not because I am the best but because I am a woman and
I need a little help, I would refuse. Furthermore, how could I
command the men and women under me? Imagine my giving them
orders: I know you have better qualifications than I do, but hop to it
sergeant; you are taking orders from me. It will not work in the
military. And frankly, I do not need it because I can do the job and
qualify on my merit, not on the fact that I am female''. I hear that
often.
An interesting dilemma is that when someone is hired outside of
merit not because they are the most qualified but because they fit
into a category, there is no right to appeal. This is what happens.
Say there are 100 applicants and a certain number of people from
each of the designated groups. They will choose somebody from
one of the designated groups for the job. When that individual is
appointed, then someone else from that group, say an aboriginal
person, will say: ``Wait a minute. That woman got the job. I am
going to appeal. It is not fair. I deserve the job. I could beat her
qualifications''. However, those designated groups are not allowed
to appeal. Therefore, when someone from another designated
group says: ``Wait a minute. I think I should have got the job,'' they
will say: ``Sorry, there is no appeal''. It is preposterous.
(1915)
What about the geographic limitations? Normally in the public
service there are certain geographic limitations of where an
individual can apply for a job, where they live in relation to their
work and those kinds of things. Not under this system. This system
bypasses all of it.
I am not saying that the federal government does not pay any
attention to merit. Of course the government has testing and it has
minimum standards. However, the Employment Equity Act
subordinates the principle of merit. That is unfortunate.
There are other things which spring from this. Under the current
Nisga'a deal in British Columbia only people of one race are
allowed to vote in their elections. The other people who live there,
if they are not of the Nisga'a race, cannot vote. Other things happen
with respect to aboriginal procurement contracts.
We all want to see equality of opportunity for everyone. The
Secretary of State for the Status of Women said in a letter which
she sent to me on April 16 of this year: ``What we are working
toward now is not the equality of opportunity but the equality of
outcome. We will not make sure everyone has an equal kick at the
cat,'' which we all want. ``We will make sure that the outcome is
equal regardless''. That is not the merit system. That is not what
Canadians want.
This motion is wise. It promotes unity in the workforce and I
urge all members to adopt the motion.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Since no other
member wishes to speak and since the motion is a non-votable
item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
Is there agreement to say that it is 7.30 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
2290
2290
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, on April 24, 1996, I asked a question of the
Minister of Human Resources Development concerning manpower
training. The question related to an old issue which, hopefully, will
soon be settled.
In Quebec, there is a consensus that the whole issue of
manpower training should be the sole responsibility of the
Government of Quebec. This consensus includes people from
every sector. It is rather unusual to see the Conseil du patronat du
Québec, unions, the education sector and the government all agree
on something.
Manpower training, including employment measures, must
come under the responsibility of a single government, so as to put
an end to the annual waste of $250 million, which will persist as
long as the current duplication by the two levels of government is
not eliminated.
Also, following the unemployment insurance reform, these
activities will be totally funded through the unemployment
insurance fund. Let us not forget that the unemployment insurance
program was established almost 50 years ago so that people could
have an income between jobs.
(1920)
However, with its unemployment insurance reform, the present
government now wants to use that money to fund training programs
in an area that is not under federal but rather under provincial
jurisdiction. It is unable to give this responsibility to the provinces
and makes the argument that, since unemployment insurance
contributions are paid to the federal government, it cannot transfer
these funds to the provincial governments because it is responsible
for that money.
I think there are two possible solutions. The first one is to ensure
that contributions are really used to pay for unemployment
insurance and for the federal government to withdraw from the area
of manpower, leaving this responsibility to the provinces. In other
words, that it get out of this tax field and let the Government of
Quebec, or any other interested province, take it on.
The other possibility, as we have already seen with other
programs, is to ensure that there are agreements that are followed
up by audits, and that leave the province ample room to
manoeuvre. The question of manpower training therefore needs to
be clarified, it seems.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us whether it is
the government's intention to waive the requirement for an
agreement with the province in order for people to be eligible for
loans and grants. Somewhat perversely, the present reform says
that the federal government may not provide funding unless there is
an agreement with the province concerning the adult loans and
grants programs.
This measure has the opposite effect as well, because the
province is caught in a bind. If it does not sign an agreement with
the federal government or if, for instance, it does not accept the
national standards the federal government might want to impose,
its citizens may have to do without training programs. In my view,
this is totally unacceptable.
I would like to know if the government intends to simply
withdraw from manpower training and let the provinces that wish
to do so have full control over that area and develop effective
programs to reduce the sectorial unemployment situation we are
now facing in Canada and in Quebec, where we have about 500,000
jobs available and almost 1 million workers unemployed but we
cannot seem to match people to jobs.
As the OECD, a renowned international organization, pointed
out, we do not have effective training programs to help our workers
adjust to the technological changes, because of all the various
people involved in this area. Let me ask the parliamentary secretary
if he can assure me that the government will reconsider its position
on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want
to bring my colleague and the House back to the speech from the
throne, a very important speech. I want to assure my colleagues
from all provinces who are here in a dual capacity, not only
representing their constituency but in some cases representing their
province.
The intent of the government is very simple, Madam Speaker, if
you have read part II of the EI act which is in front of the House
today and has been debated for over 140 days since its introduction.
The intent of the federal government in part II is to negotiate
with the provinces a withdrawal of manpower training within three
years or earlier. At the same time it intends to look at the
responsibilities it has to the unemployment insurance system and
the fact that we have constitutional guarantees that relate to its role
in that area.
The government wants to make sure before it gets into
negotiations with the provinces that there are some safeguards.
This is a national fund and it is important to make sure that when it
gets involved in negotiations that there are assurances and
guarantees of results. This is one area where the government
would like to receive assurances from the provinces.
2291
At the same time an appropriate monitoring system must be in
place to make sure that the funds that are transferred to the
provinces and the agreements that are signed give the government
the results it is looking for.
What are the results? The only reason why the government
thinks this is an acceptable process is this. It wants to remove
duplication because it is a factor and it is a cost. It will create
efficiencies. The results of the system have to help men and women
get employment and at the same time upgrade their skills and put
young people into the system in areas where they believe they will
best be suited in the changing environment.
That is the answer to the question. All the member has to do is
look at part II of the EI bill and he will know that the government is
not going to be entering into provincial jurisdiction without the
approval of the provinces.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The motion to
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.)